Glannon Guide v E&E Forum

[goosey]

my professor recommended the e&e on the syllabus but someone in my section told me that he said not to get the glannon guide. is there a difference? part of our exam is multiple choice and I want mult choice to practice with

[kalvano]

E&E is more like a full explanation with the history, why it exists, etc. Glannon Guide is more like a "here it is and here is what it means."

I have both. Both are very useful.

[goosey]

E&E is more like a full explanation with the history, why it exists, etc. Glannon Guide is more like a "here it is and here is what it means."

I have both. Both are very useful.

same info in both? [in terms of contradictions]

I was told he said on the first day not to get the glannon guide, but I never heard that and so I thought maybe this person just misunderstood, since he specifically recommends the e&e and they're both glannon

[kalvano]

E&E is more like a full explanation with the history, why it exists, etc. Glannon Guide is more like a "here it is and here is what it means."

I have both. Both are very useful.

same info in both?

I was told he said on the first day not to get the glannon guide, but I never heard that and so I thought maybe this person just misunderstood, since he specifically recommends the e&e and they're both glannon

The E&E is useful for understanding the rules and getting a good overview of everything. The Guide is much more useful for exam prep and as a quick reference. Plus, the multiple guess questions are good prep.

It's basically the same info, but the Guide is more distilled.

I would own both. In fact, I do own both.

[underdawg]

profs recommend supps for many other reasons than whether they're actually useful, such as whether it's theoretical enough for them, written by a buddy, or god knows what. plus a lot of profs actually think people learn from things like the socratic method and lectures, and some tell you supps will rot your mind. a few profs appear to even choose casebooks based on whether they can tear it apart to make themselves look smart in class

i highly doubt that GG and EE contradict each other. they're both universally recommended

[goosey]

profs recommend supps for many other reasons than whether they're actually useful, such as whether it's theoretical enough for them, written by a buddy, or god knows what. plus a lot of profs actually think people learn from things like the socratic method and lectures, and some tell you supps will rot your mind. a few profs appear to even choose casebooks based on whether they can tear it apart to make themselves look smart in class

i highly doubt that GG and EE contradict each other. they're both universally recommended

yeah so I just emailed him to make my life easier and he said he recommends it for questions and answers but not for learning the law. I wanted it for the questions, so..yay.

[zeth006]

E&E is more like a full explanation with the history, why it exists, etc. Glannon Guide is more like a "here it is and here is what it means."

I have both. Both are very useful.

same info in both?

I was told he said on the first day not to get the glannon guide, but I never heard that and so I thought maybe this person just misunderstood, since he specifically recommends the e&e and they're both glannon

The E&E is useful for understanding the rules and getting a good overview of everything. The Guide is much more useful for exam prep and as a quick reference. Plus, the multiple guess questions are good prep.

It's basically the same info, but the Guide is more distilled.

I would own both. In fact, I do own both.

Awesome. I have both too. I guess after my K exam, I'm going to alternate between the two and read my outline occasionally.

[Nicholasnickynic]

which subject?
Torts- only E&E.
Civ Pro- BOTH. For the love of god, BOTH.

[JOThompson]

For prep, I'm finding Crunchtime to be more useful than the Glannon Guides. However, I think the Glannon Guide has an edge for multiple choice preparation.

[umassalpha]

I was fortunate enough to have Glannon of the Glannon Guide fame as my Torts prof., so there it was obviously a advantage to use GG over E&E. But I did also use the E&E, which I think was helpful as the GG is a little quirkier, if that makes sense.

I also used the GG for Commercial Paper/Payment Systems and got an easy A, I feel like I'm not adding much to the discussion, but basically it depends on your learning style.

[JCougar]

What kind of class are we talking about here?

I'm finding that broad treatises are working unbelievably well for me, at least in contracts and property.

I have Understanding Property by Sprankling and Farnsworth on Contracts. I have the Gilbert's and the E&E in Property and for Contracts, I have Emmanuel and Chirelstein, and you can glean useful information from all of these. But the treatises have been like a godsend in polishing up the details that I still didn't understand and helping me to see the big picture.

If you ask me, there's nothing that the commercial outlines or E&Es cover that can't be read about more clearly in a treatise -- except the Q&A parts of the E&Es are pretty valuable for practice in application.

And I have to echo what others have said...the E&E for Torts is by far the best.