Studying E&E/Hornbooks More than Casebook? Discuss. Forum

[hangnail]

I'm sure most people on TLS have read the "How to Succeed in Law School: A Unique Perspective" guide (http://www.top-law-schools.com/success- ... chool.html) and I'm also sure that people have discussed its shortcomings/merits before (please direct me in the direction of those conversations; I can't find them).

So my question for those in (and succeeding) in law school is this: do you really spend less time on the casebook than on E&E/hornbooks/etc? I know that everyone has their own method but what's the consensus on this of study schedule?

[Scotusnerd]

I do not use E&Es as a rule. I only use casebooks. I'm top 10% in my class. Casebooks are a perfectly viable source of information, and one that professors expect you to use. There is a reason they do this: you have to be able to read case law in the real world.

[tfer2222]

Everyone learns differently / every professor is different as to what they want on an exam.

Personally, for exam purposes, I think case books are a really inefficient way to learn the law. (Especially for con law. What a waste of time- just get chemerinski)

I used EEs a lot. Only skimmed case books to get by in class. Took good notes in class. Was also top ~2%, FWIW. (Graduated)

Just focus on what you need for that specific professor's exam. Your goal is to crush the exam, that's it.

[hephaestus]

I used the E&Es a lot. I prefer the concise hornbook series though. I also reread the casebook for every class. It's woefully inefficient but it ended with very good result.