Law school is very demanding. This is precisely the reason why it has often been described as a jealous mistress, although for the sake of political correctness, I'd do away with such a sexist term and call law school a clingy lover instead.
Much of a law student's waking hours is spent reading and analyzing cases. There is just absolutely no escape from such a routine, no matter how toxic and stressful it could get on most days.
It's a thrill, nonetheless, to come across cases that are no more than three pages. Any law student would regard such cases as needles in the proverbial haystack rendered real, given that in the regular order of things, most cases normally extend to pages in the double digits.
The most important question, therefore, is: how does one deal with voluminous readings required in each and every single class in law school? This should be taken in the context of how some of the rare benevolent professors require a minimum of 10 cases for each meeting while the rest can only be presumed to take a certain sense of thrill seeing their students slog through 20 or more cases for each meeting.
So really, how does one deal?
Some of those who've been there and done that claim the key is in studying smart, which essentially means relying on case digests. But while this idea makes sense from a practical viewpoint, it also presents significant weaknesses, which I shall discuss in a bit.
First, the good points. One, reading a case digest instead of the full text saves a lot of time, which, realistically speaking, is something law students don't seem to have enough of. Case digests—or at least the better ones—provide a quick and convenient rundown of the facts of the case, the issues involved, and the ruling. In other words, relying on digests spares one the trouble of having to go through the case itself, identifying relevant facts, determining key issues, and analyzing the court's rationale in coming up with its decision.
Case digests are also handy during emergency situations. Committed the mortal sin of sleeping without laying a finger on your readings? Got too drunk the night before? Spent most of your time preparing for another class? Forgot to read case assignments? No problem. Have digests, will survive -- or at least that's the idea.
But this idea is always not tenable.
The bad thing about relying on digests—especially those created by other people, or worse, lifted from the Internet (gasp!)—is that doing so is inherently risky. How so?
For one, it deprives you the benefit of first-hand experience and appreciation of cases. See, digests skip a lot of details. Sure, such omissions might not really be significant at all, but there's really no way of telling unless you've read the case yourself. So essentially, relying on digests means putting yourself at the mercy of somebody else's discretion and appreciation of facts.
Second, some digests are just so poorly written and analyzed, it's a wonder how they've managed to come up with their conclusions. Of course you wouldn't be able to tell how crappy some of these digests are unless you've read the case yourself, and therein lies the problem.
And lastly, relying on case digests instills a lethal sense of dependence. In law school, there are no, and there shouldn't be, any shortcuts. You have to find the time to read cases in their full text. Doing so fosters discipline and is a clear and patent display of your commitment to your studies. And most importantly, the sense of confidence inspired by having read the full text works wonders whether you are reciting or answering an exam.
Law school is without a doubt a very demanding endeavor. As such, relying on digests can only take you so far before it bites you back in parts where the sun doesn't shine.