BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
hds2388
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:07 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby hds2388 » Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:11 pm

kaiser wrote:
hds2388 wrote:
Mroberts3 wrote:
hds2388 wrote:Wanted to gripe about/hear other takes on a problem. MPQ2, Mixed Set 7, Question 25. I know these queries are sometimes boring, and I apologize to all for having to even read this far because I am being petty over 1 missed MBE question.

The gist of the question is, given a US congressional regulation requiring specifications for containers that nonprescription drugs had to be in for marketing those products, is congress's power to pass this legislation derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause. Barbri says the answer is commerce clause.

My initial answer (in my head) was both; obviously I needed to choose one or the other. The grant of power over interstate congress certainly puts the subject of this legislation in the realm of commerce clause, but the very power to adopt the legislation (and the stem of the question is: "Congress's power to pass this legislation is derived from:"), in my mind, comes from N+P. So I focused on the "power to pass" language. To bolster my case, I cite to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_ ... per_Clause, in the Later Applications section.

Can someone explain to me why this is wrong? In general, I'm bad at con law, so I will happily defer to everyone else's choice wisdom.

Again, sorry for being petty.


Because necessary and proper clause can't ever stand alone. It must be linked with another enumerated power. I don't know the question first hand, but if the answer choice only says N+P it will always be wrong. Plus, congress doesn't need it to pass the drug packaging law because that is entirely within the commerce power anyway...no need to rely on necessary and proper clause.


Fair enough. Better explanation than barbri's.


Right, the N & P clause is never a standalone source of power. You would never say that "X action is justified by the N & P clause". You would instead say that X action is justified by Congress's enumerated power to do so and so (ex. regulate commerce). The N & P clause merely gives them the flexibility to carry out action pursuant to enumerated powers.

Another very common "power" that isn't a power is the general welfare clause. I keep seeing that one, and its never right. Congress can tax and spend for the general welfare, but they can't just do anything, and say it is in the general welfare.


Yeah, I was familiar with the general welfare power never being right. Glad to throw another choice into the "automatically wrong" category. I think I was just tripped up by the "power to pass" wording. Should have looke to the underlying power and not merely a power that contours underlying powers. Thanks all.

Munson
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:27 am

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby Munson » Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:45 pm

Can someone explain the answer to Question 34 on the "Full Day" exam?

In the prompt, an officer observes the defendant jaywalking. The officer decides to make an arrest and begins to place the defendant in handcuffs. The defendant, a black belt, gets out of the hold. The officer strikes at the defendant with a club, and the defendant knocks the club out of the officer's hand.

Will the defendant prevail in a suit against the officer for battery?

(B) No, because the officer witnessed the offense
(D) Yes, because the officer was not privileged to arrest him

Barbri claims the answer is (D) because the officer could not arrest for a misdemeanor that is not a breach of the peace.

How is this analysis consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in Atwater v. Lago Vista, which holds that an officer may make a lawful arrest for a misdemeanor punishable only by a fine (in that case, not wearing a seatbelt).

User avatar
PitchO20
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:35 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby PitchO20 » Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:52 pm

Still haven't looked at sec trans / comm. paper. I know I'm going to have to drag myself to memorize some rules at one point, but damn.

imchuckbass58
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby imchuckbass58 » Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:59 pm

kaiser wrote:Honestly, I'm not sure its necessary. Though the confidence boost was certainly worth something to me (but, of course, it depends on how much you value that at this stage). I can't imagine someone being totally comfortable with BarBri Q's, and then being that thrown by these real ones.


Makes sense. Thanks!

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby kaiser » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:01 pm

PitchO20 wrote:Still haven't looked at sec trans / comm. paper. I know I'm going to have to drag myself to memorize some rules at one point, but damn.


Same. At a certain point, you need to prioritize. Look at the frequency. The majority of comm paper & sec. trans. issues that have come up are just one-off things that aren't repeated. Only like 1 or 2 concepts that have been on multiple tests. I'd at least know the few important things. I haven't watched the video on it, but will likely just review an outline for an hour or 2.

User avatar
stratocophic
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby stratocophic » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:39 pm

kaiser wrote:
PitchO20 wrote:Still haven't looked at sec trans / comm. paper. I know I'm going to have to drag myself to memorize some rules at one point, but damn.


Same. At a certain point, you need to prioritize. Look at the frequency. The majority of comm paper & sec. trans. issues that have come up are just one-off things that aren't repeated. Only like 1 or 2 concepts that have been on multiple tests. I'd at least know the few important things. I haven't watched the video on it, but will likely just review an outline for an hour or 2.

Does Barbri give us breakdowns for the frequency that subjects are tested? If they do, where would it be? I don't know this because I... I am not a model student.

Munson
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:27 am

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby Munson » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:41 pm

stratocophic wrote:
kaiser wrote:
PitchO20 wrote:Still haven't looked at sec trans / comm. paper. I know I'm going to have to drag myself to memorize some rules at one point, but damn.


Same. At a certain point, you need to prioritize. Look at the frequency. The majority of comm paper & sec. trans. issues that have come up are just one-off things that aren't repeated. Only like 1 or 2 concepts that have been on multiple tests. I'd at least know the few important things. I haven't watched the video on it, but will likely just review an outline for an hour or 2.

Does Barbri give us breakdowns for the frequency that subjects are tested? If they do, where would it be? I don't know this because I... I am not a model student.


Many lecturers note the stats on past exams in the lecture outlines. Depends on what state you are taking, of course. For Texas, several lecture handouts have information about the frequency of testing on individual topics in the index at the end of the outline.

Stinson
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:01 am

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby Stinson » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:42 pm

kaiser wrote:
PitchO20 wrote:Still haven't looked at sec trans / comm. paper. I know I'm going to have to drag myself to memorize some rules at one point, but damn.


Same. At a certain point, you need to prioritize. Look at the frequency. The majority of comm paper & sec. trans. issues that have come up are just one-off things that aren't repeated. Only like 1 or 2 concepts that have been on multiple tests. I'd at least know the few important things. I haven't watched the video on it, but will likely just review an outline for an hour or 2.


+1 but look slightly past the frequency chart. In my state frequency chart, secured transactions is the lowest spot, tested on only 6 of the last 40 exams. However, five of those six times happen to be the last five administrations of the test. So I'm prepping secured transactions.

blong4133
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby blong4133 » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:44 pm

Man, I can't get myself to focus at all today. Starting to get a little nervous because I feel like I keep forgetting stuff.

Perfect time to hit a wall when you're only 5 days out. FML

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby kaiser » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:52 pm

tfer2222 wrote:for NY-ers who don't want to mess with the minor subjects that much, this frequency chart lists the actual issues within each subject that are most heavily tested. Pretty useful if you want to just memorize a couple of the rules that are actually tested out of secured/commercial/fedjur/PR/conflict, etc.

http://www.smartbarprep.com/SmartBarPre ... alysis.pdf

just scroll down to page 8 or so.


The only main sidenote that Barbri added to info like this is that PR is more commonly tested in recent years as a sub-issue within larger essays. But again, its almost always in certain main categories, like conflict of interests, or the rules on contingency fees. The same can be said for almost all the minor subjects, where 1 or 2 sub-issues are almost always the ones tested. You can't center your prep around the one-off issues, when you can spend your time more effectively drilling the major things that you are almost certain to see.
Last edited by kaiser on Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

wildhaggis
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:47 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby wildhaggis » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:55 pm

How nitpicky do the actual essays get?

I feel like some of the BarBri essays for the non-MBE subjects hit some pretty specific issues that they haven't necessarily prepared us for.

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby kaiser » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:57 pm

wildhaggis wrote:How nitpicky do the actual essays get?

I feel like some of the BarBri essays for the non-MBE subjects hit some pretty specific issues that they haven't necessarily prepared us for.


Look at the link in my last post. The vast majority of the time, they hit more common rules, but there will always be thsoe nit-picky one-off issues that most people won't remember. In that case, you make up a sensible-sounding rule of law, flesh out that rule a bit (even if you have to contrive), apply the facts well, and reach a conclusion. You will still get some points doing this, and if its just 1 or 2 sub issues you don't know, you can still get a decent score on the essay. Plus, you will balance that out with the essays where you know pretty much all aspects.

RodneyBoonfield
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:54 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby RodneyBoonfield » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:51 pm

Can someone help me out with this question: 157 on MPQ2 Full day- Basically it says that D who borrowed his friend's car is not guilty of larceny after borrowing it (without the intent to steal) but then deciding after taking it to the grocery store that he was not going to return it, but after that still, he decided to return it. The answer explains that D did not have the requisite intent to commit larceny. I am 99.9% positive that we've had questions just like this that specifically say that the intent for larceny can be formed later on, and that the crime is complete once the mens rea and act add up (here taking the car and deciding not to return, even though he later decided to return it).

Is the distinction in the above question that the taking was not trespassory because D borrowed the car with permission, where as in the other cases that I alluded to, the original taking was NOT with permission, hence trespassory?

User avatar
ace_of_spades
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:24 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby ace_of_spades » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:58 pm

MPQ2 set #4 was a total joke. I think barbri was trying to throw us all a bone with that one.

User avatar
ace_of_spades
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:24 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby ace_of_spades » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:00 pm

RodneyBoonfield wrote:Can someone help me out with this question: 157 on MPQ2 Full day- Basically it says that D who borrowed his friend's car is not guilty of larceny after borrowing it (without the intent to steal) but then deciding after taking it to the grocery store that he was not going to return it, but after that still, he decided to return it. The answer explains that D did not have the requisite intent to commit larceny. I am 99.9% positive that we've had questions just like this that specifically say that the intent for larceny can be formed later on, and that the crime is complete once the mens rea and act add up (here taking the car and deciding not to return, even though he later decided to return it).

Is the distinction in the above question that the taking was not trespassory because D borrowed the car with permission, where as in the other cases that I alluded to, the original taking was NOT with permission, hence trespassory?


Yeah I'm pretty sure you have to take the item wrongfully in order for continuing trespass to come into play.

User avatar
usuaggie
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby usuaggie » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:04 pm

RodneyBoonfield wrote:Can someone help me out with this question: 157 on MPQ2 Full day- Basically it says that D who borrowed his friend's car is not guilty of larceny after borrowing it (without the intent to steal) but then deciding after taking it to the grocery store that he was not going to return it, but after that still, he decided to return it. The answer explains that D did not have the requisite intent to commit larceny. I am 99.9% positive that we've had questions just like this that specifically say that the intent for larceny can be formed later on, and that the crime is complete once the mens rea and act add up (here taking the car and deciding not to return, even though he later decided to return it).

Is the distinction in the above question that the taking was not trespassory because D borrowed the car with permission, where as in the other cases that I alluded to, the original taking was NOT with permission, hence trespassory?



Really glad you asked Because I've been confused too. Here is the answer.

Larceny requires intent to permanently deprive at the time of the taking, generally. However, the intent can develop at a later time under the theory of continuing trespass. For the theory of continuing trespass to apply, the defendant must have WRONGFULLY taken the property without the intent to deprive and then later decides to keep it.

In the question you asked, he gains control of the property rightfully, so continuing trespass doesn't apply.

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby kaiser » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:06 pm

ace_of_spades wrote:
RodneyBoonfield wrote:Can someone help me out with this question: 157 on MPQ2 Full day- Basically it says that D who borrowed his friend's car is not guilty of larceny after borrowing it (without the intent to steal) but then deciding after taking it to the grocery store that he was not going to return it, but after that still, he decided to return it. The answer explains that D did not have the requisite intent to commit larceny. I am 99.9% positive that we've had questions just like this that specifically say that the intent for larceny can be formed later on, and that the crime is complete once the mens rea and act add up (here taking the car and deciding not to return, even though he later decided to return it).

Is the distinction in the above question that the taking was not trespassory because D borrowed the car with permission, where as in the other cases that I alluded to, the original taking was NOT with permission, hence trespassory?


Yeah I'm pretty sure you have to take the item wrongfully in order for continuing trespass to come into play.


I think this is the key thing. If you take it wrongfully, but intend to return it, and then simply change your mind, that solves the concurrence problem, since it was a trespass all along (i.e. a "continuing trespass") and the only additional thing necessary is that intent to permanently deprive.

User avatar
Mroberts3
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:10 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby Mroberts3 » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:07 pm

Munson wrote:Can someone explain the answer to Question 34 on the "Full Day" exam?

In the prompt, an officer observes the defendant jaywalking. The officer decides to make an arrest and begins to place the defendant in handcuffs. The defendant, a black belt, gets out of the hold. The officer strikes at the defendant with a club, and the defendant knocks the club out of the officer's hand.

Will the defendant prevail in a suit against the officer for battery?

(B) No, because the officer witnessed the offense
(D) Yes, because the officer was not privileged to arrest him

Barbri claims the answer is (D) because the officer could not arrest for a misdemeanor that is not a breach of the peace.

How is this analysis consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in Atwater v. Lago Vista, which holds that an officer may make a lawful arrest for a misdemeanor punishable only by a fine (in that case, not wearing a seatbelt).


I think I found the answer (but I admit I would not have chosen D). The top of page 11 of the Torts CMR says that "if the arrest is for a misdemeanor, it is privileged only if for a breach of peace and if the action takes place in front of defendant. (Most state statutes grant police officers a broader privilege)."

Thus, it seems that what Lago Vista held was that a state statute authorizing arrest for a non-breach of peace misdemeanor was constitutional. Absent a statute (like the fact pattern), there is no such privilege.\

Because I was interested: le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/Atwater.pdf

See end of DA's comment re how this would not have been the result in California because of the relevant state statute.
Last edited by Mroberts3 on Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby BeenDidThat » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:12 pm

usuaggie wrote:
RodneyBoonfield wrote:Can someone help me out with this question: 157 on MPQ2 Full day- Basically it says that D who borrowed his friend's car is not guilty of larceny after borrowing it (without the intent to steal) but then deciding after taking it to the grocery store that he was not going to return it, but after that still, he decided to return it. The answer explains that D did not have the requisite intent to commit larceny. I am 99.9% positive that we've had questions just like this that specifically say that the intent for larceny can be formed later on, and that the crime is complete once the mens rea and act add up (here taking the car and deciding not to return, even though he later decided to return it).

Is the distinction in the above question that the taking was not trespassory because D borrowed the car with permission, where as in the other cases that I alluded to, the original taking was NOT with permission, hence trespassory?



Really glad you asked Because I've been confused too. Here is the answer.

Larceny requires intent to permanently deprive at the time of the taking, generally. However, the intent can develop at a later time under the theory of continuing trespass. For the theory of continuing trespass to apply, the defendant must have WRONGFULLY taken the property without the intent to deprive and then later decides to keep it.

In the question you asked, he gains control of the property rightfully, so continuing trespass doesn't apply.


^^^ What he said

It's easy for me to remember as: the continuing trespass rule is simply an equitable relaxation of the traditional requirement that the person intend to permanently deprive true owner. Kind of have to have it so D (who is only witness to his mental state) can't make trouble for the State by saying I was just taking it for a month.

Stinson
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:01 am

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby Stinson » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:30 pm

How to know you are truly a Barbri student now: Barbri writes a crappy practice question, get it right anyway because you are finely attuned to their bullshit by now.

RodneyBoonfield
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:54 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby RodneyBoonfield » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:47 pm

BeenDidThat wrote:
usuaggie wrote:
RodneyBoonfield wrote:Can someone help me out with this question: 157 on MPQ2 Full day- Basically it says that D who borrowed his friend's car is not guilty of larceny after borrowing it (without the intent to steal) but then deciding after taking it to the grocery store that he was not going to return it, but after that still, he decided to return it. The answer explains that D did not have the requisite intent to commit larceny. I am 99.9% positive that we've had questions just like this that specifically say that the intent for larceny can be formed later on, and that the crime is complete once the mens rea and act add up (here taking the car and deciding not to return, even though he later decided to return it).

Is the distinction in the above question that the taking was not trespassory because D borrowed the car with permission, where as in the other cases that I alluded to, the original taking was NOT with permission, hence trespassory?



Really glad you asked Because I've been confused too. Here is the answer.

Larceny requires intent to permanently deprive at the time of the taking, generally. However, the intent can develop at a later time under the theory of continuing trespass. For the theory of continuing trespass to apply, the defendant must have WRONGFULLY taken the property without the intent to deprive and then later decides to keep it.

In the question you asked, he gains control of the property rightfully, so continuing trespass doesn't apply.


^^^ What he said

It's easy for me to remember as: the continuing trespass rule is simply an equitable relaxation of the traditional requirement that the person intend to permanently deprive true owner. Kind of have to have it so D (who is only witness to his mental state) can't make trouble for the State by saying I was just taking it for a month.


So take for example question 178. I was assuming that someone like the girl in the question here WOULD be guilty or larceny. Now I realize how confused I am.

User avatar
usuaggie
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby usuaggie » Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:03 pm

RodneyBoonfield wrote:
BeenDidThat wrote:
usuaggie wrote:
RodneyBoonfield wrote:Can someone help me out with this question: 157 on MPQ2 Full day- Basically it says that D who borrowed his friend's car is not guilty of larceny after borrowing it (without the intent to steal) but then deciding after taking it to the grocery store that he was not going to return it, but after that still, he decided to return it. The answer explains that D did not have the requisite intent to commit larceny. I am 99.9% positive that we've had questions just like this that specifically say that the intent for larceny can be formed later on, and that the crime is complete once the mens rea and act add up (here taking the car and deciding not to return, even though he later decided to return it).

Is the distinction in the above question that the taking was not trespassory because D borrowed the car with permission, where as in the other cases that I alluded to, the original taking was NOT with permission, hence trespassory?



Really glad you asked Because I've been confused too. Here is the answer.

Larceny requires intent to permanently deprive at the time of the taking, generally. However, the intent can develop at a later time under the theory of continuing trespass. For the theory of continuing trespass to apply, the defendant must have WRONGFULLY taken the property without the intent to deprive and then later decides to keep it.

In the question you asked, he gains control of the property rightfully, so continuing trespass doesn't apply.


^^^ What he said

It's easy for me to remember as: the continuing trespass rule is simply an equitable relaxation of the traditional requirement that the person intend to permanently deprive true owner. Kind of have to have it so D (who is only witness to his mental state) can't make trouble for the State by saying I was just taking it for a month.


So take for example question 178. I was assuming that someone like the girl in the question here WOULD be guilty or larceny. Now I realize how confused I am.


In reality today, she probably is guilty of some theft crime. But the common law specific intent larceny crime is its own thing

User avatar
englawyer
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:57 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby englawyer » Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:11 pm

kaiser wrote:
tfer2222 wrote:for NY-ers who don't want to mess with the minor subjects that much, this frequency chart lists the actual issues within each subject that are most heavily tested. Pretty useful if you want to just memorize a couple of the rules that are actually tested out of secured/commercial/fedjur/PR/conflict, etc.

http://www.smartbarprep.com/SmartBarPre ... alysis.pdf

just scroll down to page 8 or so.


The only main sidenote that Barbri added to info like this is that PR is more commonly tested in recent years as a sub-issue within larger essays. But again, its almost always in certain main categories, like conflict of interests, or the rules on contingency fees. The same can be said for almost all the minor subjects, where 1 or 2 sub-issues are almost always the ones tested. You can't center your prep around the one-off issues, when you can spend your time more effectively drilling the major things that you are almost certain to see.


+1 on this. that list is not necessarily a good one to base studying around. the highest ROI subjects, based on the old exams from the bar website, are wills/trust/estates and family law. NY practice + PR will be on there, but will not be a full essay and you can probably get away with bs'ing.

you could get Corps/Commercial Paper/Agency/Conflict of Laws, but the chance seems to be lower than estates or family law (i think).

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby kaiser » Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:19 pm

^^^

Yeah, I would def drill the main NY topics. You know for sure we will see a wills/trusts essay or sub-essay on there. I'd guess we will also get either a corps or domestic relations essay, but almost certainly not both. NY practice will of course be sprinkled into likely multiple essays, and will also make up a sizeable chunk of NYMC. Its the other things that really need to be prioritized. Things like conflict of laws, federal jurisdiction, agency/partnership, PR etc. typically involve the same issue or 2 over and over again, if tested at all. Just know those 1 or 2 things within each, and you are likely fine for those.

User avatar
haroldfordIII
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:56 am

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby haroldfordIII » Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:19 pm

c3pO4 wrote:
RodneyBoonfield wrote:How did people do on the mpq2 full day?


shat the bed. it's all just super hard questions. similar to the simulated final exam int he end, or the half-day right before it, or like sets 5/6 in mpq1. its also harder than sets 8/9, which are themselves much harder than sets 1-7. if you can get 50% on test day on questions of that difficulty (probably want 60% on sets 8/9), you are on track. barbri claims 60% is the goal for the mpq2 full day but I call bullshit. the mpq2 insert says their "goals" on that page are based on averages in PACE but since MPQ2 full day is not assigned in pace they have no way to know. i think anything above 45-50% is not great but probably fine, 50-55% is ok/good, 55-65% is great , above 65%... fuck you stop studying. i did find reviewing the answers helpful though because drilling the exceptions to the exceptions makes sure you understand the fundamentals well.


Took the half-day one today (on top of waking up w/ a mini panic attack). Got a 55/100 whereas I've been getting mid-60s to 80s on the other MPQ2s. Felt crappy/angry at how nuanced those questions were.

Thoughts on going forth with the other 100 q sets?




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests