Top Law Schools

you will never get time to read supplements bc there is too much reading...and in fact you can find time to read supplements, should you? or should his answer be taken as a clear "do not read supplements"

talking about con law here...

goosey wrote:you will never get time to read supplements bc there is too much reading...and in fact you can find time to read supplements, should you? or should his answer be taken as a clear "do not read supplements"

talking about con law here...

I would read during class right in front of him.

I read wikipedia + legalines for conlaw and did well

Chemerinsky is a good book but it's a freaking tome...I think it's excessive for Conlaw 1.

goosey wrote:you will never get time to read supplements bc there is too much reading...and in fact you can find time to read supplements, should you? or should his answer be taken as a clear "do not read supplements"

talking about con law here...

Most all profs say "don't read supplements." It's a mix of old-school thinking and a certain amount of hubris that they, and only they, can truly impart the mysteries of the universe. However, If you can, I would read them, especially if your prof isn't very strong on driving home the doctrine. Granted, if the prof and the supplement disagree/have different views, always take the side of the prof on the exam (regardless of what you, as a person, may think). But, I think, it is a weird situation indeed when a supplement will ever hurt you.

General Tso wrote:Chemerinsky is a good book but it's a freaking tome...I think it's excessive for Conlaw 1.

I had a horrible casebook and confusing prof for Con Law last semester. If I got through the exam at all, it was b/c of Chemerinsky and me focusing on that to learn the doctrine. Granted, I won't know for a few weeks if that was a good strategy, but I def recommend Chemerinsky, at least the parts covered in your class, if you can force yourself to keep up with it.

You can easily get an A in the class with sporadic (i.e. just "what is the rule") reading of the cases and extensive reading of a supplement like an E & E.

Your chances of getting an A with just the casebook and no supplements are lower. From my experience anyways.

My Civ Pro teacher recommended we stay away from supplements. During finals I was at her office hours and saw she had the same supplement I had (Freer's Civil Procedure) sitting on her desk.

Eco wrote:You can easily get an A in the class with sporadic (i.e. just "what is the rule") reading of the cases and extensive reading of a supplement like an E & E.

Your chances of getting an A with just the casebook and no supplements are lower. From my experience anyways.

+1

One syllabus this semester spends half a page explaining why supplements are a bad idea, and then lists 7 supplements that the professor would recommend if forced to recommend one.

goosey wrote:you will never get time to read supplements bc there is too much reading...and in fact you can find time to read supplements, should you? or should his answer be taken as a clear "do not read supplements"

talking about con law here...

If a prof told me this, I'd probably assume that the assigned reading was worthless, and read only supplements/wikipedia

For me to take such advice, the professor would have to give a real convincing reason why I should stay away from supplements. "Theres just too much reading" isn't going to cut it. For example, my K's professor advised against any supplement since he teaches in a very different way and with a different approach than most contracts professors. Thinking he was lying, I looked into supplements and, as the professor claimed, they were pretty worthless when applied to his approach on contracts. So if the professor gives a good reason to stay away from supplements, then its probably good advice. But if it sounds like they are leading you away from them just for the sake of making sure you don't read them, then I wouldn't brush off what they say.

dakatz wrote:For me to take such advice, the professor would have to give a real convincing reason why I should stay away from supplements. "Theres just too much reading" isn't going to cut it. For example, my K's professor advised against any supplement since he teaches in a very different way and with a different approach than most contracts professors. Thinking he was lying, I looked into supplements and, as the professor claimed, they were pretty worthless when applied to his approach on contracts. So if the professor gives a good reason to stay away from supplements, then its probably good advice. But if it sounds like they are leading you away from them just for the sake of making sure you don't read them, then I wouldn't brush off what they say.

I agree with this, but it's different to say "what I teach disagrees with the supplements" then to say "you won't have time for supplements."

I have had profs. (like yours) specifically warn that they had taught material not well treat, or in disagreement with the commercial outlines, and not to lose points by reciting wrong (from their point of view) material from supplements on the exam. All these profs were true to their word. I've also had profs who warned against supplements for no clearly articulated reason (like the OPs), and these profs tended to be the worst "academics" and players of hide-the-ball. For these profs, it would have been a huge mistake to follow their advice, unless you like being confused.

Your professor just doesn't want Chemerinsky to make him look bad.

If you professor states the BLL, make sure you memorize his version of the BLL. If the professor does not state the BLL, use the casebook/supplements to come up with the BLL.

I tend to use supplements when professors go theoretical/policy based and never actually state the BLL.

The more I used supplements for a class, the better my grade was.

The whole "supplements are bad" claim is utter bullshit and most likely propagated by insidiously competitive people who don't want you to read them and do well.

Remember that the professor is the one writing the exam. They are prone to giving hints as to what they look for on that exam - it doesn't make sense to reject those hints.

If you're using Chemerinsky for the casebook, you probably will be fine without a supplement anyway. He gives you all the law in that book in the text before and after cases.

I dont use supps because of the exact reason you said- Waste of time.. However, that being said if you are going to use one in any class, Con law would probably be the best bet. Chemerensky.