Bar/doctrinal classes?

[Advocate]

There seems to be some general internet consensus that it is a waste of time to take "bar classes" like Crim Pro, Evidence, Com Trans, etc.  Are the people who say such things smoking a crack pipe?  How could Bar Review possibly teach Article 9, the hearsay exceptions, and 4th Amendment law in a month?  Seriously? I mean its one thing to "review" all that stuff.  It's quite another to be learning it for the first time!

[M_Cool]

Where is this consensus?  Everyone I know is taking a good amount of these classes.

[ksully]

I wouldn't take them just because they are on the bar exams. Bar/Bri doesn't teach you all you need to know about secured transactions or the hearsay rule and exceptions, but it teaches you enough to pass the exam, which is all that counts. I didn't takes a will/trusts or commercial paper class, but I learned enough in bar/bri to do well on those essays. 

[NeverTrustKlingons]

Lower-ranked schools require bar courses because they need to improve bar passage rates.  The T14 has bare-bones requirements, if any, beyond 1L.

Speaking for myself, learning something a year or two before the bar exam is going to be worth about jack.  Since my GPA is what matters now, I am only taking a few bar courses in order to be literate (e.g. Evidence, Admin, Corporations?) 

Also, OP, unless your school offers state law courses you WILL be learning a whole lot of material for the first time at the bar course.  You might say "aha, this is one of the three approaches I learned for the division of marital assets!," but you will not be reviewing your law school courses verbatim.

[Advocate]

Not just T14 -- my T2 school doesn't require bar classes either.  However, they do recommend that students take things like Com Trans, Evidence, etc.  I really enjoy classes like that because the knowledge carries over to other areas of the law.  For example, any case makes much more sense when you understand the rules of evidence that provide the framework for trial. It doesn't seem to be hurting my GPA to take harder classes; although, the curve is somewhat lower than for silly 2 credit classes like law and literature. 

[wrhssaxensemble]

Not just T14 -- my T2 school doesn't require bar classes either.  However, they do recommend that students take things like Com Trans, Evidence, etc.  I really enjoy classes like that because the knowledge carries over to other areas of the law.  For example, any case makes much more sense when you understand the rules of evidence that provide the framework for trial. It doesn't seem to be hurting my GPA to take harder classes; although, the curve is somewhat lower than for silly 2 credit classes like law and literature. 

Same thing with my third tier (but so close to second) school

[Matthies]

The only bar classses I took beyond 1L stuff were Crim Pro, Evidence and Admin (wich is no longer on our bar). So everything is new to me. But then agan EVERYTHING is new to me, I am amazed at how much I forgot from 1L classes. We shall see how I do, but I took classes I liked and classes that padded my GPA. I don't need an A on the bar, just 1 more point than is needed to pass.

[Dr. Balsenschaft]

Every law student should take Evidence.  It's just a unique subject that I think would be hard to learn in a bar review class.  It's also pretty interesting.  The rest of the stuff could be learned, but you should probably take at least some of those subjects anyway to gain a fundamental understanding of the law. 

I took Land Transactions, Art. 9, Trusts/Estates, Fed. Tax, Admin. Law, Evidence, Corp and a bunch of other random and/or clinical courses.  You could probably get away without taking Art. 9, Fed. Tax, and Land Transactions but I took those courses because I was interested in those subjects. I'd suggest taking Trusts/Estates the final semester of your 3L year because it requires you review future interests and all that crap, which helps a lot when it comes time to study for the bar.