.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby forza » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:38 pm

JD_done wrote:I have to chime in to say that my attorney adviser has been very helpful with comments on the essays. He inserts parts of rules I missed and makes helpful suggestions.

I guess it's the luck of the draw.


Ditto. Kimberly in New York has been the Scheiße.

balzie94
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:41 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby balzie94 » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:03 pm

Grader's quote to me after I did a poor job on the Commercial Paper graded essay: "I have no doubt you will do awesome on the exam."

She must know something I don't.

Citizen Genet
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:03 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Citizen Genet » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:15 pm

Charles Barkley wrote:I stopped doing the graded essays. My grader was giving me grades such as 36, even though my answers were pretty close to the model answers. She also gave me 36 for every category, such as "knowledge & analysis." It was a joke.

Anyway, trying to learn commercial paper + secured transactions today.


Absolutely awesome bar prep outline I found for secured transactions. Google "secured transactions priority flow chart" and it should be a word doc entitled "SECURED TRANSACTION: Bar Checklist"

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby BarbellDreams » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:23 pm

Not gonna lie, kinda freaked out when I realized that, at least my themis, doesn't put the entirety of the outline in the PA 30 min distinction outlines and there are a ton more distinctions in the outline in the book that I haven't gone over. My distinctions outline online doesn't even have a theft section in it. I compared with the book and there is plenty of stuff the online version left out, I can only assume it is the same for other topics as well.

TheBeard
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby TheBeard » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:41 pm

So glad NJ counts the MBE for 50% because I'm guaranteed to fuck up the essays. Now, if I can only get myself to a 150 scaled on that thing to ensure that even a craptastic performance will be enough to pass.

thebull
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby thebull » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:46 pm

I know some of you stopped doing the graded essays but I'm pretty sure you need to do at least 75% of them in order to trigger the money-back guarantee.

thebull
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby thebull » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:47 pm

TheBeard wrote:So glad NJ counts the MBE for 50% because I'm guaranteed to fuck up the essays. Now, if I can only get myself to a 150 scaled on that thing to ensure that even a craptastic performance will be enough to pass.


What percentage on the MBE would you need in order to get a 150 scaled? And if you did, what percentage on the essays would you need? I have almost no clue about scoring.

User avatar
Charles Barkley
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Charles Barkley » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:48 pm

Noob question relating to commercial paper.

If someone issues me a check and I "indorse" the check by signing the back of it before presenting to the bank, and the maker of the check has insufficient funds or asserts a defense (like infancy) - am I liable on the check? Obviously in the real world it doesn't seem to make sense to hold the recipient of the check liable in this situation.

Or does an indorser only become liable on the negotiable instrument if they negotiate it to a third party before they present it for payment? Does my question even make sense? :oops:

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Dr. Review » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:49 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:Not gonna lie, kinda freaked out when I realized that, at least my themis, doesn't put the entirety of the outline in the PA 30 min distinction outlines and there are a ton more distinctions in the outline in the book that I haven't gone over. My distinctions outline online doesn't even have a theft section in it. I compared with the book and there is plenty of stuff the online version left out, I can only assume it is the same for other topics as well.


I have made a bunch of outlines that work as 30 minute outlines. I didn't make one for crim though, that's all in note cards. I posted a link a few pages back
Everything in there is a condensed form of the full Themis outline or the lecture handouts, and should at least hit the important stuff.
Last edited by Dr. Review on Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TheBeard
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby TheBeard » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:02 pm

thebull wrote:
TheBeard wrote:So glad NJ counts the MBE for 50% because I'm guaranteed to fuck up the essays. Now, if I can only get myself to a 150 scaled on that thing to ensure that even a craptastic performance will be enough to pass.


What percentage on the MBE would you need in order to get a 150 scaled? And if you did, what percentage on the essays would you need? I have almost no clue about scoring.


It's difficult to predict because the scaling varies depending on the difficulty of the exam. Generally, if you get a 138-140 raw, there's a good chance it will scale to a 150. If I can pull that, all I would need is a 116 scaled in NJ. Predicting the NJ multiplier is anyone's guess. The rule of thumb, however, is that it is higher in the July administration (i.e. you need a lower raw to achieve a high scaled score) than in the February administration. For example, I read in another forum that in July of '11, if you scored a 21 raw (average 3 out of 6 on every essay), your scaled score was a 133. That particular year, however, had a really high multiplier (6.3). I've seen the multiplier be as low as 4.1. So, to wrap it all up: who knows!

Kretzy
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

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

thebull wrote:I know some of you stopped doing the graded essays but I'm pretty sure you need to do at least 75% of them in order to trigger the money-back guarantee.


I just reached out the Themis to ask this question. After some dancing around the question, "Nicole," my Agent, said this:

Nicole: Therefore, you must complete the lectures, practice questions, milestone exams, graded essays with an average of 75% completion in a reasonable timeframe to qualify for the Money Back Guarantee.
Nicole: The reading and review tasks are not considered substantive tasks because we can't measure when you completed those tasks.


So you can't just go by the top bar, since that counts the "read/review" tasks. Gotta do the other 4 "substantive" categories with an average of 75% completion.

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:26 pm

Well I'm screwed on the refund then, but at this point it's not worth it.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11726
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:33 pm

Citizen Genet wrote:
Charles Barkley wrote:I stopped doing the graded essays. My grader was giving me grades such as 36, even though my answers were pretty close to the model answers. She also gave me 36 for every category, such as "knowledge & analysis." It was a joke.

Anyway, trying to learn commercial paper + secured transactions today.


Absolutely awesome bar prep outline I found for secured transactions. Google "secured transactions priority flow chart" and it should be a word doc entitled "SECURED TRANSACTION: Bar Checklist"



Um, awesome.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby 09042014 » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:33 pm

Reinhardt wrote:Well I'm screwed on the refund then, but at this point it's not worth it.


Yea fuck it. I'd rather do everything to pass, not try to get 1250 if I fail.

User avatar
Agoraphobia
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:42 pm

I thought I missed the deadline for graded essay 8 (Comm Paper). But it's still on my schedule. Is it just there as an option or will it still get graded if I turn it in?

praetorspqr
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby praetorspqr » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:45 pm

Mixed PQ 14 Spoiler:

Question

A builder contracted with an artist to construct for $200,000 a gallery and an access driveway at street level. Shortly after commencing work on the driveway, which required some excavation and removal of surface material, the builder unexpectedly encountered a large layer of mud. The builder informed the artist (accurately) that because of the mud, the driveway would cost at least $23,000 more than figured, and for that reason, the builder demanded a total contract price of $223,000. Since the artist was expecting customers immediately after the agreed completion date, she signed a writing promising to pay the additional $23,000. Following timely completion of the gallery and driveway, which conformed to the contract in all respects, the artist refused to pay the builder more than $200,000. What is the maximum amount to which the builder is entitled?

Answers

$200,000, because there was no consideration for the artist's promise to pay the additional $23,000.
$200,000, because the artist's promise to pay the additional $23,000 was exacted under duress.
$223,000, because the modification was fair and was made in the light of circumstances not anticipated by the parties when the
original contract was made.
$223,000, provided that the reasonable value of the builder's total performance was that much or more.

Rationale:

Answer choice C is correct. While at common law modification of an existing contract must be supported by consideration, agreements to modify a contract may still be enforced if there are unforeseen difficulties, and one of the parties agrees to compensate the other when the difficulties are discovered. Here, the modification was fair because no one anticipated the unforeseen difficulties, and the additional $23,000 was the accurate cost of the unexpected change in circumstances. Answer choice A is incorrect, as even though there was no consideration for the artist's promise to pay the additional $23,000, agreements to modify a contract may still be enforced if there are unforeseen difficulties, and one of the parties agrees to compensate the other when the difficulties are discovered. Answer choice B is incorrect, as the concept of duress is not applicable here. Any wrongful act or threat that deprives a party of meaningful choice constitutes duress. There was no wrongful act or threat here, just unforeseen difficulties. Answer choice D is incorrect, as the reasonable value of the total performance does not matter, since the modified contract will be enforced under the common law. The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification.

Does anyone else find these non NCBE questions to be complete BS? I was almost certain that choice A was correct. Can someone explain to me how the hell isn't a large layer of mud expected under a driveway?!?!?! :evil: :evil: :evil:

lionelhutz123
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby lionelhutz123 » Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:24 pm

Just did the MBE practice test. Got 150, 75 on each half, and am reasonably pleased with that result. I'm curious what the 'rescore' box is on the paper version of the exam. Is this for determining scaled score? If so, how do we do that? What would a 150 raw on the MBE normally scale to?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby 09042014 » Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:27 pm

lionelhutz123 wrote:Just did the MBE practice test. Got 150, 75 on each half, and am reasonably pleased with that result. I'm curious what the 'rescore' box is on the paper version of the exam. Is this for determining scaled score? If so, how do we do that? What would a 150 raw on the MBE normally scale to?


Nobody knows, but it's probably going to be 160+.

You sir, are ready for the bar.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11726
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:40 pm

I have sat here for an hour thinking it's time to study, and then playing video games.

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:45 pm

lionelhutz123 wrote:Just did the MBE practice test. Got 150, 75 on each half, and am reasonably pleased with that result. I'm curious what the 'rescore' box is on the paper version of the exam. Is this for determining scaled score? If so, how do we do that? What would a 150 raw on the MBE normally scale to?


150/200 is 142.5/190, which is maybe 153 on a normal difficulty MBE. I think Themis's sim MBE is actually somewhat harder than the real thing though, given the average score was what, 64%? Conceivably, it was the same difficulty as a real MBE and the average Themis taker just isn't as prepared 1-3 weeks before the exam, but the NCBE practice tests are also a lot easier.

JD_done
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 9:04 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby JD_done » Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:51 pm

praetorspqr wrote:Mixed PQ 14 Spoiler:

Question

A builder contracted with an artist to construct for $200,000 a gallery and an access driveway at street level. Shortly after commencing work on the driveway, which required some excavation and removal of surface material, the builder unexpectedly encountered a large layer of mud. The builder informed the artist (accurately) that because of the mud, the driveway would cost at least $23,000 more than figured, and for that reason, the builder demanded a total contract price of $223,000. Since the artist was expecting customers immediately after the agreed completion date, she signed a writing promising to pay the additional $23,000. Following timely completion of the gallery and driveway, which conformed to the contract in all respects, the artist refused to pay the builder more than $200,000. What is the maximum amount to which the builder is entitled?

Answers

$200,000, because there was no consideration for the artist's promise to pay the additional $23,000.
$200,000, because the artist's promise to pay the additional $23,000 was exacted under duress.
$223,000, because the modification was fair and was made in the light of circumstances not anticipated by the parties when the
original contract was made.
$223,000, provided that the reasonable value of the builder's total performance was that much or more.

Rationale:

Answer choice C is correct. While at common law modification of an existing contract must be supported by consideration, agreements to modify a contract may still be enforced if there are unforeseen difficulties, and one of the parties agrees to compensate the other when the difficulties are discovered. Here, the modification was fair because no one anticipated the unforeseen difficulties, and the additional $23,000 was the accurate cost of the unexpected change in circumstances. Answer choice A is incorrect, as even though there was no consideration for the artist's promise to pay the additional $23,000, agreements to modify a contract may still be enforced if there are unforeseen difficulties, and one of the parties agrees to compensate the other when the difficulties are discovered. Answer choice B is incorrect, as the concept of duress is not applicable here. Any wrongful act or threat that deprives a party of meaningful choice constitutes duress. There was no wrongful act or threat here, just unforeseen difficulties. Answer choice D is incorrect, as the reasonable value of the total performance does not matter, since the modified contract will be enforced under the common law. The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification.

Does anyone else find these non NCBE questions to be complete BS? I was almost certain that choice A was correct. Can someone explain to me how the hell isn't a large layer of mud expected under a driveway?!?!?! :evil: :evil: :evil:


YUP. All of these fact patterns make me mad. I have figured out that is Themis says "unforeseen" "unexpected" or "unprecedented" = no consideration needed. I don't think this means it's always the case on the bar but I did WAY too many of these to not get the hint.

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:00 pm

Charles Barkley wrote:Noob question relating to commercial paper.

If someone issues me a check and I "indorse" the check by signing the back of it before presenting to the bank, and the maker of the check has insufficient funds or asserts a defense (like infancy) - am I liable on the check? Obviously in the real world it doesn't seem to make sense to hold the recipient of the check liable in this situation.

Or does an indorser only become liable on the negotiable instrument if they negotiate it to a third party before they present it for payment? Does my question even make sense? :oops:


If you indorse the check and present it for payment, then you yourself won't be liable on the check because you're the person demanding payment. If the drawer is able to assert some defense and no one else is liable on the check, there's a possibility that you won't get paid on the check either. However, if A draws a check and issues it to B, B indorses it to C, and C presents the check for payment and the drawee refuses to pay out (the check is "dishonored"), then anyone who has indorsed the check before the person presenting for payment may be liable on the check. so in that case, B would be personally liable in the event of dishonor, as would A.

User avatar
Agoraphobia
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:02 pm

Reinhardt wrote:Conceivably, it was the same difficulty as a real MBE and the average Themis taker just isn't as prepared 1-3 weeks before the exam, but the NCBE practice tests are also a lot easier.


A lot easier than the Themis sim MBE, or a lot easier than the real exam? I'd be thrilled if the NCBE practice tests were of similar difficulty to the exam.

lionelhutz123
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby lionelhutz123 » Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:04 pm

Reinhardt wrote:
lionelhutz123 wrote:Just did the MBE practice test. Got 150, 75 on each half, and am reasonably pleased with that result. I'm curious what the 'rescore' box is on the paper version of the exam. Is this for determining scaled score? If so, how do we do that? What would a 150 raw on the MBE normally scale to?


150/200 is 142.5/190, which is maybe 153 on a normal difficulty MBE. I think Themis's sim MBE is actually somewhat harder than the real thing though, given the average score was what, 64%? Conceivably, it was the same difficulty as a real MBE and the average Themis taker just isn't as prepared 1-3 weeks before the exam, but the NCBE practice tests are also a lot easier.


Interesting. Where does this, approximately, put me in terms of percentile? What is the consensus on what an 'average' passing score on the MBE is? The bar really throws you because a score like a 75%, abysmal in law school terms, is apparently more than adequate...

User avatar
Charles Barkley
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Charles Barkley » Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:06 pm

releasethehounds wrote:
If you indorse the check and present it for payment, then you yourself won't be liable on the check because you're the person demanding payment. If the drawer is able to assert some defense and no one else is liable on the check, there's a possibility that you won't get paid on the check either. However, if A draws a check and issues it to B, B indorses it to C, and C presents the check for payment and the drawee refuses to pay out (the check is "dishonored"), then anyone who has indorsed the check before the person presenting for payment may be liable on the check. so in that case, B would be personally liable in the event of dishonor, as would A.


Thanks a ton. Makes sense.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests