Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt

New Ideas From Dead Economists, Todd Buchholz

The Future of Ideas, Lawrence Lessig

Learning Legal Reasoning, John Delany

How To Do Your Best on Law School Exams, John Delany

Academic Legal Writing, Eugene Volokh

...and a bunch of non-academic books just for fun.

I'd also like to pick up a good general economics primer, as the Hazlitt book is focused entirely on macro from an anecdotal "big picture" perspective, and the Buchholz is basically a history book.

EDIT: Law School Confidential is good if you haven't read it already, but don't let it scare you...you won't really have to study 16 hrs/day to be successful. Avoid Planet Law School at all costs. +

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#661922)

But then there's also LEEWS and the Whitebread book. I don't know at what point diminishing returns kick in.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#661994)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#665979)

If you really want to do reading or you want to do better than me, read Emmanuel's outlines for all the 1L subjects you are going to cover. And memorize them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#662374)

Some people know it much better than others, and while they are generally comprised of a smart group of people, it is unquestionable that reading outlines helps.

"So going over outlines 167 times offers no competitive advantage."

Yes it does. The better you know the material, the better you are able to apply it.

"Simply put, those with the most brains get the most A's."

Empirically, I know this to be untrue. There are plenty of really smart people in my class who do worse than dumber study bugs.

"Stop trying to fight the laws of genetics."

One day I will beat DNA.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#662475)

In a related story, I hear that Tribe plans to teach conlaw to junior-high students.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#662498)

who is this poster anyway? he/she's easily the most annoying poster since poetic dreamer and that spammer, terrorist X. seriously, 0percentfinance tone it down a notch. you're nasty even for the xoxo board.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#667969)

Not by my understanding of what gunner means.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#662684)

Seriously, don't read any of the "how to take a test" books. They won't do you a bit of good when taking exams. Why? Because each exam is usually different. Professors all expect different things. Some expect legal conclusions, some expect you to vomit everything but the kitchen sink, some take points off if you don't only mention the best arguments. Some are short answer, some are long essays, some are fact-spotting questions, some are just policy questions. The only good way to prepare for an exam (beyond knowing the material in the class) is to take your professors old exams. TRUST ME, you will usually have more than enough of those available to keep you busy.

If you still feel like you need something you can always just go to the Georgeotwn orientation videos online for free (ie, here is the exam taking one):

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/webcast/eventDetail.cfm?eventID=25

I'm sure other schools have them as well.

Second. DO NOT BUY COMMERICAL OUTLINES until you know your professors and you have talked to people who have taken their class. Serisouly, its a waste of time otherwise. There are great commercial outlines out there - but, if you don't get one that reasonably mirrors the instructors beliefs and/or their syllabus. Most outlines will have far more information that will ever be covered in the class - and, knowing it (and trying to use it on an exam) can be disasterous. Most professors want you to work with what they teach (ie, use creative legal reasoning) and not just recite a bunch of cases you never went over. Further, knowing too much just encourages gunnerism.

The only book that I can recommend is law school insider as it provides an interesting day in the life of a law student and a quick read. If you are completely unfamiliar with the Socratic method the paper chase is a fun movie - not entirely accurate but some aspects of it are still replicated in law school today.

Beyond that - relax! If you have a wife or husband spend time with him/her now so that you can spend more time in LS later.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#665949)

2. Yes, pretty much nix commercial outlines. Basically, the only thing to do is to find an upperclassman who took the professor's class before and get his/her outline.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#665967)

I agree with the posters above me, but would postpone "Getting to Maybe" until halfway through the first semester; forks in the facts/forks in the law/ambiguity about breadth, etc, make a little more sense after you've seen a handful of fact patterns.

It is NOT about what you know, or about facts, or about the law. That's necessary but not sufficient. And the amount that is necessary is much smaller than you imagine. Commercial outlines aren't bad, but they focus you on the wrong thing--the material, rather than the potential ways to analyze the facts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#665981)

I don't know what the people in your example did, but since they did "really poorly," maybe they were those type of people who just don't know how to analyze. I guess there are those people who have never read an article in a magazine and thought about it. Practice at a skill, including analyzing, will generally help anyone. But if you're at the level of a normal law school student, practicing analyzing won't help you get better grades, IMO. You already know how to do it. Further, practice is different than actually reading these abstract books about forks and whatnot. You're not going to have time to think about forks on a LS exam. Also, I would guess that these people's sessions with the professor helped them to gain knowledge as well as giving them practice in analysis.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#666616)

It's not just about analysis of fact; it's about being thorough. And it's about being thoroughly analysing facts with all the tools you learn throughout the semester, in a nuanced and intelligent way.

Knowledge of the material with a half-decent analysis gets you a B+/A- at a T14.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#683381)

Seriously, if you are planning on getting this book - just go to a local bookstore a few weeks before the exams and quickly thumb through the tips PART III (and just read the tips - the explanations don't add that much) and maybe read PART IV the FAQ section. Beyond that, its not worth what I paid for it (which, to be honest, I don't even know what that was anymore). Certainly avoid all of the other books (I bought those as well - and, they were a complete waste of money and time).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#666009)

I skimmed the above three in an hour or so; I read Getting to Maybe.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#666031)

In any event, "Maybe" is a very quick read, and the paperback is pretty cheap.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#666053)

what's the LS protocol for that, buy, borrow, or get 'em tossed into the deal when you buy used books from people or something?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#668119)

1. learning material before school starts is not meant to replace learning material in school. for it to be helpful, it doesn't matter if it will not prepare you for tests. the idea is for it to help you be prepared for tests a little more quickly during school. In short, the fact that it doesn't offer full knowledge is not a real problem.

2. unless you are a complete idiot, i don't think that there is much danger of putting stuff on the test that the prof doesn't teach. again, this is not meant to replace law school learning. you will be going to class, taking notes, making an outline based on that. the stuff that you read before school that the prof teachs will be relearned faster while the stuff that you never touch in the quarter will be but a dim light in your memory.

3. that exams seem to be about applying facts, issue spotting, and other stuff that would be difficult to learn before school, doesn't make learning stuff ahead of time a waste. if you get the material down more quickly, you can spend more time on the analysis, issue spotting, hypos, old tests, ect.

4. just because you are in the "top whatever" of your class and you didn't use it does not mean that it won't be helpful. maybe you would have been in the "top slightly higher" if you had. nobody is saying that the only way to do well in law school is by prepping, just that it might help you do slightly better than you would otherwise. how you did compared to others in your class is irrelevant to the issue of how you would have done with prepping.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#667226)

Fredbarnes has rejected this advice, for whatever reason.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#667403)

i doubt that just becuase there is a lot of material to learn, and it seems like it comes much more quickly in law school than in UG.

"but the analysis and application is what separates the great from the good from the average students"

that's the whole point, numbnuts. the quicker you learn the material, the more time and effort you can devote to analysis and application. did you read my post above?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#667447)

The large majority of students I've corresponded with here or talked to elsewhere (who went/go to good schools) have said it's true. Though if you've historically been a slow learner (and your posts on this subject seem to indicate that), then maybe it makes sense to learn it twice.

"the quicker you learn the material, the more time and effort you can devote to analysis and application"

At most schools there is ample time for this between the end of the semester and finals, as long as you've kept on top of your outlining and reading. And I wouldn't want to start taking practice exams until after the class is complete anyway, and I have the whole picture from the prof's perspective (which is the only perspective that matters).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#667546)

"At most schools there is ample time for this between the end of the semester and finals"

the fact that students tend to cram before finals suggests that they feel that they still have the ability to lear/solidify material, even at the end of the semester.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#667675)

I consider that part of learning it the first time. Are you really not going to outline or study simply because you read E&E over the summer?

"the fact that students tend to cram before finals suggests that they feel that they still have the ability to lear/solidify material, even at the end of the semester."

Depends on what they're doing...it sounds like the smart ones are using that "cramming" time to take practice tests, not reviewing flash cards on what promissory estoppel means.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#667726)

lol, going back over material is learning it the first time? ok.

".it sounds like the smart ones are using that "cramming" time to take practice tests, not reviewing flash cards on what promissory estoppel means."

see my first post above. again, did you even read it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#667786)

"see my first post above. again, did you even read it?"

Yes, and I responded to your assumption that because most students "cram," they must be spending that time still trying to learn the material. I don't believe that's necessarily true...it's certainly not what I intend to do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#667898)

yes, that would be learning it the first time, and that's why you sounded so silly saying it.

"Yes, and I responded to your assumption that because most students "cram," they must be spending that time still trying to learn the material. I don't believe that's necessarily true."

that wasn't what i said. i said that there are still things they can do to get ready for the test. getting a head start on learning the material should let you get a head start on taking old tests, practicing hypos, analysis, apply rules to fact patterns, ect. the reason i keep referring you to my first post above is because you keep falling into one of the reasoning traps that i went over in that post.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#667932)

As Professor Whitebread has pointed out, in law school you're not learning (and being tested on) Torts, you're learning "Epstein on Torts" or "Levmore on Torts" or whoever happens to be teaching the class. You can't start taking practice tests with any degree of effectiveness until you've learned your prof's approach to the material.

But we've been through this three or four times now on various threads. So I'm going to bow out now. Happy studying.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#668053)

" in law school you're not learning (and being tested on) Torts, you're learning "Epstein on Torts" or "Levmore on Torts" or whoever happens to be teaching the class"

again, you are missing the point. the idea is not to be ready for a test from starting the material before school, just to speed up your path of getting ready.

"You can't start taking practice tests with any degree of effectiveness until you've learned your prof's approach to the material."

you can start doing hypos, practicing applying rules to fact patters, ect

"But we've been through this three or four times now on various threads. So I'm going to bow out now. Happy studying."

k, i'm sure this isn't the end of this discussion. take care.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#668137)

No, you twit, it doesn't work like that. If you think that "learning the material" is independent from analysis and application, you're never going to hit the top. If you separate the two out, you'll never understand that facts, law, analysis, material and all that must intertwine.

Learning one separately will bias your application. For the worse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#693896)

Actually, I did do all of these things. I did everything you are recommended. I spent a lot of time in the summer before law school reading over materials for classes, reading prep books, and learning to take law school exams using any of the materials I could find. My point is that it was all worthless. I should have spent my time relaxing, spending time with those who through the 9 months of law school I really didn't have time to.

You are wasting so much time (and money) in doing it. Professors are unlikely to cover more than 40% of even the material in their own casebook. And the casebook is only likely to cover a sliver of say tort, or contract, or property law.

Even more importantly, professors often deviate from the materials with either updated or niche cases that interest them. For example, my torts professor spent zero time on product liability. Property didn't cover hardly any of the estates crap that most classes do.

Further complicating matters is the fact that different casebooks cover different cases. With the exception of criminal procedure (and to some degree CivPro) most of the materials you will cover in law school involve a patchwork of state or circuit caselaw which, although bear some similarity to what other classes might cover, generally bear out differing sets of rules. If you don't believe me, just run to an outline collection and scan how different classes can be. This is why buying commerical outlines before the first several weeks (or months) of a class usually will result in a complete waste of money.

Yeah, I suppose there might be some benefit. But, I disagree that it doesn't come at a cost. Endurance, like in a marathon, is key to law school success. Your recommendation is like starting that marathon several miles before the start line just so that you will be allowed a 100 meter head start over those who didn't elect the extra several miles. That 100 meter initial advantage probably won't make a huge difference in the end result of the marathon - but, the fact that you've spent all of that pre-race time exausting energy probably will when it comes down to the home stretch.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#668695)

"1. learning material before school starts is not meant to replace learning material in school. for it to be helpful, it doesn't matter if it will not prepare you for tests. the idea is for it to help you be prepared for tests a little more quickly during school. In short, the fact that it doesn't offer full knowledge is not a real problem."

"Endurance, like in a marathon, is key to law school success. Your recommendation is like starting that marathon several miles before the start line just so that you will be allowed a 100 meter head start over those who didn't elect the extra several miles. That 100 meter initial advantage probably won't make a huge difference in the end result of the marathon - but, the fact that you've spent all of that pre-race time exausting energy probably will when it comes down to the home stretch."

i would argue that's it's more like taking a warm-up jog before the marathon starts. that IS helpful.

Edit: if you really want to compare it to a marathon, then studying before school starts is more like training over time to get ready for the big marathon. way to use an example that shows that preperation helps.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#668989)

Being a lawyer isn't as easy as looking a given situation up in a book and applying the rule. You have to be able to analogize the rule to or distinguish the rule from the situations in the cases. You have to analyze the court's reasoning and determine if it is valid, or if the holding is wrong.

You have to apply the rule to a broad set of hypothetical situations to see if its application is just. A law professor will guide you through this process, and learning to intuitively apply this kind of analysis is the fundamental skill acquired in the first year of law school.

Being the jerk-off who read the whole book before the class begins may have helped you get good grades in college. It will not be much help to you in law school, because law school is not about "learning the material." It is assumed you know the material, and the professors are looking for insight and analyisis, not merely knowledge of the subject. The best way to learn to do this is to read the cases as the class progresses, participate in the class discussions sometimes, and discuss the cases with other students outside of class. Reading the cases ahead of time will produce no appreciable benefit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#671311)

1. learning material before school starts is not meant to replace learning material in school. for it to be helpful, it doesn't matter if it will not prepare you for tests. the idea is for it to help you be prepared for tests a little more quickly during school. In short, the fact that it doesn't offer full knowledge is not a real problem.

3. that exams seem to be about applying facts, issue spotting, and other stuff that would be difficult to learn before school, doesn't make learning stuff ahead of time a waste. if you get the material down more quickly, you can spend more time on the analysis, issue spotting, hypos, old tests, ect.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#677579)

They are merely a jumping off point for the class exercises that prepare you to perform the analysis demanded by the exams. I don't know why you're so damn stubborn on this point. We've been there and you haven't, so our views on the utility of this kind of work are probably more informed than yours.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#686364)

i don't believe something just because some (not all) people say it's true. if i can sit in my room and figure out that the world is round becuase of the shadow of the earth during an eclipse, then i will reject all the personal testimony from people who have reported seeing the edge of the earth.

there are many reasons why law students could want to believe that prepping doesn't help. however, i'm going to trust logic (your side has not been able to produce a very strong argument why it wouldn't help) and ALL of my past experiences where preperation has helped me to do something new. and to top it all off, i have to allow that you are a different person than i am, and maybe it wouldn't even help you, but prepping has consistantly helped me in life.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#688208)

For example, there is no benefit to walking into a contracts classroom knowing which kinds of promises are legally enforcable. You can spend a week looking at the book and pondering the mysteries of consideration, but learning what it is and discussing why we need it and how it fits into society's general interest in providing remedies for broken promises are things that can be accomplished in one pass instead of two. This is called efficiency, and it's another concept I am sure you will become acquainted with.

What's more, there is a lot that can be covered in a class, and professors pick and choose their subjects based primarily on their own interests. That means that the stuff you read before starting the class may never be covered in the class. For example, my criminal law professor spent no time on burglary and almost a month on rape, but other professors at my school did not discuss rape at all, and spent a lot of time going over the "with intent to commit a felony" element of burglary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#689929)

2. the rest of your argument is about how learning before school isn't the most efficient way to learn. but you fail to realize that that isn't the point. i have pleanty of time before school starts, and not very much time when school starts. if i spend 4 times as much time (before school + in school) i can still have the benifit since my time isn't as scarce right now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#690418)

Second, it's summer. There must be something you can be doing. Go to the beach. Sample some intoxicating spirits. Hone your persuasive skills by trying to convince a woman to touch your penis.

The only thing you will accomplish by doing this is that you will become an insufferable know-it-all who fails to impress the professors and pisses everyone in the section off. However, if you understand that the audible groaning and muttering when you get called on has something to do with you, you will still be ahead of the gunners from my classes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#691122)

it's interesting that you think class is so important, because most law students that i've talked to say that they do the real learning from reading cases. not that i'm one to just take their words for it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#696719)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#696924)

"[L]earning and practicing criminal law doctrine as advocacy argument avoids the inherent distraction of dichotomous two-step learning, i.e., learning it twice, first in mostly isolated doctrinal form, and then later learning how to use it in spotting issues and resolving them on exams. It¹s much more efficient and effective to learn the doctrine once in the deeper context of fact-driven advocacy argument that matches and simulates what law students do on exams (and what lawyers do in practice).

"In contrast, two-step learning inadvertently promotes the central and persistent misconception about law school and law exams: that the challenge is primarily about memorizing the statutory and case rules, aggregating during the semester as much sweat-drenched knowledge of legal rules, principles, and policies as possible, and then regurgitating them on factual cue on the exams.

"This misconception dooms students at best to a "C" range in grades.

...

"Holism makes sense both theoretically and practically. Learn the core issues and the related arguments together, not separately. Remember that doctrine only comes alive in fact-driven argument, which students imprint at conscious and subconscious levels, and thus better remember, recall and apply on exams and later."

Translation: Wait until law school to learn the law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#696919)

1. that the most efficient use of my time is what i want to do. that's not true. i want more efficient use of my time ONCE I'M IN LAW SCHOOL and i'm willing to use pleanty of time before school less efficiently.

2. that prepping before school will make me forget what is really improtant on exams. there is no reason to think that this will be the case. in fact, i will get to focus more on what is important.

anyways, i have to go to a cousin's graduation. i'll check in again sunday.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=40415&forum_id=2#696941)