Top Law Schools

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?

Its on the bar and pretty importnat to litigation, but Idk I didn't find it necessary. It was probably the easiest class I've took as far as the law goes and can be learned through barbri if you really don't want to take it.

FWIW, Evidence was one of my more interesting classes. Lots of real-world examples instead of vague conceptual shit. My prof would play video clips from CourtTV and Law & Order all the time.

And it's gonna be helpful for the bar.

I haven't took it yet

Swimp wrote:I haven't took it yet

Worthwhile post.

I would recommend it, even if you plan to just do transactional work. Also, it is pretty important for the bar in every state. It all depends on how committed you are to avoiding a courtroom going forward in your career.

It's definitely one of the most worthwhile classes I took in law school (and I actually enjoyed it), but I had a terrific prof. Yes, you could learn it on your own for the bar (it's rules-based), but I would recommend taking it.

I found it fun, useful, and it's also a bar class. So... I would.

But you don't HAVE to, no.

It should be a required course, you should take it. I think many employers will look for it.

Evidence isn't important unless you want to be a lawyer. I can't believe it isn't a mandatory class. There would be less lawyers disgracing the profession if I can't believe you're asking whether its important to know how to admit evidence in fucking court. You're training to be a lawyer. You spend years reading the informed writings of ancient judges considering evidence and admissibility. People die on the nuance of evidentiary rulings. Of course it matters.

Take evidence, and a pro bono case or two in your life.

Of course, if you want to be a lawyer who find/replaces different terms in contracts or M&A agreements or whatever all the livelong day, evidence probably isn't on your radar.

(I liked evidence. I think people should take it. But you can be a lawyer without it.)

No. But evidence and crim pro can be a lot of fun

NotMyRealName09 wrote:Evidence isn't important unless you want to be a lawyer. I can't believe it isn't a mandatory class. There would be less lawyers disgracing the profession if I can't believe you're asking whether its important to know how to admit evidence in fucking court. You're training to be a lawyer. You spend years reading the informed writings of ancient judges considering evidence and admissibility. People die on the nuance of evidentiary rulings. Of course it matters.

Take evidence, and a pro bono case or two in your life.

Thanks. Pretty sure I didn't ask if evidence matters.

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.

UnfrozenCaveman wrote:

NotMyRealName09 wrote:Evidence isn't important unless you want to be a lawyer. I can't believe it isn't a mandatory class. There would be less lawyers disgracing the profession if I can't believe you're asking whether its important to know how to admit evidence in fucking court. You're training to be a lawyer. You spend years reading the informed writings of ancient judges considering evidence and admissibility. People die on the nuance of evidentiary rulings. Of course it matters.

Take evidence, and a pro bono case or two in your life.

Thanks. Pretty sure I didn't ask if evidence matters.

Pretty sure they were explaining to you why they thought it was necessary.

spleenworship wrote:

UnfrozenCaveman wrote: Thanks. Pretty sure I didn't ask if evidence matters.

Pretty sure they were explaining to you why they thought it was necessary.

Not sure what OP is looking for. The OP knows, obviously, that you don't have to take evidence in the sense that you can obtain a JD without the class. So the posters here reasonably understood the OP's question to mean: "How important is taking Evidence?" Then OP complains when posters respond.

Why would you not want to take Evidence anyway? IMO it's one of the easier classes to take.

I think that learning the rules of evidence for the bar exam for the first time (especially in say NY or Cali) would suck. And if you plan on being a litigator, its probably one of the few remotely useful classes you can take. Its not a must, but I'd take it if I were you. What are the alternative class offerings? Intro to international whale protection law for 3 credits.

Learning hearsay for the bar will be no fun. If you don't have a strong reason to avoid it, I would go ahead.

Magnifique1908 wrote: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?

reasonable_man wrote:

Magnifique1908 wrote: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.

I would take it. It's one of the few bar subjects that a lot of people struggle with even after studying it a ton.

If you want to litigate, absolutely take it. It's one of the most important subjects out there.

Magnifique1908 wrote:

reasonable_man wrote:

Magnifique1908 wrote: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.

This hubris made me smile. I'd write a response, but something tells me you'll "be fine".........this is a dick question, so prove me a dick. Are you on law review?

Evidence was one of those subjects I was very glad I'd taken when I started studying for the bar.

Magnifique1908 wrote:

reasonable_man wrote:

Magnifique1908 wrote: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.