Open Thread: How Does Everyone Like Bar/Bri So Far?
Revised and updated; please see after the jump.
It looks like there may have been a mini-riot at the Bar/Bri lecture today. Apparently some students felt that the Con Law lecturer wasn’t entirely on top of all the salient issues. We heard from a few of them; here is one report:
I’m one of thousands of BarBri students studying for the New York Bar. I attend one of the Video locations. Today’s lecture was Constitutional Law. The lecturer was Professor Cristina Rodriguez from NYU. She was horrendous. Not only as a speaker/lecturer, but … she also got some points of law wrong on the handout. Barbri had re-recorded the lecture, which is available later today. At my location, students left midway through the lecture. I don’t plan on going to the lecture tomorrow.Of all the con law profs, how did Barbri end up with one of the worst? Is that all I get with my thousands of tuition dollars?
After the jump, an email that BarBri sent to its students about the Con Law lecture.
UPDATE: Please note that this post has been revised in various respects since it was originally published. In addition, please see the addendum, after the jump.
Again, I haven’t seen the lecture, but something prompted the Bar/Bri people to send the following email to students:
Course Administrators will be making announcements tomorrow to clarify certain points in Professor Rodriguez’s Constitutional Law I Handout.Upon review of student notes from Day II of the LIVE presentation, it appears that no such clarifications will be necessary for Day II.
Additionally, Professor Rodriguez’s Constitutional Law I lecture that will be posted online later today, was recorded today at our New York Course location in DC where no clarifications were necessary.
Online access to the Constitutional Law I lecture will not count as a “click” under the lecture make-up policy.
Oh dear. Angering students while they are studying for the bar — in the middle of the crappiest legal economy they’ve ever heard about — sounds more dangerous than being a fly around the President.
But perhaps students can learn an important lesson from this. How important do you really think the lectures are? The Bar/Bri books already provide you with every scintilla of information you need to pass the bar.
Good luck, test takers. Remember to save up some of that building anxiety and fear for July — that is when the explosions get really fun.
UPDATE: Our original post did not include the other side of the story. After we published, several sources wrote in to provide it. Here’s what one wrote:
Here’s the list of corrections from the BarBri lecture that everyone was up in arms about. About half of them are misprints in the outline. Most of the others people would have gotten if they listened to what the professor said instead of half-paying attention and just looking to fill in the outline. Another example of law students whining when they aren’t spoonfed.
And here’s what a second said:
I was really kind of pissed, to be honest, to see the story on ATL this afternoon. Obviously it was a big deal to a lot of students and so I understand why you saw fit to post it, but I figured I would forward this to you and let you know how minor the errors were (if you care). For the record, except for the “Privileges and Immunities” vs. “Privileges or Immunities” slip (if it is one), she quickly corrected herself with respect to all the other errors. She misspoke a few times, as is clear from the Clarifications email, but it was nowhere NEAR as bad as the commenters would have you believe. I think people just got bent out of shape because they expected Rhodes Scholar/SCOTUS clerks to be infallible.
The list of clarifications appears below. It seems that some students had difficulty following the outline when the professor deviated from the script (which requires paying some attention to what is actually being said, as opposed to playing legal Mad Libs). We also understand that the BarBri folks also don’t see any substantive issue here — just a few students who had trouble following occasional deviations from the outline (perhaps because they weren’t paying close attention).
(295) 
Comments
Yeah, but I bet she really knew how to empathize.
Doesn't Chemerinsky usually do the Con Law Lecture?
FIRST
still first.
First to say you'll never use Con Law again!!!!!!!!
i was there. it sucked. btw-first!
i was there. it sucked. btw-first!
San Dimas High School Football Rules!!!
Cristina Rodriguez may know nothing about Con Law, but she clearly has what it takes to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
PIEPER PEOPLE PASS!
Your first mistake was signing up with BarBri.
FIRST
still first.
OMFG that was horrible. almost 3:40 hours wasted in a fucking room watching this video and I must now read the conviser. This is no time for an evil experiment Barbi!
Jesus christ do these cretins remember nothing from 1L? I was at the Fordham morning lecture and I saw people thoroughly befuddled because OHMYGOD SHE'S NOT STICKING EXACTLY TO THE SCRIPT WHAT AM I GOING TO PUT IN THIS BLANK
I feel sorry for their future clients and employers. Hey retards, try thinking for a second or two.
It's too bad because back in 1980 Con Law was one of the most enjoyable areas of study, along with contracts, which that professor set to music lyrics.
You wouldn't think an additional 30 years would add so much complexity!!!
Si senor, si, I know is constitution. Si Si.
They should give students the option of watching Chemerinsky!
PIEPER PEOPLE PASS!
Your first mistake was signing up with BarBri.
This news comes as no surprise to those who know Cristina from law school or her clerkships.
PIEPER PEOPLE PASS!
Your first mistake was signing up with BarBri.
Who needs a constitution, Obama and the media have established a realm that Stalin would be proud of....
Comment removed by moderator.
It was bad. Real bad.
The lecture was pretty miserable. I'll be interested to see how long it takes to clear up all of the mistakes in it. But it happens. Bar Review lecturing is inherently different than real lecturing, and it takes practice to become skilled.
Frankly, I'm not as upset at her as I am at BarBri for letting this happen. They had to know before today that there were problems with this recording. Why was it that we only learned AFTER the class that BarBri recorded a new version of the lecture and we can watch it online? Why not just have us watch the improved one in the first place and save us from the debacle that was today? They had a week to fix it.
Oh well.
Good thing I was really hungover this morning and didn't really pay attention to that crapfest.
Where's my gas bong?
:rips:
Affirmative action delivers again!!
She was pretty bad. I don't think she ever got the law entirely wrong, but there were a number of times where she misspoke and her outline was not well-organized.
How can a Rhodes scholar be so terrible?
Chemerinsky still gave the California barbri (video) lectures on Con Law (even at the NYU location).
I thought he was a poor lecturer compared to the others I've seen so far this summer, but at least all of his points of law seemed correct.
The BarBri kids shouldn't worry, If their answers are consistent with what Professor Rodriguez taught, then they cannot be marked wrong (which would be racist).
- SotomayOR!
No es bueno?
No. No es bueno.
Those of you making not-so-subtle anti-affirmative action arguments should take note:
She's a Rhodes Scholar.
She clerked for Judge Tatel of the DC circuit and
Sandra Day O'Connor at SCOTUS.
Sure Tatel is left-leaning, but O'Connor is not. That's not an AA resume.
Having said all that, it's blatantly obvious that she made mistakes left and right. She probably knows her stuff. But her_execution_and_delivery_was just horrible, probably a case of bad nerves. She'll have to practice alot more at home in front of a mirror or be video-taped.
They were still booing her when we came on stage.
CA bar got Chemerinski. Since it is all Federal law anyway, Barbri should just give everyone access to that.
Schneiders, Table Eight .............. This IS the Levi Bar Mitzvah, correct?
Affirmative action delivers again!!
Is the "revised" lecture already up on the barbri site? Anyone seeing it?
It wasnt as bad as they are making it out to be. It was worse! And 12 must be an idiot b/c the lecturer repeatedly misstated the law (usually correcting herself, but who knows) and misstating key words such as "unless", "but", "if" and "only if". That recording was intended to confuse! BarBri should be ashamed of itself, but more so NYU for hiring this woman as a professor of constitutional law!
14- you're an ass.
it was not THAT BAD. yes it was annoying for 3 minutes but mostly i think people were just bored b/c the lecture was long and dry.
I wonder what "points of law" were wrong. Despite being disjointed, and long, and a bit boring, all I noticed were omissions and oversimplifications typical to help us overworked bar students. But maybe I'm oversimplifying.
Comment removed by moderator.
That was absolutely horrible!!!
I don't want to watch her again on this rerecorded video.
I agree that they should allow us to watch Chemerinsky's lecture from another location.
New York law students showing disgust towards someone??? What is this world coming to?
I had Rodriguez for Con Law in law school and she was awesome. The racist comments are very classy. I hope none of you are lawyers.
Jesus, all of you must be huge idiots -- she was boring as shit and messed up on some of the blanks, but it wasn't that bad. Stop crying because you had to cross out a couple of times while filling in the handout.
Why would BarBri allow such a young professor (JD 2000) to teach ConLaw?
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
C-Rod was an AWESOME Con Law prof for class in law school (but I admit she was terrible today...I walked out in the middle).
First to say tomorrows lecture is going to be just as fucked as today's was, despite BarBri's meaningless assumption that "no such clarifications will be necessary for Day II".
I was there in person. Several people in a row approached her on one same point at the first break of the first day. She was on the defensive and palpably, but demurely agitated, as though she knew things were amiss if not awry.
Why would BarBri allow such a young professor (JD 2000) to teach ConLaw?
I took NY BarBri in the winter in preparation for the February bar exam and we had Professor Rodriguez and I distinctly remember filling out an evaluation at the end of the course giving her a 0 and telling them she was a terrible lecturer and was completely unclear and inept. I don't understand how or why she was not replaced by the time this summer class came around. That's absurd. No wonder students were up in arms. The woman is incompetent.
SCOTUS doesn't mean you can teach, as clearly evidenced by the TERRIBLE lecture today. Barbri had a week to fix this and they didn't, shame on them.
SCOTUS doesn't mean you can teach, as clearly evidenced by the TERRIBLE lecture today. Barbri had a week to fix this and they didn't, shame on them.
I took Professor Rodriguez' Con Law class 1L year here at NYU. I feel badly for her today because (1) I don't think the errors are as bad as people are making them out to be and (2) she's an AMAZING professor.
As her students will know, she basically invented the Socratic Method. She's one of very few professors who, even at NYU, *gets* what legal teaching is supposed to be. And, she's an all-around good person.
The BarBri method of legal teaching - where independent thought is dangerous, and all professors have to do is read a handout - clearly doesn't play to her strengths.
Sitting through these things is bad enough. Imagine if you had to be the one sitting at the podium, without Above the Law or whatever web site you prefer, and reading this mind-numbing material. I don't think I'd be able to get through an hour of FedCourts-for-First-Graders. Give her a break.
I was at NYU this morning. Yea, it was bad. Someone actually "boo'd" and that was pretty awesome. Booing a videotape, in the first hour! Amazing.
Very boring, but nothing THAT out of the usual. However, after finders v. BFP, the first thing you learn in school is not to mess with a neurotic law student.
I was there in person. Several people in a row approached her on one same point at the first break of the first day. She was on the defensive and palpably, but demurely agitated, as though she knew things were amiss if not awry.
Jesus, all of you must be huge idiots -- she was boring as shit and messed up on some of the blanks, but it wasn't that bad. Stop crying because you had to cross out a couple of times while filling in the handout.
I was at NYU this morning. Yea, it was bad. Someone actually "boo'd" and that was pretty awesome. Booing a videotape, in the first hour! Amazing.
Very boring, but nothing THAT out of the usual. However, after finders v. BFP, the first thing you learn in school is not to mess with a neurotic law student.
I was at the DC location today, and while she sucked, and definitely missed some boxes in the outline, who cares? It isn't like the future of my legal career is on the line or anything.
My favorite moment was this gem:
The standard for a law being valid under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment is congruence and proportionality. This means that it must be congruent and proportional.
I was there in person. Several people in a row approached her on one same point at the first break of the first day. She was on the defensive and palpably, but demurely agitated, as though she knew things were amiss if not awry.
What a bunch of spoiled babies.
She made the slightest deviations from the handout lecture, but other than that it was fine. The audio was kinda bad, but that's not her fault.
It was fine and the people complaining are whiny little bitches.
There was some balding douche wearing an SBA ski trip to snowshoe 2009 t-shirt (probably from Georgetown Law Junior i.e. GW) who shouted "you suck" at the screen, when she fumbled her remarks.
I was thinking, wow, this (really ugly) douche who hasn't even passed the bar, is getting all worked up about the con-law lecture?
Please, this shit was easy compared to MS Real Property and NY Practice.
BarBri had to do pretty much the same thing with the family law lecture in NC this week.
36: I'm sorry, all I hear is WAH WAH WAH WAH SPOONFEED ME EVERYTHING I DON'T WANT TO READ THE OUTLINE TO DOUBLE CHECK
-12
It's not unreasonable to expect these professors to have their shit down cold. If she appeared palpably lacking in confidence, it's understandable why students would be upset. If you see her making little mistakes, you have to wonder about what mistakes she is making that you are not seeing.
Barbri lectures are for pussies.
This is not isolated to NY - we had Rodriguez here in Maryland and she has been the absolute WORST lecturer by far. The only impressive thing about her is her credentials - but those are no reason for her to be lecturing for Bar/Bri. It's actually shameful that, after spending nearly $3000 for this "course," we have to sit through a lecture that could easily be completed in a single day - but for the constant repetition of the printed material - by my far-less-credentialed Con Law II professor. Sigh.
I took Professor Rodriguez' Con Law class 1L year here at NYU. I feel badly for her today because (1) I don't think the errors are as bad as people are making them out to be and (2) she's an AMAZING professor.
As her students will know, she basically invented the Socratic Method. She's one of very few professors who, even at NYU, *gets* what legal teaching is supposed to be. And, she's an all-around good person.
The BarBri method of legal teaching - where independent thought is dangerous, and all professors have to do is read a handout - clearly doesn't play to her strengths.
Sitting through these things is bad enough. Imagine if you had to be the one sitting at the podium, without Above the Law or whatever web site you prefer, and reading this mind-numbing material. I don't think I'd be able to get through an hour of FedCourts-for-First-Graders. Give her a break.
Kaplan is worse............my God they screw everything up.
55 - didn't Socrates invent the Socratic Method? idiot.
Although I am grief stricken over the loss of my Afghan hound, Algernon, I have enough fortitude to comment on this story. Besides, my flight back home has been delayed by the rain (LaGuardia is a mess but thankfully no sighting of louts such as the Skadden staff attorney that cried over a "blindsighted" termination).
Ms. Rodriguez may have an impressive resume and it clearly fooled the faculty committee at NYU. This is one of the reasons why I have routinely passed over on hiring an NYU Law grad. What kind of misinformed garbage do they teach there? As for professors that have multiple law review articles published, beware. Those articles were mostly written and edited by research assistants. Scary to think in a few weeks Congress will be confirming a fellow "latina" to the SC. Let us hope the nominee knows as much about constitutional law as she does about usurping congressional powers by legislating from the bench.
Bring back Paula!!!!
64 - you can compete for who is more of a hardass, or you can expect a law professor to know her fucking job. These people owe it to you to get it right. Your job should be internalizing material, not correcting mistakes. You can't just say, "if you don't like, you are a cry baby." The buck stops with the professor, not with the student.
55 - she invented the socratic method!?!?!? She just passed the bar in 2000! You just lost all credibility!
Comment removed by moderator.
@64 - Exactly.
55 - I'm pretty sure the socratic method was around long before Rodriguez graduated from law school in 2000. Just saying.
Comment removed by moderator.
Rodriguez is a Rhodes scholar. I'm sure she's brilliant at something. But that something is not Con Law. She has absolutely no business being a lecturer or a professor. Rodriguez needs to get away from teaching law. Right now.
Kind of throws some reality onto Scalia's "best and the brightest go to Yale so only they make good clerks" comment.
Comment removed by moderator.
@55...I'm pretty sure that Socrates basically invented the Socratic method.
I suffered through the CA BarBri Chemerinsky lectures a few years ago. They were AWFUL.
But she has a wise Latina perspective...
Only hysterical nerds freak out about Bar/Bri lectures. Relax, enjoy the sunshine and start studying after the July 4th weekend. If you are not a complete moron, you can crack the books, self study for three weeks and pass with a comfortable margin. Jesus.
I suggest that both Yale (where she graduated) and NYU (where she now teaches) should be docked US news rankings for producing & employing a lecturer that terrible.
If everyone takes barbri then everyone has the same answer and therefore that answer is the right answer, even if its wrong. The worst thing that you can start doing while studying for the bar is thinking. Just input and output.
Who cares, that prof is a cutie.
This is not isolated to NY - we had Rodriguez here in Maryland and she has been the absolute WORST lecturer by far. The only impressive thing about her is her credentials - but those are no reason for her to be lecturing for Bar/Bri. It's actually shameful that, after spending nearly $3000 for this "course," we have to sit through a lecture that could easily be completed in a single day - but for the constant repetition of the printed material - by my far-less-credentialed Con Law II professor. Sigh.
30 here.
39 are you stupid or something? Not everyone at YLS get prestigious judicial clerkships. If a YLS student had bad grades and were just riding on YLS prestige, it would still be pretty darn difficult to score a prestigious clerkship.
Sure I'll concede your point, her LSAT is probably not within the average range. On the other hand, you're not even addressing my point. But I pointed out the entries in her resume that have nothing to do with the LSAT. Read carefully.
Comment removed by moderator.
I skipped the lectures after the first week. The time was better spent reading the materials on my own.
I was at the new live taping at GW today and the new lecture to be posted fixes all the problems mentioned. It only runs 3:20 (with breaks) and she went slow enough that I was able to type along with no problems.
55 - didn't Socrates invent the Socratic Method? idiot.
76=64
12/64 you're a D-Bag! I didn't pay 3K-plus to read the material myself. I could have saved my money and done that on my own ya jerkoff. Its you're clients I feel bad for who will likely have standing against you for malpractice! Now if only I knew what standing was after today's debacle. . .
-36
I took Con Law with Rodriguez - have to say it was excellent. She definitely knew her stuff and was a great teacher.
As a UCONN student I can relate to shitty Constitutional Law professors....
Rodriguez did for BarBri what Collins did for sports news. Boom goes the dynamite!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQMMxgcoq5c
Wow. For a group of people who are supposed to be educated, so many of you are acting like idiots. Yes, the lecture was a little unorganized. And yes, she didn't always stick to the script/handout. Which meant that you had to actually listen to her points, synthesize the information, and then write notes. How terrible of her to make us think. Was it an ideal lecture? No. But don't you think you're overreacting *just* a little bit here? And for those of you who were completely lost, that's all on you. You all took Con Law in school and should be familiar with these concepts. And you should have read last night before class. If you didn't, you have yourself to blame, and come July 28th you'll have bigger issues than your messy handout.
Chemerinsky was a decent lecturer at my BarBri three years ago. Dorky, no doubt, but to this day, I still remember that the federal government only has MILD police powers.
I wonder why he's only shown in California. I understand he's the new dean at UC Irvine, but Con Law is pretty much the same everywhere.
As a public service announcement, I thought I'd tell all you unemployed lawyers this:
Cal-uh-forn-ya,
is nice to the homeless.
Cal-uh-forn-ya,
super-cool to the homeless.
In the city,
Marina Del Rey.
They take really good care,
of all their homeless.
Come on now, everybody. This didn't strike me as an ATL-worthy mess-up. "News Flash: Uncharasmatic professor jumbles a rarely tested doctrine, confuses students."
Yea, she was a weak lecturer. And she had a couple of points that were muddled. So you get the clarification tomorrow, and you move on. You are freaking out, and it's only June 18th. I can't even imagine what you asslobsters will be like on July 18th.
Final Note: If she made an incorrect statement, but everyone believed it and applied it on the test, then that question will get thrown out.
@80 - it was a joke.
@89 - you're the reason the site hides comments.
-55
Do you really need that much help on Con Law? It was the easiest part of the bar exam.
**Hey, at least they consulted with "student notes" to make sure a clarification of the next lecture won't be necessary!
I have never commented on here before, but...
67,
"She basically invented the Socratic method"
I had to laugh out loud at that one.
I watched the lecture. Like most people, she occassionally misspoke but always seemed to clarify it and restate the point correctly. I don't think she made any errors of law, and if she did, they certainly weren't glaring.
The handful of people who are complaining are really blowing it all out of proportion. So she is teaching an abstract subject and didn't sing and dance or bring in laser ray guns -- that doesn't mean you have to get up in arms.
30/88 - Sorry if my point was too subtle, but I implied that but for the boost she received on admission to Yale, she would never go on to do the other things, which, in turn, she could not have done without a Yale degree. Dollars to donuts that she didn't break 170.
There were so many things wrong with this lecture besides her getting the law occasionally wrong.
The handout is terribly organized. Instead of "blanking out" key words and having us fill them in, she just blanked out random words/sentences that are repeated elsewhere.
She doesn't define anything. Examples:
"Ripeness - is the case ripe for review?
Requires Hardship - (blank for definition) Plaintiff will suffer hardship
REALLY? THE DEFINITION OF HARDSHIP IS THAT THE PLAINTIFF WILL SUFFER HARDSHIP? HOLY SHIT THAT IS AN INCREDIBLE INSIGHT!!!
All of the hypos use case names, after she went on a 10 minute diatribe about how case names aren't important. Awesome.
Instead of re-stating something a different way, you know, to aid in understanding, she just repeated things over and over and over again. This is why it took 4 hours to get through 33 pages of very spaced out notes.
She constantly felt the need to add background, which is exactly what a BarBri lecture is supposed to filter out. I understand that lecturing a real law school class is much different than lecturing for barbri, but that's no excuse when I'm paying 3 grand to learn from the best.
We should all get to watch the Chemerinsky lecture and a written apology from BarBri for that mess. I would rather watch an abortion than go to the second half of this lecture tomorrow.
Comment removed by moderator.
Anyone defending that lecture today went to NYU.
75: You know what's a great way to internalize material? RECOGNIZING AND CORRECTING MISTAKES THAT SOMEONE ELSE MAKES!
I saw so many people getting lost because they were filling in the blanks like the little fill-in-the-blank monkeys they are. A little common sense would've actually helped them digest the material better, but NOOO, their first instinct is to COMPLAIN COMPLAIN COMPLAIN.
-64
55 = epic fail of the year.
99 - What's wrong with living in an RV by the beach? I have a right to park and live wherever I want. You must be jealous because you have to go work every day while I sell meth out of my sweet ride.
White privilege at its finest displayed on this board. A bunch of entitled pricks who couldn't prevent yourself from bitching and moaning in order to hear herself correct her mistakes. Yea she made them but she corrected herslef! Your inability to adjust to a situation makes me hopeful that 30% of the bar population will be dumber than me.
two questions:
Any guesses as to how much BarBri pays the lecturers?
Is it considered "prestigious" to lecture for BarBri or is it just for profs who need some extra cash?
stop complaining - none of you will find jobs, even if you pass the bar
We had Chemerinsky in LA. He was quite good (if a bit robotic) and has the entire lecture memorized, no less.
A lot of people were hating on me for completely adoring Paula the past three days, but now, I am vindicated. No one has even come close to surpassing Paula in (1) presentation of the law (aside from the silly songs, she was well-spoken, appropriately paced, and quite clear) and (2) sweetness, as in, she really loves us and wants us to do well. I really love her!
... MOAR BAREBACK
99 - What's wrong with living in an RV by the beach? I have a right to park and live wherever I want. You must be jealous because you have to go work every day while I sell meth out of my sweet ride.
60 - thanks for the congruence and proportionality standard, must have drifted off into a bored daze at that point... wonder how much else is not in my notes
62 - we were in the same room and I wanted to smack that kid in the SBA t-shirt. It was annoying, but not as annoying as that Real Property woman.
Comment removed by moderator.
Chemerinsky's joke about almost getting fired at both Duke and UCI was pretty good
I took Con Law from Professor Rodriguez at NYU her first year teaching the class (Spring 2005). I actually thought she was one of the better professors that I had, although she was a bit rough the first couple of weeks. I assume this is her first year lecturing for BarBri. Sorry to hear she sucked, but calm down people, they can't all sing to you like Franzese.
Bar takers should refrain from posting. I swear I saw the same pattern of responses three or four times in a row.
Any truth to the rumors that Kash's ass lobster is lecturing for Bar/Bri tomorrow?
SMU's Linda Eads for GA's Evidence is at LEAST as awful as Rodriguez. Students also walked out on her, as she couldn't even read her own outline, much less organize the material or teach it. She repeatedly stated the wrong answers for the relevance hypos. Barbri, WTF? Why do you persist in hiring incompetent dumbasses to teach some subjects? The majority of the lecturers are excellent, but Eads was fucking terrible. My sympathies to SMU for having to listen to her the rest of the year.
her exact quote: "...the law must be proportional and congruent. what that means is that the law must be proportional and congruent to the reason it was passed..." WTF?
BRING BACK PAULA FRANZESE!
12 - you have more problems than you realize. I suggest you get studying. Now!
This would never happen on Isla Nublar.
Chemerinsky is to Con Law what Rodriguez is to missing the toilet bowl when you pee
This would never happen on Isla Nublar.
Re: 117
Did you like Paula better than the torts guy?
lulz
"I would rather watch an abortion than go to the second half of this lecture tomorrow"
I was at DC today. She skipped 2 blanks (yeah, that's probably 2 too many), and wasnt very exciting, but I wouldnt say she was horrible. Makes me curious to see what the first video was like...
As a side note, they told us last week that today's lecture would be recorded live for us, so obviously they knew something was seriously wrong with the first taping. Makes me wonder why they still had everyone at the other locations suffer through it.
As another side note, a lot of you are racist and/or douchebags. Just thougt you should know.
Paula Franzese can make me penne alla vodka anytime she wants.....
62 - we were in the same room and I wanted to smack that kid in the SBA t-shirt. It was annoying, but not as annoying as that Real Property woman.
Comment removed by moderator.
114, I wondered that myself. Regardless, Professor Schechter is by far the best lecturer I have ever had.
94: you're =/= your
I am now outright weeping for your future clients and employers.
-12/64
for a summary of how bad the lecture was, see hypo 20. My notes that follow are:
Yes, b/c it's the means to effectuate its power to raise an army (note: Congress has broad power)
What a waste of time
@80 - it was a joke.
@89 - you're the reason the site hides comments.
-55
I was at DC today. She skipped 2 blanks (yeah, that's probably 2 too many), and wasnt very exciting, but I wouldnt say she was horrible. Makes me curious to see what the first video was like...
As a side note, they told us last week that today's lecture would be recorded live for us, so obviously they knew something was seriously wrong with the first taping. Makes me wonder why they still had everyone at the other locations suffer through it.
As another side note, a lot of you are racist and/or douchebags. Just thought you should know.
She's, what 35? I guess everyone was shocked that BARBRI had a lecturer who wasn't a white guy over the age of 70.
Comment removed by moderator.
her exact quote: "...the law must be proportional and congruent. what that means is that the law must be proportional and congruent to the reason it was passed..." WTF?
All -
It was a joke. I'm well aware Socrates invented the Socratic method (setting questions of historiography aside). Hyperbole can, sometimes, be humorous.
-55
I took Con Law with Rodriguez at NYU. She's a great teacher, a really nice person, and ended up being a clerkship recommender for me. That said, I could see how her style of teaching wouldn't vibe with the BarBri, black/white, fill-in-the-blank style of teaching. This does not mean she's a bad teacher outside the BarBri setting. Anyone who's been to law school and taken BarBri ought to know the difference.
Those suggesting that she's some AA/moron don't know what they're talking about. She's brilliant.
On an unrelated note, 71 can go to hell. Hey "partner," what are you doing trolling comments on a snarky website for young lawyers/students anyway?
145--no, I think it was more that they were shocked that she didn't know what the fuck she was doing.
She's, what 35? I guess everyone was shocked that BARBRI had a lecturer who wasn't a white guy over the age of 70.
I took Con Law with Rodriguez at NYU. She's a great teacher, a really nice person, and ended up being a clerkship recommender for me. That said, I could see how her style of teaching wouldn't vibe with the BarBri, black/white, fill-in-the-blank style of teaching. This does not mean she's a bad teacher outside the BarBri setting. Anyone who's been to law school and taken BarBri ought to know the difference.
Those suggesting that she's some AA/moron don't know what they're talking about. She's brilliant.
On an unrelated note, 71 can go to hell. Hey "partner," what are you doing trolling comments on a snarky website for young lawyers/students anyway?
39/106.
Now you're actually changing your point. That's not what you said before. Don't even try to be a smart-aleck and pretend to have made a point that you did not even remotely make before.
You're not convincing when you say "Oops I meant to imply this instead."
NYU is a TTT
I took the Feb bar and after sitting through that professor's lecuture I had to complain... It was terrible!!! They said that they were "testing her out" and b/c she was a Rhodes Scholar, lawyer, professor and former SCOTUS clerk, she was extremely qualified. I'm sure glad they got to test her out again!
Unfortunately, my dog could have followed Chemerinsky's outline better.... Kiddies, don't bother going to tomorrow's lecture, you'll learn more studying on your own!
39/106.
Now you're actually changing your point. That's not what you said before. Don't even try to be a smart-aleck and pretend to have made a point that you did not even remotely make before.
You're not convincing when you say "Oops I meant to imply this instead."
Everyone knows Yale/Harvard/Princeton give great opportunities. That's why we gun for these schools. Why would you make such an obvious point is beyond me.
WOW- now Im just a rising 2L, but it sounds to me like Bar/Bri had better be ready to defend some Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Section 90 claims.
OK: we get it.. she didn't define proportional. If you need someone to tell you what that means, you're a moron.
And 113, I'm with you -- thank god these idiots are taking the same test as I am!
39/106.
Now you're actually changing your point. That's not what you said before. Don't even try to be a smart-aleck and pretend to have made a point that you did not even remotely make before.
You're not convincing when you say "Oops I meant to imply this instead."
Everyone knows Yale/Harvard/Princeton give great opportunities. That's why we gun for these schools. Why you would make such an obvious point is beyond me.
If you think that the Con Law lecture was terrible, wait until Agency and Partnership. Sitting through it was 3 hours of sheer misery, even relative to Con Law.
worst part of this whole thing is bar bri's apathy. they refuse to give out a completed copy of the handout with corrected answers. their solution is to have us waste another 3 hours of our lives re-watching the re-tape from the DC lecture today.
no thank you.
You're all a bunch of pussies!
Go study the damn law instead of getting all caught up in a few "corrections" from a Professor.
wah wah wah.
Comment removed by moderator.
That lecture wasn't so bad. Its not easy to not understand when someone isn't not using double and triple negatives for 3 hours. I mean come on!
I blame Bar/Bri. They had a week to figure out that this lecture was really poor and didn't do anything about it until it was too late. Why did they let us sit through 4 hours of a bad lecture? Just cancel it and post a better video online.
Now I've sat through that waste of time and feel like I have to start my ConLaw review from scratch.
62 - we were in the same room and I wanted to smack that kid in the SBA t-shirt. It was annoying, but not as annoying as that Real Property woman.
Comment removed by moderator.
Material on the handout was just plain wrong. Has anyone else ever been taught then standing has four elements? According to her:
1. Injury
2. Causation and redressability
3. No-third party standing
4. No generalized grievances
Her #1 and #2 are the three elements, and her #3 and #4 are clarifications of #1. I'd like to see any Con Law book currently used that disagrees.
I had Prof. Rodriguez for Con Law at NYU, and she is a wonderful professor. You people are racist, douche-bags and if you couldn't follow along when she made minor deviations from the script, you are morons, too.
Material on the handout was just plain wrong. Has anyone else ever been taught then standing has four elements? According to her:
1. Injury
2. Causation and redressability
3. No-third party standing
4. No generalized grievances
Her #1 and #2 are the three elements, and her #3 and #4 are clarifications of #1. I'd like to see any Con Law book currently used that disagrees.
98 has it right.
She's not charismatic and did have to repeat herself several times when she flubbed sentences, but I did not detect any actual erroneous statements of the law.
Sure, the handout could have been organized better, but I think that's was equally true of the NY Practice outline.
IF SOMEONE HAS AN EXAMPLE OF AN ERRONEOUS STATEMENT OF LAW I'd love to hear it.
167--Skip it, don't read it. You need someone to moderate your TV watching and internet gambling, too? Pussy.
SO GLAD I DIDNT GO TO CLASS TODAY!
As she is a professor at NYU, I was completely unsurprised.
-CLS
159,
I happen to be aware that Princeton has always avoided having a law school. We claim Sotamayor only for her brilliance as an undergrad, where she outclassed all my white male buddies and me.
I think Conviser maybe went there too, not sure. But that's as close as we get to this fiasco!!
Comment removed by moderator.
I was at the lecture this morning, and there were times that the whole class was laughing at how ridiculous the lecture was. She messed up on the actual law, on the bottom of page 14, and in my opinion had a condescending attitude. And how can someone think that people sitting for the bar might be too young to remember Kenneth Star and Clinton v. Jones. This is a bad hiring by BarBri, and they only hired her based on her resume.
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
"...activities must have a substantial nexus to the state, in other words, there must be a substantial nexus with the state." - Prof. Rodriguez, BarBri 2009. Waste of my F***ING TIME! She was so idiotically repetitive and obvious in some instances, and so ambiguous and incomplete in others, I was on the verge of prying my eyes out from my pained skull. Talk about adding insult to what is already an injurious process of studying for the bar.
Comment removed by moderator.
I was at the live DC lecture today, and I actually thought she was probably top three best lecturers we have had thus far. It was very succinct and very well put together. I am sure Epstein et al all sucked their first time around too. But, I do agree that BarBri should not have shown the first video when they knew they were going to be rerecording it.
Comment removed by moderator.
Prof. Rodriguez will be a visiting prof at both Harvard and Yale next year. But I guess she's "one of the worst" con law profs because she can't hold your hand through filling out a pre-printed form. Woe is you.
171, give me a break. It's not "wrong" classify things in a slightly different way that other people tend to classify them.
173, Of course I know Princeton does not have a law school. I'm just talking about why people choose these top schools in general.
Stop being an asshole and go jerk off to a Paula Franzese video lecture. That might calm you down a bit.
I find it shocking that this is even a thread. Rodriguez was no worse than the singing lady (who spoke to fast) or the crim pro dude (who spoke too loud) or the NY practice dude. People didn't like it because it was a bit harder to fill in the blanks than normal, but the information she taught us all made sense. She is a great professor. haters.
Comment removed by moderator.
Jesus f-ing christ, how fucking difficult is it to post a goddamn comment one fucking time?!?
Comment removed by moderator.
worst lecture ever.
ipod course - everything pre-recorded and you can make the lectures go at 1.5 speed or 0.75 speed for those slow or fast speakers (I'm looking at you Chemirinsky... you were all 1.5 speed and I even took thorough notes).
189 - site's messed up for some of us. chill out.
Very!
175, Of course I know Princeton does not have a law school. I'm just talking about why people choose these top schools in general.
Stop being an asshole and go jerk off to a Paula Franzese video lecture. That might calm you down a bit.
I was in DC today seeing her live, and I thought she did fine (albeit a little disorganized). I am reading some of these commenters' list off examples from their lecture notes that apparently don't make any sense, but then I look at my notes for the same exact place, and wouldn't you know it, they are much better and make perfect sense. Maybe if these people weren't so busy trying to think of creative posts for ATL and actually paid attention, they would have gotten more out of it.
Elie, please remove 167/188, I'm offended and won't be able to sleep tonight as a result.
Love,
172
"The Fourteenth Amendment TRANSFERS the Bill of Rights to the States"
It's called incorporation. Not "transferance." Rodriguez, you're a idiot. Go back to NYU, and don't ever try to waste anyone else's time ever again.
198, did she actually say that?
187 is right. While I agree she was extremely awkward and nerdy, she did get the law right and just because she flubbed a few lines before correcting herself isn't reason to freak out.
And really, can anyone give an example of a rule of law that she got wrong????
I had her as a con law professor at NYU. She was, by far, the worst professor I had during my time at NYU. She was clearly an AA beneficiary
That lecture was a complete waste of time. Great credentials. Terrible teacher. End of story.
198 - semantics. You're basically the Comic Book Guy of BarBri.
170 - blame BarBri, not her. She's not going to trot out the ridiculously nuanced, multiple levels of federal standing: she's going to throw out a few simple rules that cover MOST of it.
-55
Just so we are clear, the "you suck" comment made at the GW location got a solid laugh and was clearly meant as a joke. No one was getting worked up.
Comment removed by moderator.
FOR ALL THOSE WHO TOOK THE BAR...
Let's bring affirmative action back to white folks.
--George W. Bush
FOR ALL THOSE WHO TOOK THE BAR...
FOR ALL THOSE WHO TOOK THE BAR...
doesn't the picture of the Javit Center make you want to vomit. I can never go into that building again
201 got a B-. Sour grapes.
-55
Those who went to the live lecture already -- is it worth going to day 2 of this nonsense?
Let's bring affirmative action back to white folks.
--George W. Bush
196 - that's because you got a different lecture than the video lecture everyone else saw today...dumbass
Comment removed by moderator.
204 -- how was the ski trip?
200 comments about a barbri lecture? Only law students read this now, I guess. No wonder it sucks.
At least she clarified, when talking about "Indian Tribes", that she was referring to Native American indians and not the India Indians. That was helpful.
video lecture was awful. can't imagine another day with her again! we're all pretty miserable, and this really isn't helping, barbri.
I went to NYU. I didn't have C-Rod for Conlaw and I have no allegiances to her. However, I do know that my friends who did take her course loved it. I also know that Conlaw is a bit more nuanced than, say, real property, and hence more difficult to boil down to cute little bullet points and pop-culture references. I was there this morning and though I did have to hear the whole sentence (and in some rare instances, think about it) before filling in the blank, there was nothing challenging about it. I was dismayed by the reactions of those around me -- calm the fuck down. Is thinking really so challenging for you? You are being spoon-fed over-simplified and very basic points that you should already know so please save your dignity. That said, I am thrilled to be taking the exam with you folks.
207, I agree, only we deserve the right to mediocrity and not be called out on it.
--Sarah Palin
167/188/205--that's the third reference you have made to rape and/or sodomy/the ass region. Does someone have some repressed anger about an incident they would like to share??
199: the following is straight from her lecture handout notes:
"This application was accomplished by the 14th Amendment, functioning as an all-purpose transfer agent."
Later:
"The following amendments have not been transferred to the states . . ."
So that would be a misstatement of law. First of all, the term is incorporation. Second, "transferred" means that something has changed hands - If the 4th Amendment was truly "transferred to the States," it would mean that the 4th Amendment did not apply to the federal government.
And even it it were not a misstatement of law, saying "transferred" rather than the term of art "incorporated" makes one sound absolutely clueless. Maybe like saying "tough analysis" instead of "strict scrutiny."
I don't care if she went to Yale. I don't care if she was a Rhodes scholar. I don't care who she clerked for. She should not be lecturing for Barbri.
ps: I love how she kept saying "this is really important" before and after every point she made.
I don't care if she went to Yale. I don't care if she was a Rhodes scholar. I don't care who she clerked for. She should not be lecturing for Barbri.
ps: I love how she kept saying "this is really important" before and after every point she made.
She was f*cking awful! I have no intention of re-watching any damn video tape - it's bad enough i had to listent to her for 4 hours. I was a partial refund!! Don't assume you'll get all you need from Barbri - next year, rising 3Ls should look honestly at Kaplan....
Comment removed by moderator.
She was f*cking awful! I have no intention of re-watching any damn video tape - it's bad enough i had to listent to her for 4 hours. I was a partial refund!! Don't assume you'll get all you need from Barbri - next year, rising 3Ls should look honestly at Kaplan....
I also appreciated the clarification that "aliens" meant foreigners, and not, I guess, actual aliens.
I went to NYU. I didn't have C-Rod for Conlaw and I have no allegiances to her. However, I do know that my friends who did take her course loved it. I also know that Conlaw is a bit more nuanced than, say, real property, and hence more difficult to boil down to cute little bullet points and pop-culture references. I was there this morning and though I did have to hear the whole sentence (and in some rare instances, think about it) before filling in the blank, there was nothing challenging about it. I was dismayed by the reactions of those around me -- calm the fuck down. Is thinking really so challenging for you? You are being spoon-fed over-simplified and very basic points that you should already know so please save your dignity. That said, I am thrilled to be taking the exam with you folks.
I've never seen so many racist posts on ATL.
219 is golden
219 is golden
If you are taking the bar exam in NY there is no reason to take bar/bri.
People who want to pass the NY bar take Pieper.
Only biglaw lemmings take bar/bri.
216 -- I predict 300+ before it's all said and done. And, you're right. Good bye ATL. Good luck talking law firm gossip with these people who will never get jobs.
Oh no! How awful! We had to think during a lecture, instead of being told "on page 42, the blank should read 'Britney spears would not have a claim.'" How harsh.
Makes me feel grateful, though, to know that so many of my fellow law students will fail the bar, making the market better for me.
I've never seen so many racist posts on ATL.
Comment removed by moderator.
It doesn't matter that her lecture wasn't "horrible" or "that bad." For $3K, a polished lecture is not too much to ask for.
Those of you who are cutting her some slack probably aren't even paying for barbri out of pocket. Some of us would just prefer to get the product we paid for.
203,
It isn't exactly semantics, the people that read over the bar essay's are looking for specific language and transferenace isn't the word the are looking for but "incorporation" is. So if a constitutional question based on the 14th amendment is given they'll want to see "incorporation" used not some language Rodriquez used because she was doing her best Emmitt Smith impression for preparation.
lol, you guys think the barbri mad-libs are important. Hi-larious.
I think I looked at my "lecture notes" a total of zero times when I was actually studying. The lectures are a refresher or a wake-up for people who have not seen the material in a while. If you rely on lectures to learn the material you are a dumbass and will probably fail, or a super-genius who probably didn't need to take barbri anyway.
Bar/bri screws up all the time with lecturers... the property lady (not Paula) had no idea that they have changed the MBE test to not have multiple questions for one fact pattern
I think she was just really nervous. I'm not surprised to hear that the DC lecture was much better.
I effin love the mob mentality; and we are still have over a month until the bar. This is going to be awesome. No wonder they wrap up and begin with Schechter (the best effin professor ever!). And notice they put the absolute worst professor right in the middle.
My take: She is a terrible lecturer. I am sure she is very intelligent, but this is not her game. Is is the end of the world? No, but that is not the effin point. The point is we paid for this. I do not expect the best lecturer, but I do expect competence.
John Jeffries used to give the best con law lectures for Bar/Bri. I think that once he became dean at UVA he stopped giving them, but I could be wrong as to the exact timing. They should pay up to get him back. He is a great speaker and an eminent scholar.
--Biased UVA law grad.
235 comments about a bar bri class that didn't involve a streaker or other nekkid person. Pathetic.
It doesn't matter that her lecture wasn't "horrible" or "that bad." For $3K, a polished lecture is not too much to ask for.
Those of you who are cutting her some slack probably aren't even paying for barbri out of pocket. Some of us would just prefer to get the product we paid for.
@ 25,27,38,56,62,98,101,106, 113 and all of the other commenters who said she didn't get any points of law wrong --
You're wrong. She got a big thing wrong on the second page: she said that you need to allege "future injury" in order to meet the injury requirement for standing. This is obviously not true (as it would bar the majority of lawsuits); future injury is required only in suits for solely injunctive relief.
In any case, yes, she was a horrible BarBri lecturer, but all of you anti-affirmative commenters are much worse: racist douchebags.
YLS
@ 25,27,38,56,62,98,101,106, 113 and all of the other commenters who said she didn't get any points of law wrong --
You're wrong. She got a big thing wrong on the second page: she said that you need to allege "future injury" in order to meet the injury requirement for standing. This is obviously not true (as it would bar the majority of lawsuits); future injury is required only in suits for solely injunctive relief.
In any case, yes, she was a horrible BarBri lecturer, but all of you anti-affirmative commenters are much worse: racist douchebags.
For those who did not attend today's lecture and are relying on the videotape to be posting online....
WHERE THE F IS IT?!?
(As of 5:39 P.M.)
For those of you defending the shit show that went on today, it wasn't just about mistakes of substantive law or blanks being difficult to fill in. It's that she spoke in a disoriented, repetitive manner covering law that could've been covered in half the time. I think at this juncture, we all have the right to be f*cking pissed when our time is being wasted.
just like law students to spaz out over nothing.
really wasnt that bad and does not warrant this kind of response, particularly the racist comments
Yes she was ridiculously repetitive and misspoke several times, but I think most of these comments are from students upset that she didn't recite the handout verbatim. I took notes on a laptop and she was reasonably clear and stated the law accurately, even though her lecture was boring and redundant. I think the bigger problem is the barbri method of expecting students to learn the law by filling in the blanks in a handout designed for the fourth grade.
As someone watching the video of this today let me say that its not the end of the world and we're not saying she's stupid (clearly she's not), however, she is TERRIBLE at conveying information in the manner barbri prescribes. She's probably great at the socratic method because she doesn't actually have to say anything as she makes the students articulate the points. Her hand out is disorganized, poorly spaced and difficult to use. I ended up typing, which was much more efficient, and then I flat out left because the Conviser explained the information more clearly than she did!
Other posters are correct--this is barbri's fault. We paid a lot of money to have this crap boiled down and spoon-fed to us at lectures to help alleviate some of the stress of Bar Study. Today's lecture failed to accomplish that task.
And as to the racist comments--come on, so she said "indian" a couple times. In her defense, that's what the constitution says. I can't wait for tomorrow where her outline says that homosexuals have a fundamental right to "sodomy!"
54:
"She basically invented the Socratic method."
I don't suppose you could name another individual that might be responsible for inventing the . . . SOCRATIC method?
240--you are my hero! are you single? and how big is that thing that swings between your legs?!
I second the 214 motion that 196 is a dumbass...the video lecture was horrible, and she got numerous points wrong -- repeatedly. I'm not paying 3,000 dollars so I can be taught a jumbled mess contradicting everything I remembered from first year so that I have to re-teach/re-confirm everything for myself. The lecture was absolutely horrible --- the WHOLE thing. If I wanted to spend 5 hours teaching myself the outline, I would've done that and saved 3.5 hours of filtering useless crap.
it was like a bad student presentation ... in high school
255 - little late to the party heh? Did you just get done transcribing her lecture notes?
Comment removed by moderator.
The torts guy = GOD!
who gives two fucks? Most of the commenters here have spent hundreds of hours and gallons of sperm jacking off to jenna jameson and they're here whining about 3 hours.
Comment removed by moderator.
55 is a latina.
Comment removed by moderator.
That Professor from SJU's (NY Practice) was far worse. I think the outcry here is typically from TTT students who now feel vindicated from having attended a TTT and want to victimize a poor performance by a top tier professor. Get over it.
259 -- LOL!!!
Best lecture - torts guy
Second - procedure guy (very organized)
Worst - tie
Paula - wannabe comedian/singer/celebrity. No one gives a shit your dad was Chef Boyardee or whatever the fuck. And here's a concept - pauses between sentences. It sort of makes you, idk, understandable.
Rodriguez - see above. No one has mentioned how she screwed up Congress' delegation power. Apparently Congress cannot delegate executive power to the executive branch. (She said that at one point).
hey douchebags, rodriguez invented the socratic method in 2003 but she was so humble about it that she named it after socrates
Comment removed by moderator.
The torts guy = GOD!
Comment removed by moderator.
256, 262.. hahaha..
i think the worst part of the lecture is that it spawned a very entertaining debate from which i can't seem to get away. all this bitching is definitely wasting more time than the actual lecture. hahaha. fun
Whoever reported this to ATL has is pathetic and will probably fail the bar because you are obviously terrible at life. She was fine; you are a posterchild for all that is wrong with law students.
I'm sure anybody really cares that you won't be going to lecture tomorrow. You must have no friends.
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.
Elie has certainly boosted ATL's site visits on a slow day with this post....
A word of encouragement: YOU ARE ALL GOING TO FAIL THE BAR BECAUSE YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME READING AND POSTING COMMENTS.
Thank you. Public Service Annoucement over.
I was in the live room at GW today...did someone really yell "YOU SUCK"? I remember someone blurting out something at one point, but I don't think anyone in the room heard what was said (or at least no one really reacted). It must have come through better on the mics than in the room which is enormous...
Marino > Rodriguez
NYLS > NYU
262 - if jacking off consumes 3.5 hours of your day, you should probably consult a doctor.
If you're really thrown for a total loop by a couple misstatements of law and cannot sort that shit out on your own, I definitely would not want you as my attorney. Get a partial refund now and become a paralegal. Fuckin whiners
247:
Thanks. I actually had that in my outline and thought it sounded strange.
How dumb would it be if you couldn't sue the city on, say, a takings clause violation simply because you couldn't show that they were likely to take some other piece of your land again.
Yikes, I hope they issue a clarification for that one.
My favorite was when she said that to have standing to sue you had to show likelihood of FUTURE harm, and cited Lyons.
Did she read Lyons? That was only for INJUNCTIVE relief.
Second fav: NEVER any Art. 4 cases re: representative form of government.... and this woman clerked for O'Connor?? Really??
ok so the question is, what do we do tomorrow? Is it going to be the live "improved" version or are we going to get her original? And if its the old one, I'm thinking I dont want to go to class.
221 - Why are you making me relive those awful memories?!?! Whyyyyyyyyyyy
I love the people from NYU defending her. "Listen, she is awesome, alright? Just had a bad day." Like any of us care? Or the other people, so smart and brilliant, saying, "Oh, the material is so easy. You should have seen the people in my room struggling when she went off the outline. What nitwits!" Like any of us were actually INTIMIDATED by this material? For you nerds, here is a little FYI: We are here to complain. We are here to make fun. The process of complaining and making fun makes us happy during an otherwise unhappy time in our lives. So, please take your lame comments and horrible sense of humor elsewhere. Oh, another one of my favorites: "For people who are supposedly so smart, you sure make a lot of immature comments!" Yeah, we do. And now, if you'll please excuse me for a moment, I'm gonna go take a dump. Why? Because pooping is currently #2 on my list of favorite things to do these days.
PE/71
"Blindsighted"? Jesus Christ.
BLIND-SIDED.
Is English your mother tongue? This is how I know you're either a.) not older than 25 or b.) irretrievably stupid.
I first thought the Crim pro professor was terrible, then it was the NY Practice professor, and now it is her. She wasn't just bad, she was terrible. Why can't BarBri just email the "clarifications" instead of making people watch another lecture of her again or go see her in tomorrow's video. I am not even sure if it will be worth it to show up for this garbage, and I will just follow her advice and read the Mini Review, she is the first one to even mention reading the whole thing. What a joke!
281,
You're going to fail the bar, and all because of this lecture.
262
Who cares, how about some real news!
http://www.wwtdd.com/2009/06/afternoon-headlines-23/
There are no jobs waiting for you, so it doesn't matter if you pass or not. If you want to worry about something, worry about being homeless.
Abandon all hope.
PE/72
"Blindsighted"? Jesus Christ.
BLIND-SIDED.
Is English your mother tongue? This is how I know you're either a.) not older than 25 or b.) irretrievably stupid.
Just goes to prove my theory on young, ivy-league educated professors with amazing clerkships and other credentials who look great of paper. With very few exceptions, and with no distinction regarding their race or gender, THEY SUCK AT TEACHING. They get their positions because of their awesome resume but actually have no idea how to teach others. Every class I have had with a young professor from Yale or Harvard, who clerked for some Federal Circuit Court Judge or a SCOTUS judge, have been significantly inferior to many of the adjuncts I have had, who couldn't get a tenured position at my law school if their lives depended on it. Just because you are ridiculously smart doesn't mean you know how to teach. Actually it probably means you spent so much time locked away studying in your dorm room in college and your Law Review office in law school that you never developed any inter-personal skills that enable you to connect with people and impart knowledge in any effective or meaningful way.
I'll take corny jokes and bad singing over that crap any day of the week
UPDATE: Please note that this post has been revised in various respects since it was originally published.
In addition, please see the addendum at the end of the post.
Thanks.