Top Law Schools

And it's really bothering me.

Themis does too


Everything's a mess

justtrying wrote:And it's really bothering me.

They do, and it sucks, just try not to think too hard about it.

Question 6 from the Con Law MBE drills.

[+] Spoiler

Facts say that private school receives free textbooks from the state. Barbri lecture says that this constitutes sufficient entanglement for state action. Answer to question 6 says there is no state action and answer just ignores the presence of the textbooks. Am I missing something? WTF??

Itwasluck wrote:Question 6 from the Con Law MBE drills.

[+] Spoiler

Facts say that private school receives free textbooks from the state. Barbri lecture says that this constitutes sufficient entanglement for state action. Answer to question 6 says there is no state action and answer just ignores the presence of the textbooks. Am I missing something? WTF??

[+] Spoiler

I think its solely because this is a 1st A violation and not racial discrimination. May be wrong though

I've found that most of the time it's not so much that barbri contradicts itself but that the explanations suck. When this happens, the explanations are written for an audience that already knows the material. E.g. "it's X because Y. Therefore B, C, D are wrong." no, explain why B C D are wrong and address the wrong ideas of the examinee.

mvp99 wrote:I've found that most of the time it's not so much that barbri contradicts itself but that the explanations suck. When this happens, the explanations are written for an audience that already knows the material. E.g. "it's X because Y. Therefore B, C, D are wrong." no, explain why B C D are wrong and address the wrong ideas of the examinee.

This angers me the most.

157 on the full day. "D is not guilty of larceny because he lacked the requisite intent. the intent to deprive must exist at the time of the taking"

what. Am I crazy or is this literally the opposite of the continuing trespass rule.

ellewoods123 wrote:157 on the full day. "D is not guilty of larceny because he lacked the requisite intent. the intent to deprive must exist at the time of the taking"

what. Am I crazy or is this literally the opposite of the continuing trespass rule.

Continuing trespass rule is like the exception. If you take something and at the time you take it, you don't have the intent to deprive, it's not larceny. But if you take it and then form the intent to take it, it's larceny under continuing trespass.

ellewoods123 wrote:157 on the full day. "D is not guilty of larceny because he lacked the requisite intent. the intent to deprive must exist at the time of the taking"

what. Am I crazy or is this literally the opposite of the continuing trespass rule.

thats a legit score. i thought the full day was supposed to be pretty hard too right?

learntolift wrote:

ellewoods123 wrote:157 on the full day. "D is not guilty of larceny because he lacked the requisite intent. the intent to deprive must exist at the time of the taking"

what. Am I crazy or is this literally the opposite of the continuing trespass rule.

thats a legit score. i thought the full day was supposed to be pretty hard too right?

I read it that way at first too. But I think she means that was from question 157.

sublime wrote:

learntolift wrote:

ellewoods123 wrote:157 on the full day. "D is not guilty of larceny because he lacked the requisite intent. the intent to deprive must exist at the time of the taking"

what. Am I crazy or is this literally the opposite of the continuing trespass rule.

thats a legit score. i thought the full day was supposed to be pretty hard too right?

I read it that way at first too. But I think she means that was from question 157.

haha oh man my brain is fried. that reading comp though.

learntolift wrote:

sublime wrote:

learntolift wrote:

ellewoods123 wrote:157 on the full day. "D is not guilty of larceny because he lacked the requisite intent. the intent to deprive must exist at the time of the taking"

what. Am I crazy or is this literally the opposite of the continuing trespass rule.

thats a legit score. i thought the full day was supposed to be pretty hard too right?

I read it that way at first too. But I think she means that was from question 157.

haha oh man my brain is fried. that reading comp though.

Oh sorry! Yes question 157 haha sorry, cannot even form sentences anymore

The only things I've personally noticed barbri toeing the line on are judge ordering a new trial, and whether or not there has been a novation

But like most barbri questions they seem to be more about getting you to understand the material than being representative of an actual mbe question, so it doesn't bother me all that much. Barbri has to write a shitload of questions and rewrite every year when there is a change so it makes sense some could slip through the cracks

The MBE writers only need to come up with 190 good questions, plus they test them ahead of time and put them through reviews and shit, so I'm kinda expecting them to avoid the rare barbri ambiguity

ballouttacontrol wrote:The only things I've personally noticed barbri toeing the line on are judge ordering a new trial, and whether or not there has been a novation

But like most barbri questions they seem to be more about getting you to understand the material than being representative of an actual mbe question, so it doesn't bother me all that much. Barbri has to write a shitload of questions and rewrite every year when there is a change so it makes sense some could slip through the cracks

The MBE writers only need to come up with 190 good questions, plus they test them ahead of time and put them through reviews and shit, so I'm kinda expecting them to avoid the rare barbri ambiguity

you'd think that with the amount this company charges for its course, it could hire enough people to solve this problem