Pre-Law School Reading List.

[Cindy]

While in my UG (pre-law/poli-sci major) we read A Civil Action, which many people seem to like on this thread. Another great book was Getting to Yes, a book on negotiations. It had a lot of tips for how to speak & discuss anything.

[queencruella]

I think Civ Pro is one of the easiest things to "get" pre-law school. I still say have fun while you can.

This SO depends on your teacher.  Since you don't know what you'll get, why not read Glannon while you've got the time?  I also wish I'd done more exam-taking practice... just writing/thinking on the fly, no matter what about, because I am WAY too slow on exams.  I hate not being able to respond to all the issues in a fact pattern.   

Cosigned.

But my problem is slightly different: I have ESL issues.  Even though I started taking practice exams in early November, it wasn't enough.

On the plus side, a classmate finally explained to me why all my English teachers have explained passive voice wrong.  (Unlike most foreign languages, it doesn't matter where you put things in Russian.  Because English doesn't have anything like it, a lot of English teachers mistake it for passive.  Consequently, people like me can't figure out what the @#!* we're doing wrong.  We just know we're always wrong, so we stick to math and keep quiet.)

Frankly, that would have been really, really nice to know about fifteen years ago before I gained my intense hatred for all things English.

Your English teachers probably had no clue- I take your teachers were native English speakers with no knowledge of Russian? Or was it the opposite?

[Steve.jd]

Glannon's is universal for Civ Pro.  I've heard Gilberts for Property if you are going to use anything at all.

DONT READ THESE THINGS BEFORE YOU START.  Really, if you understand whats going on in class don't even read these things as more than a reference when you start or are studying.  Read a novel, or a magazine.  If you are determined to read law related things read something like A Civil Action or The Trial.

Reading Glannon's before you see an assignment isn't going to help you.  You might as well read the case book.

(In the end 80% of the class in virtually every law school ends up at the median +-one grade)

[queencruella]

I think Civ Pro is one of the easiest things to "get" pre-law school. I still say have fun while you can.

This SO depends on your teacher.  Since you don't know what you'll get, why not read Glannon while you've got the time?  I also wish I'd done more exam-taking practice... just writing/thinking on the fly, no matter what about, because I am WAY too slow on exams.  I hate not being able to respond to all the issues in a fact pattern.   

Cosigned.

But my problem is slightly different: I have ESL issues.  Even though I started taking practice exams in early November, it wasn't enough.

On the plus side, a classmate finally explained to me why all my English teachers have explained passive voice wrong.  (Unlike most foreign languages, it doesn't matter where you put things in Russian.  Because English doesn't have anything like it, a lot of English teachers mistake it for passive.  Consequently, people like me can't figure out what the @#!* we're doing wrong.  We just know we're always wrong, so we stick to math and keep quiet.)

Frankly, that would have been really, really nice to know about fifteen years ago before I gained my intense hatred for all things English.

Your English teachers probably had no clue- I take your teachers were native English speakers with no knowledge of Russian? Or was it the opposite?

Yup.  However, half the school was Russian -- they should have noticed after two years that their pedagogical techniques weren't having any impact.  (Especially since the magnet program teachers had the same students multiple years in elementary school.) 

You'd think they'd attempt to learn some Russian, but maybe that's just the idealist in me and the fact that I am from a state where a good portion of the ESL students speak the same language and the ESL teachers do make an attempt to at least have a basic grasp of that language. It's much easier to understand why students aren't getting it if you have a grasp where they're coming from in terms of grammar. While in Japan, I always had a problem with the lack of pronouns.

[Lily Jaye]

Glannon's is universal for Civ Pro.  I've heard Gilberts for Property if you are going to use anything at all.

DONT READ THESE THINGS BEFORE YOU START.  Really, if you understand whats going on in class don't even read these things as more than a reference when you start or are studying.  Read a novel, or a magazine.  If you are determined to read law related things read something like A Civil Action or The Trial.

Reading Glannon's before you see an assignment isn't going to help you.  You might as well read the case book.

(In the end 80% of the class in virtually every law school ends up at the median +-one grade)

Really?  I found that they made understand what was going on in class a lot easier to follow.  (Well, when I showed up for class, at any rate.)  Granted, they weren't very helpful for my policy-intensive finals, but reading them before the cases made it a breeze.

I think it just comes down to whether you're primarily an inductive or deductive learner.  But I never took an education class, so I'm probably wrong.

[Steve.jd]

Glannon's is universal for Civ Pro.  I've heard Gilberts for Property if you are going to use anything at all.

DONT READ THESE THINGS BEFORE YOU START.  Really, if you understand whats going on in class don't even read these things as more than a reference when you start or are studying.  Read a novel, or a magazine.  If you are determined to read law related things read something like A Civil Action or The Trial.

Reading Glannon's before you see an assignment isn't going to help you.  You might as well read the case book.

(In the end 80% of the class in virtually every law school ends up at the median +-one grade)

Really?  I found that they made understand what was going on in class a lot easier to follow.  (Well, when I showed up for class, at any rate.)  Granted, they weren't very helpful for my policy-intensive finals, but reading them before the cases made it a breeze.

I think it just comes down to whether you're primarily an inductive or deductive learner.  But I never took an education class, so I'm probably wrong.

I guess they can give you a rough overview of the cases, but you should read the cases anyway - and their case analysis isn't always on point, and even when it is its very shallow - the prof is usually able to pull out 100x more than the outline.

[Lily Jaye]

I guess they can give you a rough overview of the cases, but you should read the cases anyway - and their case analysis isn't always on point, and even when it is its very shallow - the prof is usually able to pull out 100x more than the outline.

I agree.  The problem is that many profs don't test on the case analysis or the 100x that they pull out of the outline -- they test on the 1% black letter-law that they don't go over.   This is less of a problem in Section Three than elsewhere, but because wo thirds of our exams are conventional issue-spotters, it's still a problem here.

My b.'s against commercial study aids, though.  Oddly, we got into a debate about it tonight which I was totally not prepared for because, well, my brain was in conversion land. 

[Steve.jd]

I guess they can give you a rough overview of the cases, but you should read the cases anyway - and their case analysis isn't always on point, and even when it is its very shallow - the prof is usually able to pull out 100x more than the outline.

I agree.  The problem is that many profs don't test on the case analysis or the 100x that they pull out of the outline -- they test on the 1% black letter-law that they don't go over.   This is less of a problem in Section Three than elsewhere, but because wo thirds of our exams are conventional issue-spotters, it's still a problem here.

My b.'s against commercial study aids, though.  Oddly, we got into a debate about it tonight which I was totally not prepared for because, well, my brain was in conversion land. 

Well what I'm gleaming from the model answers is that knowing the black letter law is necessary but not sufficient.  If you don't know the BLL you're sunk, but knowing how to twist and mold it with case analysis, statutory interpretation, and policy arguments is what separates the "chaff from the wheat."

[Lily Jaye]

I guess they can give you a rough overview of the cases, but you should read the cases anyway - and their case analysis isn't always on point, and even when it is its very shallow - the prof is usually able to pull out 100x more than the outline.

I agree.  The problem is that many profs don't test on the case analysis or the 100x that they pull out of the outline -- they test on the 1% black letter-law that they don't go over.   This is less of a problem in Section Three than elsewhere, but because wo thirds of our exams are conventional issue-spotters, it's still a problem here.

My b.'s against commercial study aids, though.  Oddly, we got into a debate about it tonight which I was totally not prepared for because, well, my brain was in conversion land. 

Well what I'm gleaming from the model answers is that knowing the black letter law is necessary but not sufficient.  If you don't know the BLL you're sunk, but knowing how to twist and mold it with case analysis, statutory interpretation, and policy arguments is what separates the "chaff from the wheat."

I don't think anyone's doubting that.

That said, with the exception of Seidman, the profs here aren't looking for case comparisons.  That seems stuck to LRW.  (Policy and statutory interpretation is a plus, but the model responses don't have much.)

["Legapp" Stands for "Legal Application"]

I guess they can give you a rough overview of the cases, but you should read the cases anyway - and their case analysis isn't always on point, and even when it is its very shallow - the prof is usually able to pull out 100x more than the outline.

I agree.  The problem is that many profs don't test on the case analysis or the 100x that they pull out of the outline -- they test on the 1% black letter-law that they don't go over.   This is less of a problem in Section Three than elsewhere, but because wo thirds of our exams are conventional issue-spotters, it's still a problem here.

My b.'s against commercial study aids, though.  Oddly, we got into a debate about it tonight which I was totally not prepared for because, well, my brain was in conversion land. 

Well what I'm gleaming from the model answers is that knowing the black letter law is necessary but not sufficient.  If you don't know the BLL you're sunk, but knowing how to twist and mold it with case analysis, statutory interpretation, and policy arguments is what separates the "chaff from the wheat."

Steve, you're destined to be a law prof if you're already throwing phrases like that around. 

Anyway, I'm with Lily: if you understand the basics before you read the case, you can understand it better and really get down to the policy/rationale... you can't work on your legal reasoning skills without getting the law down first.  Like, if you're reading Hanna cold, you're thinking, "OK... seems like there are two parts here.  Guess the first is different because it involves a FRCP... and the second would deal with an Erie-type situation..."  If you even got that far before getting in the classroom, you'd be doing pretty well.

Whereas if you already know there's two parts, and what they're about, you can start thinking about WHY courts are so deferential to FRCP, and whether certain ones are clearly invalid under the REA, etc.

If you have a great teacher, they'll get you to this point in class.  Mine... didn't.