Wednesday, October 21, 2009

BarBri, Kaplan, and Deposits

As one commenter reminded us: 1Ls, by now your BarBri section rep (or now Kaplan Rep, since BarBri got slapped with a massive class-action antitrust suit, for monopolizing the Bar-prep market) has told you that you should sign up for the BarBri course three years in advance. You SHOULD sign up for BarBri or another prep course, probably, but you should probably not sign up three years in advance, at least in my opinion. To counter what your section reps (who are getting free BarBri classes for their efforts, valued at almost $3k) have been telling you, consider the following reasons why you might not want to give an interest-free loan to a test-prep company just yet...

The reasons are:

(1) There are multiple prep courses out there, some of them way way cheaper than BarBri. Especially if you think you might want to work for public interest, are you sure you want to drop a large deposit down on this course.

(2) Your firm - if you goto a firm - might pay for your course (see the link below for a list of firms that do this), sometimes in the form of a stipend, but also sometimes in the form of a direct-bill. If it's a direct bill - as many firms do - why give the BarBri people money now.

(3) You can always sign up later (i.e. once you have a job secured) and that deposit money is (I would guess) subjectively more valuable to you now as a broke student living off of debt.

(4) The study materials / review lectures alone are probably not worth the money

Check out this previous post for more info. Also, if you think I am a bad writer now, you probably will really dislike my efforts from over a year ago . . .

Just my two cents though - I probably will sign up for BarBri or Kaplan at some point soon, but I'm glad I didn't as a 1L.

Previous:
The UVA Law Blog Gang Explains Why You Might Not Want to Give Kaplan or Bar Bri Your Money Just Yet [UVA Law Blog]

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

You forgot to mention that a lot of 1Ls will probably be dropping out after they get their grades/don't get an offer after 2L OCI. Even if you drop out of law school and never take the bar, you can't get that deposit back.

Anonymous said...

yeah, looking back i shouldnt have paid the deposit. lock in tuition my ass.

Anonymous said...

deposit is $50 as a 1L...and eventually for 2L a total of $250, which is refundable after the course (when you return your books)

Considering you might have to pay for BarBri in three years (likely you don't have a firm gig), saving a few hundred isn't a bad deal.

my 2 cents.

Anonymous said...

A very helpful post - thank you!

Anonymous said...

1L's SAVE YOURSELF! DROP OUT NOW!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Law Weekly authors should spend less time trying to cover up their acts of plagiarism and more time not plagiarizing.

Anonymous said...

plagiarism? explain?

Anonymous said...

http://www.slate.com/id/2228327/

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

i followed your link. all it indicates is that you don't understand what plagiarism is, idiot.

Rule 12 (f) said...

PREVIOUS COMMENT: "Agree with 8:26 - I see no reason why the original post at 2:01 - pointing out the blatant similarities between [redacted]'s column and the Slate article - should have been deleted."

I have a strong presumption against allowing other student's name's in anonymous comments. As I have noted before, this is because there is potential for great harm to a student's reputation when his name appears on these google-searchable comments, there is a strong interest in keeping people's names out - particularly when the comments are anonymous.

This interest is tempered by the journalist's obligation to protect and cultivate the free expression and exchange of ideas and opinions. Thus, in some cases, that presumption against allowing anonymous comments to use people's names can be overcome - one particular case where it might be overcome is where the student has published something, and it that something is what it is being discussed. This is under the theory that the student is essentially putting his name out there for criticism.

Here, however, I made a decision that the alleged charge of plagiarism was incendiary enough that it would do great enough damage to the students reputation. Without passing judgment on the veracity of the accusation one way or the other, I do think that - if it is false - the damage done to the person in question would outweigh any benefits that come about by using this anonymous forum to make the accusation, especially when there are others available (a letter to editor of the LW, for example).

Which is why I deleted the anonymous comments that contained this student's and Law Weekly writer's name. If you would like more info, or would like to express your opinion on this decision, please email me @ rule12f@uvalawblog.com. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Interesting Rule 12(f) - you don't seem to adopt a similar level of care towards other reports and other citations of students' or professors' names.

Anonymous said...

11:42, get more specific, i think he handles things pretty carefully and fairly.

Anonymous said...

What a great resource!