'snotrocket,' please expand. This seems pretty patronizing and kindof weak, so I'm curious to know if you're trying to say what I think you're trying to say.
What's weak is relying on the "majority" to tell you anything about what works and what doesn't in law school. That was just a silly point. At best it will always be a dead heat between those who wound up above and below the median. And those who do really well will by definition be a small minority (5 - 25%, depending on your definition of really well). If you want advice that matters, then look for the people who have proven outstanding results and see what they have to say (views from four of them are quoted above).
That's what I thought.
First off, there's a mistake in assuming that only people who have done incredibly well can provide valuable information. Personally, I'd be just as interested to learn what those who did poorly have to say so that I could avoid their mistakes. Secondly, just because others on this site are free to broadcast their GPA doesn't mean that those of who don't did poorly, and it's pretty ridiculous to assume that any of those people providing advice are not at the top of their respective classes. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't presume to give advice if I didn't believe it was worthwhile. I'm pretty damn sure nonunique and TTT-LS feel the same way, and I have the benefit of knowing that they did well this past year.
If you want advice that matters, don't be so fucking snarky. None of the law students who post on this site are getting paid to do so, and none of them have an interest in seeing you fail. If someone who's had some experience offers some advice, feel free to take it or not. Sure, the 'majority opinion' bit was a weak bit of rhetoric, but focusing on that instead of the content was stupid.
Additionally, he's absolutely right about the 'majority opinion.' Try and find anyone, top of their class or bottom who would recommend the contracts E&E over Chirelstein (or conlaw E&E over Chemerinski, or, really, reading the Property E&E before heading to class). His point was that even for just summer reading, the E&E's are not equal. I read the Civ Pro, Torts, and Crim E&E prior to coming to law school, and got way more out of Torts and Crim. I would have been fucking lost with the Property E&E (it's extremely barebones) and the K's E&E is borderline nonsensical compared to Chirelstein.
His whole goddamn point was that there's nothing wrong with reading E&E's, but that of the dozens published, there are only at most
3-4 that are worth reading prior to starting law school. That being said, feel free to waste your time boning up on Real Estate Transactions or California Community Property if that really floats your boat.