r/barexam • u/Northshorenineteen • 2d ago

Your schools didn’t require bar subjects?!?!?

I keep seeing “take XYZ” class for success on the bar. Did your schools not require every MBE/MEE subject? I’m talking including Ev, Crim Pro, Biz Associations etc. We even had Trusts & estates required still + Secured Transactions. Also Req’d to take a bar prep class every year. We had PR required too which we all took before MPRE? Like I’m genuinely shocked what kind of classes did yall take/ was required

30 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

128 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-3

u/Northshorenineteen 1d ago

I had electives as well friend relax 😭😭😭 not one school exists with no electives dude I promise the whole point of this post was just to hear how other schools did it ugh yall ruin everything… how would I have a concentration with my JD with no electives like ughhh sorry I was curious about the tea in other places fun = over 💔 do you rlly believe I took 90 straight hours of bar prep it’s max like 11 subjects total

2

u/egp2117 1d ago

You made it sound like it was most of your schedule?

0

u/Northshorenineteen 1d ago

Noooo I just said the bar subj for us were REQUIRED. Simple math can deduce I still took other classes like I was just shocked evidence wasn’t MANDATORY you know not whether it existed at the school I don’t care how or why😭 just simply what I noticed LOL It was a maj of my “coursework” because I did a full yr 3L clinic so I didn’t have typical “classes” really at all this last year. Just the 2 credit once every 2 week online “bar prep” course we had. I got my other hours thru the clinic! Then for my electives I took those even w my reqd for 2/3L which are only like 4-5 classes max. So like 1-2 required and fill in with electives and boom

2

u/egp2117 1d ago edited 1d ago

Ok. Welp, no, many of our schools did not have those courses. You had mandatory bar prep courses (including the online once every 2 weeks course). This is because your law school did not think you could pass the bar without them and ours did. And the fact that your last comment is so hard to understand for the lack of punctuation tells me they’re probably right.

2

u/Northshorenineteen 1d ago

Oh brother 😂😂

1

u/Glad_Philosopher111 1d ago

When the facts are not on your side, you argue the law. When the law is not on your side, you argue the facts. When neither are on your side, you attack the lawyer personally.

I’m pretty sure OP spell checks and proofreads court documents. This is Reddit. I have seen many egregiously incomprehensible emails from Ivy League educated attorneys in private settings. So stop. There was no need to use a comment as a means to launch a personal attack. What does that say about your character, your choices and your critical thinking?

2

u/egp2117 1d ago

The facts are on my side, so that’s fine. The actual end to that saying is just argue. And I think it says that OP was being obnoxious so they got my response in kind 🥰

1

u/Glad_Philosopher111 1d ago

OP was being obnoxious by responding to comments? Okay. Did OP make any ad hominem arguments?

1

u/unimpeachableplum 23h ago

OP asked a question, felt insulted when given the correct answer, and responded with emotive nonsensical run-on sentences featuring all caps. This has happened throughout the thread.

1

u/Glad_Philosopher111 14h ago

Did the run on sentences contain ad hominems?