<p>jtm1--
first year law school, especially at a top school, has very little to do with how law actually is in practice or about preparing for what will be on the bar exam -- it is about studying theories of how common law changed over time, it is about learning to read cases with a certain critical eye unlike how you have read anything before. it is about thinking you understand something one day only to learn the next that different courts held differently and there really isn't always a way to reconcile them though everyone tries. it is far more theoretical than practical. </p>
<p>and more importantly, different professors can have vastly different approaches to their subject -- at the school i attended (one of the top 5) it was not uncommon for students in different professor's classes to have very different experiences in terms of the specific subject areas addressed, the relative importance placed on them, the theoretical underpinnings emphasized or criticized by the professor. i mentioned in an early post that in one case the differences were so extreme it was hard to imagine that we were learning the same subject as the other professor's class.</p>
<p>i recall one instance of a class mate who was stuggling and therefore tried to get a grasp on what he thought was coming next. he spent a great deal of time studying ahead in the hornbook and review books on a specific topic that the casebook presented as quite a complicated topic. he felt confident that when the professor got to that topic, he'd be on solid ground. well the prof opened the lecture on the topic by saying, "a few years ago i found this topic a lot more interesting, but the rule of law is now clearly X, what i really want to focus on is Y." the student who had prepared to answer questions on all the nuances of the development of the rule of law was called on and fumfered his way through because he was asked something he had never seen coming -- and while it is not unusual for a student to fumfer his way through questioning, the fact that he was expecting something else probably made it even worse. </p>
<p>though reading review materials while in a class may help (though that is for each student to judge for himself once in a class -- i knew people who tried them and found them counterproductive ), the issue being raised here is whether to spend time ahead of time looking at them. and i do believe that it can be counterproductive because it predisposes the future student to think that things that they read will be relevant to what the professor will teach and there is a real possibility that will not be the case. even if your goal is not to get a swagger or mastery, you may lull yourself into a belief that you are more comfortable with the material than you in fact end up being -- and it can be hard to let go of what you read ahead of time when the professor chooses to go in a different direction. and at top law schools that happens -- the professors often aren't there to address the routine or even to believe that there are anythings that are routine.</p>
<p>i knew students my first year who came in thinking they knew something about some of the material. perhaps a college con law class made them think our first year con law class would be easier for them. perhaps they worked as a paralegal and thought all that transactional work would help contracts make sense. in my experience, those people were not only disappointed, but in fact a little befuddled as they tried to deal with the fact that they didn't know what they thought they knew. </p>
<p>the fact that you are being told not to do this not only by lawyers but by law professors is i think telling -- its not just a matter of "i suffered thru it this way, so you should also." i can't help but think that those profs are telling you this because they've seen too many instances of students thinking they knew more than they did and they saw how counterproductive that could be. ask them why they are giving you this advice.</p>
<p>this isn't an issue of my thinking this behavior would be hypercompetitive and ugly, because i don't think it would give any competitive advantage. it's a matter i think of students falling victim to the idea that there is always a way to prepare ahead of time for their a difficult academic struggle. there are ways to prepare -- i listed some in a prior response -- but, i just don't believe that trying to study the subject matter of your first year classes ahead of time isn't one of them.</p>
<p>(and in case it isn't clear already, i will emphasize again, that i am addressing the issue of what to do prior to even beginning law school -- not what one should or shouldn't do once there or how courses taken after first year may differ or how one should prepare for the bar exam.)</p>