tiers of upper-level courses in terms of being fundamental

[lsat_fear]

There're a number of threads asking whether a particular upper-level course is basically required in order to be a well-rounded lawyer, in that they have implications that cut across basically every practice area. I'm thinking that lots of courses arguably fit into this category, but not all to the same extent. Here's a rough tiering of such courses, based solely on advice I've gleaned from this board, talking to lawyers and judges, and law school faculty. The list is entirely open to input from everyone, and is just meant to start a good discussion.

Tier I: If you don't take these, there's a hole in your legal education.

Evidence
Con Law (if not a first year course for you)
Business Organizations or Corporations

Tier II: People generally assume that you know some detail about these areas.

Administrative Law
Income Tax
Conflicts
Fed Courts or Jurisdiction

Tier III: These will probably impact your cases or transactions in your career, even if you don't practice in them.

Criminal Procedure
Wills/Trusts/Estates
Family Law
Bankruptcy
Secured Transactions
Mortgages or Real Estate Transactions

[Tsispilos]

I'm surprised that neither Law and Literature nor Gender Jurispurdence made the list.