Top Law Schools

I have an idea - outline Tort E&E, Civ Pro E&E, Crim Law by Dressler and then supplement them (incorporate) with the few insights gleaned in class. Dumbass idea?

You can do whatever helps you learn the law. It's not so much a dumb idea as it is unlikely to be productive. Learning the law isn't hard. Your professors try to make it seem tricky, but you don't need to go to herculean efforts to learn what the law is. Supplements can be deeply inefficient if you approach them in the shotgun manner you describe. As an example, when I took torts, roughly 50% of the chapters in the book we never touched, so those would be useless. Within the chapters we did cover, there were often either cases missing that we focused on in class, or cases the supplement focused on that we skipped in class. It's dangerous to over-invest in a supplement/hornbook/whatever until you are sure you are using the parts that line up with your class.

So yeah, probably not a very helpful strategy. To be honest, I don't think there's anything that a 1L can do in the first month of law school to get a leg up. There's just nothing to win right now except social chair. After a month, month and a half, when you've had enough law to meaningfully begin to outline or learn how to take an exam, it will be a different story. but crazy reading / outlining strategy a few weeks into the semester aren't going to revolutionize your studies.

disco_barred wrote:You can do whatever helps you learn the law. It's not so much a dumb idea as it is unlikely to be productive. Learning the law isn't hard. Your professors try to make it seem tricky, but you don't need to go to herculean efforts to learn what the law is. Supplements can be deeply inefficient if you approach them in the shotgun manner you describe. As an example, when I took torts, roughly 50% of the chapters in the book we never touched, so those would be useless. Within the chapters we did cover, there were often either cases missing that we focused on in class, or cases the supplement focused on that we skipped in class. It's dangerous to over-invest in a supplement/hornbook/whatever until you are sure you are using the parts that line up with your class.

So yeah, probably not a very helpful strategy. To be honest, I don't think there's anything that a 1L can do in the first month of law school to get a leg up. There's just nothing to win right now except social chair. After a month, month and a half, when you've had enough law to meaningfully begin to outline or learn how to take an exam, it will be a different story. but crazy reading / outlining strategy a few weeks into the semester aren't going to revolutionize your studies.

Ok, what if I outline supplements by looking at syllabus and only outlining topics on the syllabus, and then supplementing outline with topics from class? I mean, for torts we covered battery. We thoroughly covered a couple of cases that are exceptions to the battery definiton from 2nd restatement. Most people in class do not have a clue what the definition of battery is now (e.g., they think where battery occurred is instrumental, cause that is what Vosburg case was talking about....playground - no battery; classroom - battery, gosh). People give dumbass answers to hypos and the professor says - ok - and moves on without correcting them. Would outlining battery from Glannon be helpful?

FWIW OP I have a similar idea and some older students told me it wasn't too shabby.

That doesn't always work. You want to base your outline on class notes, and supplement with the E&Es/nutshells, etc.
Not the other way around.
Remember....your professor, NOT the E&E editor, will be the one grading your exam.

reverendt wrote:That doesn't always work. You want to base your outline on class notes, and supplement with the E&Es/nutshells, etc.
Not the other way around.
Remember....your professor, NOT the E&E editor, will be the one grading your exam.

Yeah, I also remember that my professor is not my friend and half of his job is confusing everyone so that only few A's could be granted and everyone would be infused by the awe of the greatness of the LAW.

I dont think this is smart...I read the cases and then read supplements and if need be, re-read the case to clarify issues or to build on what I learned from the supplements--and one time, before our class discussion on X case I already took notes from supplements and formed an opinion on them, only to be told I was wrong by the professor in class.

I think outlining should be done on a consistent basis, as the course progresses. Outlinign all the topics before you cover them is not going to help you. Remember, the point of outlining isnt to give you a cheat sheet on the exam, its to help you learn the material. Ideally, you shouldnt need to even look at your outline on the exam

goosey wrote:I dont think this is smart...I read the cases and then read supplements and if need be, re-read the case to clarify issues or to build on what I learned from the supplements--and one time, before our class discussion on X case I already took notes from supplements and formed an opinion on them, only to be told I was wrong by the professor in class.

I think outlining should be done on a consistent basis, as the course progresses. Outlinign all the topics before you cover them is not going to help you. Remember, the point of outlining isnt to give you a cheat sheet on the exam, its to help you learn the material. Ideally, you shouldnt need to even look at your outline on the exam

Ok, but what if the professor heavily discusses exceptions in class, never covers proper black letter, and then moves on to the next topic? Will focusing on his teachings help me on the exam? Is he going to be testing on the exceptions to the black letter law?

Why would you outline stuff that, in all probability, will not be useful?

Outline your class notes and briefs. Distill them down to their absolute essence (one fact line for the brief and the rule from the case). You want an outline to be short. It should jog your memory, not be 150 pages of notes that will screw you on the exam. You'll spend more time looking for stuff int the outline than you will taking the exam.

If you really don't understand something, then turn to an E&E. I'm finding mine for CivPro helpful. I haven't even touched the one I got for Torts.

kalvano wrote: If you really don't understand something, then turn to an E&E. I'm finding mine for CivPro helpful. I haven't even touched the one I got for Torts.

The Torts e/e is horrible but I just noticed that Glannon finally got around to adding false imprisonment and "3 new chapters on intentional torts". How it took Glannon 4 editions before adding this material is head scratching.

http://www.aspenlaw.com/product.asp?cat ... planations

The e/e is great for short hypos but not necessarily the best (imo) at breaking down a topic that you are having trouble grasping. For me, the understanding series has always been money on the more difficult topics. I would highly recommend the torts understanding book. http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog ... odId=13132

Sounds like a waste of time. For my outlines, I copied the table of contents of the textbook to make the major headers. Then I filled in the rules, and any notes from cases or idiosyncrasies that might be tested. I consulted with supplements to make sure I had the rules right, and sometimes to fix up the headers. Then I took practice tests using the outlines, and deleted that which I didn't need, and added anything I did need. I also liked embedding class hypos into outlines, since often they appear, albeit in slightly different form, on the test. If your professor releases practice tests, make sure to really pick apart the patterns and embed them in your outline as well.

For torts, I started with a 60 page outline and winnowed it down to about 8 pages by the end.

If I had to choose between briefs and class notes or supplements in making an outline, I would choose the former in a heartbeat. As Mr. Barrel alluded to, there's no point in learning about a bunch of business torts you never cover in class.

Remember, you're not trying to learn the law, you're trying to learn the law as taught to you by your professor.

rynabrius wrote:For torts, I started with a 60 page outline and winnowed it down to about 8 pages by the end.

That's exactly what you should be going for.

rynabrius wrote:Sounds like a waste of time. For my outlines, I copied the table of contents of the textbook to make the major headers. Then I filled in the rules, and any notes from cases or idiosyncrasies that might be tested. I consulted with supplements to make sure I had the rules right, and sometimes to fix up the headers. Then I took practice tests using the outlines, and deleted that which I didn't need, and added anything I did need. I also liked embedding class hypos into outlines, since often they appear, albeit in slightly different form, on the test. If your professor releases practice tests, make sure to really pick apart the patterns and embed them in your outline as well.

For torts, I started with a 60 page outline and winnowed it down to about 8 pages by the end.

If I had to choose between briefs and class notes or supplements in making an outline, I would choose the former in a heartbeat. As Mr. Barrel alluded to, there's no point in learning about a bunch of business torts you never cover in class.

Remember, you're not trying to learn the law, you're trying to learn the law as taught to you by your professor.

This is more or less what I'm doing. At first, I planned on buying all the supps and incorporating them into my reading, but that seems like such a waste of effort now. You just don't need that much reinforcement for a lot of the early stuff.

Outlining from a treatise and supplementing with cases and classnotes isn't a bad idea IMO if and only if you're using a treatise written by either your professor or the author of your casebook. I've been quite successful under these circumstances, but I think starting your outline from a random E&E is kind of a waste of time. Why not just use what's taught in class and in your assigned readings, and then use the E&E to supplement your knowledge of the assigned materials (which is, of course, its entire point).

Gotcha, good deal, thanks.

.

kalvano wrote:Why would you outline stuff that, in all probability, will not be useful?

Outline your class notes and briefs. Distill them down to their absolute essence (one fact line for the brief and the rule from the case). You want an outline to be short. It should jog your memory, not be 150 pages of notes that will screw you on the exam. You'll spend more time looking for stuff int the outline than you will taking the exam.

If you really don't understand something, then turn to an E&E. I'm finding mine for CivPro helpful. I haven't even touched the one I got for Torts.

TCR / +1 / wait aren't you supposed to be a 1L?

APHill wrote:

reverendt wrote:That doesn't always work. You want to base your outline on class notes, and supplement with the E&Es/nutshells, etc.
Not the other way around.
Remember....your professor, NOT the E&E editor, will be the one grading your exam.

Yeah, I also remember that my professor is not my friend and half of his job is confusing everyone so that only few A's could be granted and everyone would be infused by the awe of the greatness of the LAW.

Given that you've had what....a week of law school....you seem to be presuming a lot.
But do what you like.

APHill wrote:

disco_barred wrote:You can do whatever helps you learn the law. It's not so much a dumb idea as it is unlikely to be productive. Learning the law isn't hard. Your professors try to make it seem tricky, but you don't need to go to herculean efforts to learn what the law is. Supplements can be deeply inefficient if you approach them in the shotgun manner you describe. As an example, when I took torts, roughly 50% of the chapters in the book we never touched, so those would be useless. Within the chapters we did cover, there were often either cases missing that we focused on in class, or cases the supplement focused on that we skipped in class. It's dangerous to over-invest in a supplement/hornbook/whatever until you are sure you are using the parts that line up with your class.

So yeah, probably not a very helpful strategy. To be honest, I don't think there's anything that a 1L can do in the first month of law school to get a leg up. There's just nothing to win right now except social chair. After a month, month and a half, when you've had enough law to meaningfully begin to outline or learn how to take an exam, it will be a different story. but crazy reading / outlining strategy a few weeks into the semester aren't going to revolutionize your studies.

Ok, what if I outline supplements by looking at syllabus and only outlining topics on the syllabus, and then supplementing outline with topics from class? I mean, for torts we covered battery. We thoroughly covered a couple of cases that are exceptions to the battery definiton from 2nd restatement. Most people in class do not have a clue what the definition of battery is now (e.g., they think where battery occurred is instrumental, cause that is what Vosburg case was talking about....playground - no battery; classroom - battery, gosh). People give dumbass answers to hypos and the professor says - ok - and moves on without correcting them. Would outlining battery from Glannon be helpful?

If you already understand battery, why the hell would outlining battery from Glannon be helpful?!

I don't like/don't really trust the E&Es. I use the Crunchtimes while I'm outlining to remember specific things. If a concept is complicated, I just read the case until I get it.

APHill wrote:

reverendt wrote:That doesn't always work. You want to base your outline on class notes, and supplement with the E&Es/nutshells, etc.
Not the other way around.
Remember....your professor, NOT the E&E editor, will be the one grading your exam.

Yeah, I also remember that my professor is not my friend and half of his job is confusing everyone so that only few A's could be granted and everyone would be infused by the awe of the greatness of the LAW.

You're retarded. The grade distribution is what it is. He doesn't need to confuse people so only a few A's are given out, he just gives out the number of A's he wants to the X best exams.

rayiner wrote:I don't like/don't really trust the E&Es. I use the Crunchtimes while I'm outlining to remember specific things. If a concept is complicated, I just read the case until I get it.

I'm sure this has been covered somewhere before, but I really don't feel like pseudo-searching until I find it.

What is the main difference between Crunchtime and E&E's? Stylistic?

kalvano wrote:

rayiner wrote:I don't like/don't really trust the E&Es. I use the Crunchtimes while I'm outlining to remember specific things. If a concept is complicated, I just read the case until I get it.

I'm sure this has been covered somewhere before, but I really don't feel like pseudo-searching until I find it.

What is the main difference between Crunchtime and E&E's? Stylistic?

There isn't really any meaningful difference between the major series (E&E, crunchtime, Emanuel, Gilbert, etc.) The minor differences (questions at the end of E&Es, MC in some, long outlines in some, etc.) are much less meaningful at the end of the day than the professor who wrote the supplement and how it matches your class, prof, and casebook.

E&Es get a good reputation because two of them (Glannon for Torts and Civ Pro) are really really good and match a lot of courses.

I can second the recommendation for the Crunchtime series. It is really great for a tune-up right before exams.

APHill wrote:

goosey wrote:I dont think this is smart...I read the cases and then read supplements and if need be, re-read the case to clarify issues or to build on what I learned from the supplements--and one time, before our class discussion on X case I already took notes from supplements and formed an opinion on them, only to be told I was wrong by the professor in class.

I think outlining should be done on a consistent basis, as the course progresses. Outlinign all the topics before you cover them is not going to help you. Remember, the point of outlining isnt to give you a cheat sheet on the exam, its to help you learn the material. Ideally, you shouldnt need to even look at your outline on the exam

Ok, but what if the professor heavily discusses exceptions in class, never covers proper black letter, and then moves on to the next topic? Will focusing on his teachings help me on the exam? Is he going to be testing on the exceptions to the black letter law?

no, but you will be throwing those exceptions into your outline, wont you? I just dont see how 0 of what any professor says will be relevant in one form or the other. it will always provide something, no?

This might be too specific for this thread but I've noticed in my criminal law class we are doing straight theory. How do you outline for such a class, specifically does this mean the final is going to more theory driven? For example will we have to justify our answers with what theory of punishment drove the courts decision: retributive vs utilitarian? Did the court follow the legality principle in finding liabilty, and will offendor be liable for common law offense under model penal code? In fact is this what most people are studying in crim? Because a person in my school with a different prof told me they are reading cases on criminal theft.