Necessary to take evidence? Forum

[It's A Lion]

Hey all, I am getting ready to figure out what classes I am going to take 3L year. The idea of sitting through an Evidence class for 4 hrs a week sounds miserable. Is it a bad idea to skip the class?

All of the experienced folks are encouraging you to take evidence. What class would you take in place of evidence?

[sd5289]

Evidence is one of those subjects that you will see on the bar, no question. Not to mention it's one of those subjects that's relevant to far more than just a handful of attorneys in a specific area of practice. I would take it (and I did during 2L).

[Magnifique1908]

There are a lot of subjects that are on the bar but no one takes every single one of those subjects in law school.

I've heard that evidence is easy to learn for the bar and I honestly have no plans to take it (rising 3L). But I also took secured credit/transactions because I never wanted to encounter that beast for the first time in BarBri. I also had a great professor. Some of my friends refuse to take that course. It's going to be relative for each person.

Plan to work in environmental/real estate law after graduation. I have learned some evidence rules as a result of working in administrative law settings (enviro stuff) and I'm sure the course might be useful buuuuut I'm still not taking it lol.

You do realize that secured transactions may be a small part of one essay (mixed into a bigger question and is usually not even tested at all) and can be answered by referring to Article 9 and blabbering something about priorities of creditors whereas 30 MBE questions and as many as 2 essays will cover evidence?

I don't think it matters that much. Most law students learn what they need to for a law school exam over the course of a few days at the end of a semester. Some do this without having attended more than a few classes (if any). I don't see that as being any different than studying for a subject on the bar exam when I haven't taken the class in law school. I'm fairly certain I'll be fine either way.

Evidence is quite different than most law school classes and learning it for the first time for the bar would be a bear. You're giving advice on something that you quite literally know nothing about. But based on the arrogance found in your response, I'd bet that you do that often. You'll be in a position to decide if taking evidence was necessary only after you get your bar results and not a second before. There is more evidence related subject matter on the bar than probably contracts and real property put together, but yet you're advocating that someone not take evidence (having never sat for a bar exam yourself).

I skipped a class for a semester in 3L and got a CALI. I get that its possible to learn much of the law on your own. I do that quite often in actual practice. But trying to synthesize evidence (one of the most heavily tested areas of law on the bar exam) in a few short days is both foolish and unnecessary. That's why many schools require it. But what do I know, I've only been practicing law since before you took an LSAT.]

You can breathe now. I never advocated that OP not take the class. I simply gave him an anecdote from one person who had also mulled over the same decision and decided against it. Reading is fundamental.

Second, you don't know my background. There was no condescension or arrogance in my post whatsoever. I'm not even that kind of person. Calm yourself. I'm not completely clueless about Evidence and the rules because I worked several years prior to law school. It's probably easier for me to confidently pass on the class than it would be for OP.

Everyone is sharing their personal experiences in response to the question. I simply did that. You guys need to find your chill. He's going to take everything into consideration and do what works for him anyway.

[Magnifique1908]

Sorry the quote got all wonky. It's my phone's fault, not mine lol.

[sd5289]

^ Not sure what part of the above post is quoted and what's original, but I would say that almost everyone can agree (to varying degrees) that having exposure to a subject prior to the bar exam is more preferable than not. Even if the prof isn't that great, you'll at least have exposure to concepts like hearsay, best evidence rule, relevance vs prejudice, authentication of evidence, etc. So then the question becomes whether this is a class where it's better to have that advantage or not.

I stand by my original position: this is a subject (unlike other more obscure subjects) where it's practically guaranteed that you'll see it on the bar exam. It is also a subject that you're more likely than not to run across in practice. I can understand someone who's 100% opposed to doing anything criminal avoiding Crim Pro (another guaranteed suspect on the bar), but Evidence is quite relevant to many different types of practitioners.

[Magnifique1908]

^ Not sure what part of the above post is quoted and what's original, but I would say that almost everyone can agree (to varying degrees) that having exposure to a subject prior to the bar exam is more preferable than not. Even if the prof isn't that great, you'll at least have exposure to concepts like hearsay, best evidence rule, relevance vs prejudice, authentication of evidence, etc. So then the question becomes whether this is a class where it's better to have that advantage or not.

I stand by my original position: this is a subject (unlike other more obscure subjects) where it's practically guaranteed that you'll see it on the bar exam. It is also a subject that you're more likely than not to run across in practice. I can understand someone who's 100% opposed to doing anything criminal avoiding Crim Pro (another guaranteed suspect on the bar), but Evidence is quite relevant to many different types of practitioners.

I respect this answer. I actually learned from some of the (nicer) posts. I have an aversion to all things Lit after working in biglaw Lit, in house, and service of process for a statutory agent prior to law school. I steered clear for that reason even knowing it was on the bar (and having learned the rules on the job without the benefit of a law school lecture... Ugh).

I still don't know if I'll get around to taking it, not as much due to my dislike but rather because my classes are set for the fall and I'm not sure if I can swing a 4 credit big class next spring. But we'll see. Your (and some others) response has been helpful to consider if nothing else. Maybe OP has decided to take the class because of it.