For the second consecutive first day of my criminal procedure course (second consecutive because last semester I had a first day with a different professor), the professor has commenced class with a speech on what this course isn't: a course in criminal procedure.
"[The title of the book implies" it's about criminal procedure. But not really."
The subtext here, of course, that was explicitly driven home by last semester's professor is that if you're taking this class as a "bar class," don't bother. Because this class is better/deeper/different/whatever.
I should be brilliant enough to be able to pass the Bar without spending upwards of $4k on a prep course. But I'm not. In fact, most people aren't. The passage rates with the course training is far higher than without it. Why, then, the $100k legal education? Shouldn't there be some relationship between the preparation you receive in law school and the exam that enables you to practice in the profession for which you were supposedly just trained?
My main objection is to professors who speak with pride on the first day of class on how little their course has to do with the Bar exam. Such rhetoric deflates my hope for the semester.
I don't suppose I have any law professor readers who'd care to comment?