Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

[sd5289]

Is anyone wishing they had done Barbri instead? Not for the material, but because they aren't having any human interaction? It's starting to get to me.

I may not count because I am married, so I generally interact with at least one person who isn't a bodega guy or coffee shop person, BUT, I've done a few social things on the weekends since I started, which have helped refresh me and certainly haven't put me behind in comparison to everyone else in here. Take a few hours and go see a movie or something with some friends.

I'm putting in my face time and disclaimers now for when July rolls around and I'll either be completely absent or just not a fun person to be around.

Re. mortgages: yeah...I've definitely "learned" mortgages via tons of incorrect MBE answers and correct answer explanations. I'm finally getting the hang of it after 4 practice sets. Thanks Themis.

[zot1]

A good number of these Civ Pro questions require either too many inferences on the rules or do not sufficiently provide enough basis to select it as "correct". It is extremely frustrating.

So spot on for my last Con Law set. The facts did not give me sufficient info for the "right" answer in some questions, and I just thought to myself, "is Themis assuming this happened?" And then answer to get them "right." I was very disappointed because as written, the answers were not really "right."

[kjartan]

A good number of these Civ Pro questions require either too many inferences on the rules or do not sufficiently provide enough basis to select it as "correct". It is extremely frustrating.

So spot on for my last Con Law set. The facts did not give me sufficient info for the "right" answer in some questions, and I just thought to myself, "is Themis assuming this happened?" And then answer to get them "right." I was very disappointed because as written, the answers were not really "right."

Does Themis write certain MBE questions? Because I'm doing a Crim Law / Crim Pro MBE session rn and have the same complaint.

[Raiden]

Question from Criminal law lecture handout that I could use some help on, it has this example:

Someone who comes inside another's dwelling with the owner’s _____consent_________ and then steals something is guilty of larceny but not burglary because there was no “breaking.”

However, isn't this embezzlement and not larceny because you started off having consent but then took the property.

[Robert Paulson]

Question from Criminal law lecture handout that I could use some help on, it has this example:

Someone who comes inside another's dwelling with the owner’s _____consent_________ and then steals something is guilty of larceny but not burglary because there was no “breaking.”

However, isn't this embezzlement and not larceny because you started off having consent but then took the property.

It is not embezzlement because you do not have the owner's permission to be in possession of the property taken (only permission to be on the premises).

[FallonJ]

I'll say this, make sure you study the long outline for Property.

[Raiden]

Question from Criminal law lecture handout that I could use some help on, it has this example:

Someone who comes inside another's dwelling with the owner’s _____consent_________ and then steals something is guilty of larceny but not burglary because there was no “breaking.”

However, isn't this embezzlement and not larceny because you started off having consent but then took the property.

It is not embezzlement because you do not have the owner's permission to be in possession of the property taken (only permission to be on the premises).

Ah yes that makes yes, thank you!

[hindijs1]

Have been following the thread all the way. First post. So im 39.1% into this. My average for all the MBE questions I have completed thus far is 62% correct. Should I be at a higher % correct at this point, or am I doing ok?

[MrMustache]

Have been following the thread all the way. First post. So im 39.1% into this. My average for all the MBE questions I have completed thus far is 62% correct. Should I be at a higher % correct at this point, or am I doing ok?

Given how often Themis will leave out an exception to a rule in its lectures, I'd say that 62% average while we still have another 40+ days before the actual bar is pretty good!

[hindijs1]

Have been following the thread all the way. First post. So im 39.1% into this. My average for all the MBE questions I have completed thus far is 62% correct. Should I be at a higher % correct at this point, or am I doing ok?

Given how often Themis will leave out an exception to a rule in its lectures, I'd say that 62% average while we still have another 40+ days before the actual bar is pretty good!

Thanks for your input.

[Worker and Parasite]

anyone thinking of just foregoing the lectures and going straight to the long outline? The lectures are such a time sink

[PepsiMinimum]

Did I just get punk'd by Themis?

I was doing a civ pro practice MBE when

[+] Spoiler

the fact pattern established that the plaintiff moved to a different state solely for purposes of getting diversity jurisdiction, but the answer that I chose, that the court had no jurisdiction because the plaintiff moved solely for that purpose, was incorrect. The "correct answer" was instead that DJ was proper because P and D were citizens of different states. WHAT?! Did I not learn the rule correctly?!

I actually felt so punk'd by this question that I messaged them about it. They said:

"This is permitted because the woman actually did change her domicile. She didn't simply get a P.O. Box or rent an apartment in another state or even move temporarily, intending to move back, for the purposes of establishing diversity. So long as the change of domicile isn't a "sham" and it is genuine, the woman's reasons for moving are irrelevant."

[Velours]

I've been reading the long outlines and making note cards and then listening to the lecture at x 2. I feel like both methods have their draw backs and it's time consuming but I remember things better from writing them down and repetition helps.

If you aren't getting much from the lectures you could skip them for your next MBE topic and see how the first round or two of questions go and readjust from there.

[IamIn]

anyone thinking of just foregoing the lectures and going straight to the long outline? The lectures are such a time sink

That's what I am doing now. I usually play lectures in the background while I am reading the long outline, and then just answer assessment questions.
I decided the following works for me: I copy the entire long outline into a word document and organize it in a way that works for me (e.g., putting headings in bold and underline the subheadings, adjust indents so the headings don't blend all together like they're in the outline online or in the book, etc.).
When it's organized the way I want it, it's much easier for me to read and memorize.

[sd5289]

I think (I hope) that Torts is finally making sense to me. Just got through a practice set with 76.5% correct and 25 minutes to spare, and for once didn't feel like I was just guessing half of the time. Initially when I was down in the low 60s all I could think about was the Drexel prof saying that we should be able to offset other areas by getting up to an 80% correct in Torts, and I was like:

However, I fully expect the Con Law set I have coming up afternoon to demolish this feeling.

[gr8scOtt!]

The Session 5 MPE PQ's for Contracts, Torts, and Property aren't assigned until mid-July, long after we start doing mixed-PQ sets. Has anyone done these sets already? Is there any benefit to waiting? I'm wondering if it's worth using these sets as practice before the mixed-PQs, since we cannot reopen the old ones.

[sd5289]

The Session 5 MPE PQ's for Contracts, Torts, and Property aren't assigned until mid-July, long after we start doing mixed-PQ sets. Has anyone done these sets already? Is there any benefit to waiting? I'm wondering if it's worth using these sets as practice before the mixed-PQs, since we cannot reopen the old ones.

I'm curious about this too. It feels like ages since I've done a K's one, and that's by far my worst area. I did decently on those during the milestone, but would like to continue getting practice because I'm seeing my performance in Torts and Prop improving as I'm consistently doing PQ's.

[sd5289]

Ugh, Con Law is killing me. For those of you have done the 2nd PQ set, can anyone explain to me HOW this answer choice was correct? I didn't really like any of the answer choices but knew it was one of the "no" ones. Picked the other "no" one because I thought it sounded less wrong, but I really don't get how the "correct" answer is the right answer...

[+] Spoiler

Q: was about a Congressional statute making it a crime to transport your spouse across state lines for the purposes of murdering him or her. Wife does so, and is charged. She contests constitutionality of the statute.

Correct A: No, because Congress can keep the channels of interstate commerce free of immoral and injurious uses.

Other A's were: Yes, because federalism prohibits Congress from interfering in an area of traditional state concern, the crime of murder.

Yes, because the activity in question, murder, does not substantially affect interstate commerce.

No, because Congress can protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce.

[always_raining]

Ugh, Con Law is killing me. For those of you have done the 2nd PQ set, can anyone explain to me HOW this answer choice was correct? I didn't really like any of the answer choices but knew it was one of the "no" ones. Picked the other "no" one because I thought it sounded less wrong, but I really don't get how the "correct" answer is the right answer...

[+] Spoiler

Q: was about a Congressional statute making it a crime to transport your spouse across state lines for the purposes of murdering him or her. Wife does so, and is charged. She contests constitutionality of the statute.

Correct A: No, because Congress can keep the channels of interstate commerce free of immoral and injurious uses.

Other A's were: Yes, because federalism prohibits Congress from interfering in an area of traditional state concern, the crime of murder.

Yes, because the activity in question, murder, does not substantially affect interstate commerce.

No, because Congress can protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce.

I believe it is because of the distinction between instrumentalities vs channels. So here Congress is regulating the channels, not the instrumentalities, so that's why the last answer is incorrect.

Edit: also Congress can basically regulate interstate commerce for any purpose, so it doesnt really matter in these answers what the purpose is.

[Raiden]

What techniques are you all using to memorize your outlines? I was trying do to the memory palace technique [youtube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6PoUg7jXsA [/youtube] which isn't too bad, but it's just something I haven't really done before.

[Confused7]

Is anyone else frustrated with all we have to learn for Evidence? I'm not up to the NY distinctions yet, and I already feel overwhelmed that there's so much to study for. For some reason, it seems more overwhelming than the other subjects. I also just got barely over a 50% on my first MBE.

[zot1]

Did I just get punk'd by Themis?

I was doing a civ pro practice MBE when

[+] Spoiler

the fact pattern established that the plaintiff moved to a different state solely for purposes of getting diversity jurisdiction, but the answer that I chose, that the court had no jurisdiction because the plaintiff moved solely for that purpose, was incorrect. The "correct answer" was instead that DJ was proper because P and D were citizens of different states. WHAT?! Did I not learn the rule correctly?!

I actually felt so punk'd by this question that I messaged them about it. They said:

"This is permitted because the woman actually did change her domicile. She didn't simply get a P.O. Box or rent an apartment in another state or even move temporarily, intending to move back, for the purposes of establishing diversity. So long as the change of domicile isn't a "sham" and it is genuine, the woman's reasons for moving are irrelevant."

[+] Spoiler

How is moving "solely for the purposes of establishing diversity" not a "sham"? Without more facts, it makes it seem like she would later move back. But okay, Themis, you win.

[sd5289]

Ugh, Con Law is killing me. For those of you have done the 2nd PQ set, can anyone explain to me HOW this answer choice was correct? I didn't really like any of the answer choices but knew it was one of the "no" ones. Picked the other "no" one because I thought it sounded less wrong, but I really don't get how the "correct" answer is the right answer...

[+] Spoiler

Q: was about a Congressional statute making it a crime to transport your spouse across state lines for the purposes of murdering him or her. Wife does so, and is charged. She contests constitutionality of the statute.

Correct A: No, because Congress can keep the channels of interstate commerce free of immoral and injurious uses.

Other A's were: Yes, because federalism prohibits Congress from interfering in an area of traditional state concern, the crime of murder.

Yes, because the activity in question, murder, does not substantially affect interstate commerce.

No, because Congress can protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce.

I believe it is because of the distinction between instrumentalities vs channels. So here Congress is regulating the channels, not the instrumentalities, so that's why the last answer is incorrect.

Edit: also Congress can basically regulate interstate commerce for any purpose, so it doesnt really matter in these answers what the purpose is.

Yeah, I guess I just adhered too much to the can't regulate non-economic, noncommercial activity that doesn't have a substantial impact on interstate commerce too much. I honestly felt like both of the "no" answers were wrong, but couldn't figure out which one to choose (I even felt like "instrumentalities" was wrong when I chose it, but the whole "immoral" thing threw me off).

[Pleasye]

My essay grader is useless. I just emailed to ask for a new one.

[always_raining]

My essay grader is useless. I just emailed to ask for a new one.

We must have the same one.