BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam Forum

[goodolgil]

I want to improve my real property (the poor subject for me according to the scores of SME) and did MPQ 1 and was so frustrated now.....Just got about half right

Same. Its just awful. And its getting close to that point where you sorta need to shore up your foundations, and not persist in trying to cram in new stuff, so I'm worried I may never understand this stuff. Tried watching the simulated MBE property review, and Guzman laid out the key rules and ways of testing the material. Yet I still get so much stuff wrong. So frustrating since its the one thing holding me back right now on MBE.

Yes ! Exactly.
I got 11 property wrong on SME and I thought after review I can got more right but the result is just to show how I poorly understand property....
By the way I really hate the long fact patterns of property law......

On the simulated MBE, I scored 139, with 19 incorrect on property. Talk about holding me back.

Gonna do like a half-day property review sometime in the next few days. If I can just force myself to remember a few important rules, maybe I can squeeze out some extra points.

Similarly, I got a 137 with 18 wrong on property. I watched the review and I thought it was pretty helpful. I went like 14/17 on property on the SFE today (and the questions I got wrong were really random--like RAP does not apply to option contracts to purchase for leaseholds). I feel like property, more than the other subjects, can just "click" after awhile. I also thought the MBE PRE video was really helpful--after I watched it I went 13/18 on set 3 after going 15/36 on set 5 and 9/18 on set 1.

[c3pO4]

u guys just put me in awe. you realize these 135+ SME scores are like top 10%. i guess they don't call this top law schools for nothin

[bgdddymtty]

If MBE questions are like Barbri Advanced questions, my MBE score is going to be so low that, as a matter of policy, my state's examiners literally won't bother grading my essays. If they're like the Beginner/Intermediate questions, I've got at least a shot at passing comfortably.

Someone with knowledge tell me which of those two outcomes is more likely so I know who I should be cursing for their sadism - Barbri's question writers or the MBE's.

Cmon. I know one of you gunners knows whether the real questions are more like the Advanced Barbri nonsense or more like the Beginner/Intermediate.

I don't know that any of us really know, but I think--perhaps wishfully--that the real MBE questions will be like the mixed sets. My logic is that, two weeks or less from the actual exam, Barbri says you're doing well if you get a 60% on the SFE and half-day, a 61.5% on the full-day, and 70% on the mixed sets. Since you have to be somewhere north of 60% to be on pace to pass no matter where you take the bar, and most people's scores on the MBE are going to be negatively affected by mental and physical fatigue, test day(s) jitters, etc., the actual MBE can't be anywhere near as hard as those longer exams.

[rnf1292]

I am seriously TERRIBLE at con law. I've done all the practice sets in MPQ1 and still am just not getting it To anyone who has had the same issue and successfully improved their score, any tips??

[Stinson]

I am seriously TERRIBLE at con law. I've done all the practice sets in MPQ1 and still am just not getting it To anyone who has had the same issue and successfully improved their score, any tips??

Can you be more specific about what kinds of questions are giving you the most trouble?

All I can say as a general tip is that, for questions that ask about the standard to be applied, you can usually eliminate two answers without reading the question. It will state four different standards, at least two of which are incorrect statements of the standards in all cases, usually because it will have the government with the burden of proof in rational basis or the plaintiff with the burden in strict scrutiny.

[rnf1292]

I am seriously TERRIBLE at con law. I've done all the practice sets in MPQ1 and still am just not getting it To anyone who has had the same issue and successfully improved their score, any tips??

Can you be more specific about what kinds of questions are giving you the most trouble?

Because I'm pretty much bad at all of it lol except the establishment clause. I particularly have trouble with questions that ask whether a law is valid. i.e. just did a question on about a law preventing nonresidents from voting. Voting is a fundamental right, so I applied strict scrutiny, but the answer is a rational basis standard. I'm just not getting it

[bgdddymtty]

I am seriously TERRIBLE at con law. I've done all the practice sets in MPQ1 and still am just not getting it To anyone who has had the same issue and successfully improved their score, any tips??

Can you be more specific about what kinds of questions are giving you the most trouble?

Because I'm pretty much bad at all of it lol except the establishment clause. I particularly have trouble with questions that ask whether a law is valid. i.e. just did a question on about a law preventing nonresidents from voting. Voting is a fundamental right, so I applied strict scrutiny, but the answer is a rational basis standard. I'm just not getting it

MBE Con Law really is about just learning and applying rules, mixed with a general sense of fairness/awareness of what's acceptable in the world. For example, on the question you're talking about, you're right that voting is a fundamental right, but does everyone in the country have a right to vote in every election? Of course not. There are residency requirements for virtually every election. That being the case, residency requirements probably don't have to meet a high burden.

Even if you miss questions like that, though, the vast majority of Con Law questions follow predictable patterns. It's never the Tenth Amendment, because according to the Supreme Court that's basically not a thing. The federal government has no general police power. The General Welfare Clause can never be used by itself to justify a law. If it's federal taxing or spending, it's the Taxing and Spending Clause. If it's federal most anything else, it's the Commerce Clause. If there's a federal/state conflict, federal always wins via the Supremacy Clause. The 14th Amendment applies to the states; the Fifth Amendment applies to the feds. If the state is discriminating against aliens, it's an Equal Protection violation unless it's for primary/secondary school teachers, cops, probation officers, or jurors. And so on. They can really only ask you about so many things.

[kaiser]

^^^

I used Multistate Edge for this, selected only personal rights Q's, and drilled them for a few hours, and it really helped. You find a certain consistency in all the rules and applications. The trick is to filter through the facts and realize what is going on (i.e. who is being burdened, what right is being infringed, etc.)? If you already have the basic rules in your head, it becomes fairly easy at that point.

[kaiser]

Also, for con law, watch one of the review videos. Con Law is based on a limited set of rules/principles that can be laid out for you. Like another poster said, things like

-10th Amendment is essentially always wrong
-Necessary & Proper clause is not a standalone power & must be in conjunction with something else
-The fed. gov. has total control over fed. lands, and states cannot override fed. control of them
-Burdening of the right to privacy is subject to strict scrutiny
-Fed. courts cannot issue advisory opinions, or hear cases where no actual injury (or imminent threat of injury) exists since there would be no standing

Watch the review of the Con Law MBE Preview, or the review of the simulated MBE con law Q's. They march through all of these basics so that you have the foundations. This started off as my worst subject, but I've gotten much better at it.

[bgdddymtty]

-Fed. courts cannot issue advisory opinions, or hear cases where an no actual injury (or imminent threat of injury) actually exists since there would be no standing

FTFY

[rnf1292]

Thanks guys. Will keep working at it

[kaiser]

-Fed. courts cannot issue advisory opinions, or hear cases where an no actual injury (or imminent threat of injury) actually exists since there would be no standing

FTFY

Gracias

[kaiser]

Just did the NYMC on domestic relations. Like usual, a shitty score. Of course, it focuses quite a bit on the nitty gritty points that weren't really covered in the lecture, as opposed to the broad principles that would be applied in an essay.

Went 10/18, which apparently isn't too bad based on how crappy most people do on NYMC. One of the lectures said that domestic relations, NY practice, and criminal procedure make up 50% of the NYMC, and sure as hell can't break 50% on NY practice Q's, so I would have liked to have done better on domestic relations Q's.

[tfer2222]

Just did the NYMC on domestic relations. Like usual, a shitty score. Of course, it focuses quite a bit on the nitty gritty points that weren't really covered in the lecture, as opposed to the broad principles that would be applied in an essay.

Went 10/18, which apparently isn't too bad based on how crappy most people do on NYMC. One of the lectures said that domestic relations, NY practice, and criminal procedure make up 50% of the NYMC, and sure as hell can't break 50% on NY practice Q's, so I would have liked to have done better on domestic relations Q's.

everyone needs to stop worrying about the NYMC so much. even barbri told us not to worry about them. they're a crapshoot.

[JollyGreenGiant]

Can someone explain #1 of MPQ2 Set #6 for me? I'm having trouble seeing why a contract is formed when they increased the price. My original thought was that the silence within 10 days of receiving the letter constituted acceptance and therefore November 15th was the date of contract--but obviously that's not even an option.

[hds2388]

There were moments when I was correcting the mpq2 set 3 today (specifically when I missed the first 9/12) that I thought law school might not have been worth it.

Fortunately I rebounded in the last 38 and it turns out law school was a really good idea.

[rnf1292]

There were moments when I was correcting the mpq2 set 3 today (specifically when I missed the first 9/12) that I thought law school might not have been worth it.

Fortunately I rebounded in the last 38 and it turns out law school was a really good idea.

LOL so last night I did the first 18 questions, got 9 wrong and completely shut down/quit... Did the last 32 questions this morning and only got 3 wrong. Basically that set sucks.

[Stinson]

There were moments when I was correcting the mpq2 set 3 today (specifically when I missed the first 9/12) that I thought law school might not have been worth it.

Fortunately I rebounded in the last 38 and it turns out law school was a really good idea.

Dem third party beneficiaries. Always trollin'.

[ace_of_spades]

This is probably a stupid Q, but...on #32 in the Full Day, why is bolstering okay here?

[kaiser]

Can someone explain #1 of MPQ2 Set #6 for me? I'm having trouble seeing why a contract is formed when they increased the price. My original thought was that the silence within 10 days of receiving the letter constituted acceptance and therefore November 15th was the date of contract--but obviously that's not even an option.

Two points to note here:

First, you made a mix up I initially kept making in my studying as well. For the UCC rule regarding 2 merchants not needing a mirror acceptance, there must be no objection in a reasonable period of time. The 10 days is from the merchant's confirmatory memo SOF exception, which can be used against the non-signing party so long as there is no objection within 10 days.

Second, the acceptance has to be viewed a bit retroactively. Yes, the UCC provision provides an out to the other party if they do not want any changes. But if the party does indeed have no objection, its not like the K only forms at the point where he comes to that decision. Would be impossible to measure or figure out, since its just a "reasonable time period", and we have no clue what that is. So the facts here say there was no objection, then by default, the K was formed when the manufacturer's memo was sent out. I doubt they will give you a Q in which there IS an objection within a reasonable time, and then ask if the manufacturer's memo was an acceptance, since we know there is no K.

[Baylan]

There were moments when I was correcting the mpq2 set 3 today (specifically when I missed the first 9/12) that I thought law school might not have been worth it.

Fortunately I rebounded in the last 38 and it turns out law school was a really good idea.

LOL so last night I did the first 18 questions, got 9 wrong and completely shut down/quit... Did the last 32 questions this morning and only got 3 wrong. Basically that set sucks.

Insane, I got 14 wrong. 10 in the first 18 questions. So we're saying there is a trend here?

Specifically, I got, 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18 wrong.

[bgdddymtty]

This is probably a stupid Q, but...on #32 in the Full Day, why is bolstering okay here?

It's not bolstering. Bolstering is when someone testifies positively as to a party's character. In this question, you simply have another witness testifying to her observations surrounding the events in question. Since that testimony qualifies as an exception to the hearsay rule and is otherwise unobjectionable, it is admissible.

[hds2388]

There were moments when I was correcting the mpq2 set 3 today (specifically when I missed the first 9/12) that I thought law school might not have been worth it.

Fortunately I rebounded in the last 38 and it turns out law school was a really good idea.

LOL so last night I did the first 18 questions, got 9 wrong and completely shut down/quit... Did the last 32 questions this morning and only got 3 wrong. Basically that set sucks.

Insane, I got 14 wrong. 10 in the first 18 questions. So we're saying there is a trend here?

Specifically, I got, 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18 wrong.

I mean, based solely on my opinion, the first 20 or so questions were vastly harder than the rest of the test. While I think it's not a bad idea for barbri to throw this at us (so we can be resilient, whatever whatever), I wish barbri would give us like a rating for each question as part of the answer explanation. Like: "This question rates as very hard," or "If you missed this question you should probably keep February open."

[blong4133]

Can someone explain #1 of MPQ2 Set #6 for me? I'm having trouble seeing why a contract is formed when they increased the price. My original thought was that the silence within 10 days of receiving the letter constituted acceptance and therefore November 15th was the date of contract--but obviously that's not even an option.

I personally thought this was kind of a BS question, with a crappy explanatory answer.

But I think you're confusing this issue with the merchant's confirmatory memo rule. That's when the merchants create an oral contract and later reduce it to a signed writing and send it to the other, that person has 10 days to respond to it. That's not the issue in this case, because there was no oral agreement. There was an offer from the shoe store to buy shoes, and there was an acceptance from the manufacturer but stated a different price. I read this as a battle of the forms question, but apparently they were testing the mailbox rule. I don't think that was that great of a question.

[blong4133]

Can someone explain #1 of MPQ2 Set #6 for me? I'm having trouble seeing why a contract is formed when they increased the price. My original thought was that the silence within 10 days of receiving the letter constituted acceptance and therefore November 15th was the date of contract--but obviously that's not even an option.

This question kind of ticked me off a little.

But I think you're confusing this issue with the merchant's confirmatory memo rule. That's when the merchants create an oral contract and later reduce it to a signed writing and send it to the other. Once it's sent the other has 10 days to object to it or it will be deemed accepted, regardless of whether he even read the letter. That's not the issue in this case, because there was no contract already formed before they started sending letters back and forth. The first letter was an offer from the shoe store to buy shoes, and there was an acceptance from the manufacturer in the second letter but stated a different price. I read this as a battle of the forms question, but apparently they were testing the mailbox rule. I don't think that was that great of a question.