Opinions of study guides, "Crunchtime", "Nutshell" "Law in Flash" Car

[C2]

I've revised my initial proposed set of supplements.  Here is the revised set:

Civ Pro
  Glannon E&E
  Crunch Time

Property
  Gilberts

Crim. Law
  Delaney
  Crunch Time

Contracts
  E&E
  Crunch Time

Torts
  E&E (sorry Ruskie    )
  Crunch Time

Some of the above is tentative, such as Delaney for Crim Law (recommended in PLSII) and the Crunch Time for Torts (I'm not sure if either of these are good).  And also - I'll probably get some canned briefs, like High Court Case Summaries (I'll figure this out later).

E&E's for the following subjects:

 Civ. Pro
 Contracts
 Torts


Gilberts First Year Set
 Civil Procedure
 Contracts
 Criminal Law
 Property
 Torts

Serisously, you are wasting your money on the Torts E&E.  It's very incomplete. 

Quite honestly, I think all of you pre-1L's are jumping the gun buying supplements this early. 

It's very worthwhile to wait a couple of weeks, feel out the class, reidentify your learning style, and see if your professor suggests any supplements.  I don't think anyone who waits a week or two into classes to buy supplements in any way jeapordizes his chances of getting an A.

Sweet.  Now I can continue with my plan of chilling at the beach until classes start with no guilt!

[lincolnsgrandson]

also, I never liked using flash cards, even though many of colleagues use them.  Unless your exam is multiple choice, I think they're a poor way to study.

[btideroll]

I don't know why folks are suggesting half of the E&E or even just 1-2.

I bought the newest editions of all the E&E's (Torts, Crim Law, Contracts, Property, Civ Pro) There are very new editions for a lot of those that settled a few issues that students had in the past. Why? The practice will be invaluable.

Whether or not the book is complete is irrelevant. Its a source to further understanding via examples, just because it doesn't have ALL examples doesn't mean its not worth it. Whose to say all profs will cover all of a given subject anyways--they at least cover the very important subjects.

So far I have all the E&E, the Gilbert Property (may end up getting contracts as well and Torts since the E&E tort is selective--only as a supplement to help with BLL and to outline). I also have several exam taking books.

I wouldn't touch anyone else's outline with a 10 foot pole unless 1) they went to your school this last year 2) have the same profs you are going to have 3) made an A.

That being said, and speaking from an entering 1L, I appreciate anything that will give me as many examples and explanations as possible that will expose to me exam like questions...because the exam is what its all about. I'm not going to go for the canned briefs or any of that junk that strips you of the learning process. By reading the stuff yourself and struggling and practicing, thats how you learn to analyze and thats how you will toast the competition. Just watch.

[Janna116]

I loved the Black Letter Series Outlines, very helpful for getting the ....Black Letter Law, 

[ruskiegirl]

I don't know why folks are suggesting half of the E&E or even just 1-2.

I bought the newest editions of all the E&E's (Torts, Crim Law, Contracts, Property, Civ Pro) There are very new editions for a lot of those that settled a few issues that students had in the past. Why? The practice will be invaluable.

Whether or not the book is complete is irrelevant. Its a source to further understanding via examples, just because it doesn't have ALL examples doesn't mean its not worth it. Whose to say all profs will cover all of a given subject anyways--they at least cover the very important subjects.

So far I have all the E&E, the Gilbert Property (may end up getting contracts as well and Torts since the E&E tort is selective--only as a supplement to help with BLL and to outline). I also have several exam taking books.

I wouldn't touch anyone else's outline with a 10 foot pole unless 1) they went to your school this last year 2) have the same profs you are going to have 3) made an A.

That being said, and speaking from an entering 1L, I appreciate anything that will give me as many examples and explanations as possible that will expose to me exam like questions...because the exam is what its all about. I'm not going to go for the canned briefs or any of that junk that strips you of the learning process. By reading the stuff yourself and struggling and practicing, thats how you learn to analyze and thats how you will toast the competition. Just watch.

The bigger problem with some of the E&E's is that they are not only incomplete, but also inaccurate.  Even the newest editions contain numerous mistakes and you should always consult a professor or a more advanced student before using a certain supplement.  If you take the time to go to office hours and ask, most professors will tell you which study guides to stay away from and they might even recommend one that they believe to be accurate and complete.

[CoxlessPair]

Just tagging this guy...

[BigTex]

The bigger problem with some of the E&E's is that they are not only incomplete, but also inaccurate. 

Could you cite an example of such an innacuracy? I find it hard to believe that, say, the elements of battery i learned in the Torts E&E are incorrect and the rest of the legal world actually uses a different set of elements when arguing a claim of battery. I think you make a valid point by saying that one cannot rely solely on supplementary material, but it's quite another thing to say that these primers are actually in error.

[ruskiegirl]

The bigger problem with some of the E&E's is that they are not only incomplete, but also inaccurate. 

Could you cite an example of such an innacuracy? I find it hard to believe that, say, the elements of battery i learned in the Torts E&E are incorrect and the rest of the legal world actually uses a different set of elements when arguing a claim of battery. I think you make a valid point by saying that one cannot rely solely on supplementary material, but it's quite another thing to say that these primers are actually in error.

I think the general principles are mostly correct.  Like you said, the elements of battery are difficult to mess up.  However, certain nuances of docrtrine are slightly more complicated and more prone to inaccuracy.  My Property professor specifically told us NOT to use E and E for her class because many of the Answers in the Explanations sections were wrong.  She did not provide specific examples, but I knew to stop reading the book.   She suggested Gilbert instead. 

[BigTex]

The bigger problem with some of the E&E's is that they are not only incomplete, but also inaccurate. 

Could you cite an example of such an innacuracy? I find it hard to believe that, say, the elements of battery i learned in the Torts E&E are incorrect and the rest of the legal world actually uses a different set of elements when arguing a claim of battery. I think you make a valid point by saying that one cannot rely solely on supplementary material, but it's quite another thing to say that these primers are actually in error.

I think the general principles are mostly correct.  Like you said, the elements of battery are difficult to mess up.  However, certain nuances of docrtrine are slightly more complicated and more prone to inaccuracy.  My Property professor specifically told us NOT to use E and E for her class because many of the Answers in the Explanations sections were wrong.  She did not provide specific examples, but I knew to stop reading the book.   She suggested Gilbert instead. 

thanks. interesting. i did like the Torts E&E least of the E&E's i've read so far. Felt a bit too informal and colloquial (sp?). Even so, and in spite of any nuanced failings, it has given me a rudimentary overview of the subject matter that i can't help but feel is valid.

[btideroll]

well surely a student would take the profs definition over a primer anyways. but the point of them is to expose yourself to hypotheticals and to learn legal analysis. I don't really think these primers are "in error" or are "inaccurate" as much as they conflict with other profs views. That is just the way it goes though, it seems profs always want their slant on things.

Your prof recommended Gilbert? that's sweet

http://cacheofreason.blogspot.com/