Should I Buy a Hornbook?
Aug 24, 2010
21 Comments
Constitutional Law Hornbook
A hornbook is any commercially distributed text intended to succinctly explain to a lay reader complex points of law. The phrase “hornbook” is a colloquial term used to refer to the great variety of study aids available to law students. Hornbooks are commonly used by many law students to help them understand complex and difficult areas in the study of law. Hornbooks are never required reading during a course at BC Law although they may be recommended or encouraged by instructors. You can purchase hornbooks online, at the BC Bookstore, or from other bookstores. There are hornbooks available on virtually every field of law studied at law schools and there are usually many different authors and editions available for any given course.
The main benefit of reading hornbooks is that it explains the law to the reader in a way that may be more coherent than an explanation provided by the course instructor. Hornbooks teach the law by explaining key concepts rather than thoroughly exploring a series of cases (the “cases method” used by all law schools). Hornbooks help you understand that which is difficult to understand. Many students find it very helpful to read the hornbook section on Contributory Negligence, for example, before they attend the Torts class that they know will cover Contributory Negligence. Almost every law student will acknowledge that reading a hornbook in addition to the required reading for a class will increase one’s understanding and help one perform on cold calls, take-home assignments, and ultimately on exam day. In addition to explaining complex points of law clearly and succinctly hornbooks commonly contain instructional diagrams and charts that help explain concepts in ways that spoken or written words never can. Some hornbooks also contain
The main downside of hornbooks is the expense and time required. Hornbooks cost money. Some of them are very expensive. Hornbooks should never be used as replacements for the required reading for a course and as a result they are an additional expense beyond that incurred to purchase the course books. In addition, reading hornbooks takes a lot of time. Given the immense amount of time we law students spend reading for our courses, looking for jobs, trying to have fun and generally stay afloat in law school we don’t have a lot of free time to spend reading extra material. This means that using hornbooks effectively requires spending a lot of time reading and going over them. If you think that the sacrifice in time and money is worth the extra understanding you will get from reading these texts then you should go ahead and purchase and start reading hornbooks.
Remember that hornbooks are not the only way to learn how the law works. You can always learn the law from attending class, reading casebooks and talking with colleagues and professors. Hornbooks are a way to supplement, not substitute, normal law school studying. The decision of whether or not to use hornbooks is ultimately up to you; don’t let other students or professors pressure you into using a study method that is particularized to them and not worthwhile for you.
Examples of Hornbooks:
Chereminsky’s Constitutional Law.
The “Nutshell” series.
The “Examples and Explanations” series.
Eagleionline Question(s) of the Day: What are the most useful 1L hornbooks?
Who posted this article?
“Hornbooks should never be used as replacements for the required reading for a course”
My Evidence grade begs to differ.
I think the “Boat Book” is great for Contracts: http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Analysis-Contracts-University-Textbook/dp/1587781972
I go back and forth on the importance of hornbooks. During the times I found myself, as a 1L, completely befuddled (which was often) hornbooks were really an essential way for me to understand the class. This was particularly so, because I felt that professors would sometimes play “hide the ball” — and hornbook authors don’t do that (in fact, they are something like a “solution guide” for class).
But the more I learned about a subject, the less I needed a hornbook — or found it to be useful.
The “ship book” for Contracts is a must, especially if you have Fitzgibbon.
Chemerinsky for Con Law I think is a reliable one most people purchase and use.
Otherwise, I haven’t found any I’ve used so far in law school that helpful. And I’ve wasted entirely too much time on them during finals with little benefit.
I too liked the Chemerinsky book for Con Law I and II. I ended up buying one, but the library has a number of copies, as well. When you get to school, you might check it out first in order to decide whether to buy (it’s around $60 new. see http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/073555787X/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0735524289&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0TRQ53K2DMFW9V0Q813A)
Generally I think hornbooks are not worth the time or money with the exception of Chemerinsky’s book for con law. I found it very valuable for con law I and II.
Must-haves:
Civ Pro: Acing CivPro checklist hornbook
Con Law: Chemerinsky
Contracts: Farnsworth (if you have Katz); Ship book (if you have Fitzgibbon)
No horn book can replace an awesome outline that you get from someone who previously got a good grade with the same professor.
I guess I have to disagree with the getting a good outline from someone else theory. I have never understood what use anyone has for someone else’s outline? Constructing the outline is what is useful about having one. I have had very, very few exams in law school where I’ve ever had a sufficient amount of time during a final to really use it. But having put one together, I know where to find things, assuming I don’t remember it from putting the outline together in the first place. I think it’s fine to use someone else’s to fill in the gaps of your own, but I’ve never found using one I didn’t put together to be particularly helpful.
Law school is not hard, especially at a top X (insert 10, 14, 25, 50, whatever) school. You should be able to get median or better without taking notes, making outlines or studying more than reading week + exams. Law schools have made it incredibly easy graduate. Take advantage.
Not sure your comment makes any sense. By definition, in law school isn’t half the class “below average”?
I do agree, though, that graduating from law school is easier now than ever before. In the early days of BC Law (and other schools), tons of students were forced to leave after the first year because they couldn’t make the cut.
Again, by your own logic, the curve is the same as it has always been. So by definition it is no easier to do well than ever before. Someone still has to be the C’s.
Maybe those who didn’t do well are those who can’t even work through that basic logic or understand how a curve works.
In response to 3L, I said that *graduating* from law school is easier than it has ever been, not *getting good grades.* This, actually, is a point which we all agree is true.
Well you might be right that a mediocre performance will still result in graduation. But I don’t think striving for mediocrity is great advice.
Graduation alone is not much to toot one’s horn about, and shouldn’t be one’s goal. Just graduating doesn’t secure jobs; who wants a new employee who only does the minimum to get by? I know I wouldn’t and I am sure that goes double for employers in today’s economy.
Not everyone can be in the top 5% but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do the best you can. You get out of the experience what you put into it and if you develop mediocre study habits then at the end of the day what you will have at graduation is a mediocre understanding of the law (and considering a person really doesn’t know much at graduation anyway you will know even less – plus have not developed good research and study habits to ensure your future success).
So I would suggest to people to think hard before they begin school and if they truly want to settle for just getting by, they should save their money and drop out now and do something they are passionate about.
If you do want to go to law school then put in your best effort and you will see positive results from your efforts. I know that I did.
But…you’re still wrong. How is graduating any easier? Please support your assertion. If the curve is the curve and hasn’t changed, then the % breakdown among various grades has not changed. It might benefit you as an alum to think that somehow we have it easier than you did, but I doubt that is true. If anything, getting into a good law school is harder than it has ever been due to the sheer increase in applications to law school every year.
I don’t think it is any easier to graduate, I just don’t think it was ever that hard in the first place.
I’ve just done a quick search on Google, and was unable to find any data regarding “historical law school graduation rates.” However, I encourage you to talk to some of the professors at BC Law who know something about the graduation rate at BC Law (or elsewhere) during the first half of the 20th Century. (BC Law was founded in the 20s, but I would think the data would be similar in other schools, as well). In any event, you will find that the graduation rates back then were much, much lower than they are now. I believe that it’s fair to draw the conclusion from this fact that graduating now is easier than before.
Well if we’re talking about nearly a century ago, you could very well be right. But what exactly does that mean anyway? Pretty much everything in life is easier than it was 90 years ago.
So rather than say you’re wrong, I’ll just say your comment is pointless.
Please read the messages above. The comment by “BC alum” — the comment to which I originally responded — made the point that:
“Law school is not hard, especially at a top X (insert 10, 14, 25, 50, whatever) school. You should be able to get median or better without taking notes, making outlines or studying more than reading week + exams. Law schools have made it incredibly easy graduate. Take advantage.”
I took issue with this comment, stated that it didn’t make much sense, while at the same time acknowledging that it was factually true that it’s easier to graduate now than it has been in the past (a collateral fact that, itself, was objected to for some reason).
“3L@gmail.com,” your comment is probably best directed at “BC Alum.”
I take issue with it like you – it doesn’t make much sense at all. But for as long as law schools have had curves, then it can’t actually be easier to graduate unless the curves have gotten easier. I was pointing that your logic is as faulty as the original poster. I was not aware you were talking about law school during the days of Jefferson. I guess “easy” is a relative term, though certainly as long as there has been a curve, it can’t actually have become easier. Someone has to get the shitty grades on a curve.
Active Alum, I think you understand my point.
3L, I think you do not.
It is probably true that the harder you work, the better the grades you will earn. And it is definitely true that the better your grades, the better your job prospects will be — especially at “Big Law.” Or maybe it’s more accurate to say that it will be easier to find a job. Even this is probably just as much, if not more, influenced by other conditions — for example, your expectations, the stature of your law school, market conditions, interview and writing skills, persistence, and other personal and professional attributes.
But I was not speaking to grades or job prospects, just graduation. Graduation rates used to be much lower at the top law schools. The first-day caution “look to your right, look to your left—one of you won’t be here by the end of the semester” wasn’t a joke. This is gone now. In my first year class at BC, one person — maybe two — dropped out, and I suspect it was for reasons unrelated to the “difficulty” of the curriculum. Your chance of becoming a lawyer used to be cemented at graduation or upon passing the bar exam. It seems now that so long as you get a good undergraduate GPA (meaningless — college is the new high school) and have a good day on the LSAT, you’ve stamped your ticket.
You can go through law school now without doing the reading, without outlining, and without taking notes or attending many of your classes and still graduate. I know from experience. I did not finish in the top of my class, but I found a good job. It may not be SCOTUS or Wachtell, but it’s a good job.
What you are saying has to do with the curve and only the curve. You may very well be right that the curve is now much tighter, allowing people to not worry about getting any grades below a C, thereby ensuring they will graduate. People don’t flunk out of law school anymore.
I don’t necessarily agree that this means it is easier to graduate, implying that the work is somehow easier. I certainly don’t think law school is as hard as its reputation, but you can’t walk in, skip class, skip reading and expect to graduate. And I have never met anyone who has done that since being in law school.
Another thing you seem to forget is that it is far more competitive to get into a top law school now than ever before. Applications rates are at their highest levels with very little addition to supply (after all, the top 25 schools are still only 25 schools). Certainly there are a wide menu of fourth tier law schools that one can go to and graduate from, let’s be realistic – we’re not worried about those people.
And again, I stress, as long as there is a curve, there must be a limited number of people who can fail out. So for as long as there has been a curve, there has been this limitation.
And now, graduation means nothing. The last two years has shown that getting your JD ensures nothing about your job prospects. So who cares if it is easier? It is absolutely not easier to get the jobs people were getting 5 or 10 years ago.
And again, unless you can support drop out or fail rates historically in law school to demonstrate that fewer people struggle in law school today than before, I’m not sure I buy it. A curve based on a B+/A- means that the majority of the people in a class will not fail. That’s just the reality of a curve.
Oh and the reality is that nowadays, if you are pulling down the B-’s and C’s then you should probably consider dropping out. Sure you could finish and get your JD, but then you’ve spent $120K on something worth very little in the job market with those grades.
3L,
I understand what you are saying, but you are talking past my point, not to it.
I agree with you that the curves at most law schools — especially top law schools — are now skewed to the point that even low performers manage about a B average. (BC is an example of this, if I recall correctly, the bottom 10% of my class straddled the 3.0 line.) To say this does not affect the failure or drop-out rate is absurd. First, if a B is your “bottom” then what is a failing grade and how does fail out? Second, even if there is no forced failure (which it appears there no hasn’t been in law school for some time), the scale we now grade one must affect people psychologically. If you have a meaninful A-F curve with a 10, 20, 40, 20, 10% distribution, 10% of your class will grade at A, 20% at a B, and so on. At the low end, the result is that 30% of your class is taking home a D or F average. On current law school grade curves, the bottom 30% takes about a B average. We have to recognize that there is a psychological effect to this grade inflation.
So you have two effects at work here. First, the direct effect is that no one actually gets a failing grade, so no one is below whatever cutoff there may be to “survive.” Second, the indirect effect is that the poorest performing students never get a reality check. As I admitted, I was not a good student in law school — especially in my first year. (I got much better over time.) After my first semester, I was definitely in the bottom half of my class, but instead of having a C- or worse average (on a classic A-F bell curve), I had almost a B+ average. What encourgement to stay in law school! (As an aside, I don’t doubt that the rich tuition dollars that universities take in from law schools have played into this equation. With a 30% drop-out rate after the first semester, BC Law would lose approximately $10 million in revenue per class.).
The upshot is, you’re right, it is the curve. But we disagree on the effect this has. I believe that shift to a B+ curve has meant that the psychology and vocabulary of failure have been removed from modern law schools. This goes to the point of my original post — you can do just the bare minimum to get by and earn a JD. And you’ll likely even have a B average to show for it!
Finally, I disagree that earning a JD — nothing more, no honors or journals or moot court — is worthless. Unlike with an MBA, the JD qualifies you to enter a profession with a licensing requirement (read: a bar to entry. You will compete only with the limited universe of licensed attorneys in your state.). At worst, you can hang out a shingle and earn a comfortable living. Whether that’s worth a six figures in debt is a separate debate.