Top Law Schools

murray18 wrote:

charlesxavier wrote:"When I took BarBri for the Georgia Bar in 1989, they had a criminal law lecturer who gave me the most valuable advice I ever had for bar preparation. He said that there are three levels of knowledge. In the first level, you have a superficial sense of a topic but not an in-depth knowledge.
That in-depth knowledge is what law professors have and then only about one subject. They can distinguish the fine points and they know why they were decided a particular way. Level 3 knowledge is unattainable for the number of subjects on the Bar Exam. So that leaves Level 2 knowledge. In Level 2, you know just enough to be dangerous. You know there are fine points but you can’t distinguish them so you get confused. And the readers of the exam probably won’t appreciate those fine points even if you spot them since they’re lawyers not law professors. So, contrary to popular opinion, according to the criminal law lecturer and my own experience, your goal is Level 1 superficial knowledge of every subject."

I sure hope this turns out to be true. I'm looking at you, biz orgs/wills.

Would knowing how to spell the area of law be enough to fall under Level 1? That's about where I'm at with corporations, wills, and trusts.

kykiske wrote:

murray18 wrote:

charlesxavier wrote:"When I took BarBri for the Georgia Bar in 1989, they had a criminal law lecturer who gave me the most valuable advice I ever had for bar preparation. He said that there are three levels of knowledge. In the first level, you have a superficial sense of a topic but not an in-depth knowledge.
That in-depth knowledge is what law professors have and then only about one subject. They can distinguish the fine points and they know why they were decided a particular way. Level 3 knowledge is unattainable for the number of subjects on the Bar Exam. So that leaves Level 2 knowledge. In Level 2, you know just enough to be dangerous. You know there are fine points but you can’t distinguish them so you get confused. And the readers of the exam probably won’t appreciate those fine points even if you spot them since they’re lawyers not law professors. So, contrary to popular opinion, according to the criminal law lecturer and my own experience, your goal is Level 1 superficial knowledge of every subject."

I sure hope this turns out to be true. I'm looking at you, biz orgs/wills.

Would knowing how to spell the area of law be enough to fall under Level 1? That's about where I'm at with corporations, wills, and trusts.

At least you know how to spell those areas. My computer is convinced that suretyship is not a word.

For those who did the MBE 100 question refresher and did the mixed MPQ sets 5, 6 or 7 - which of them is the easiest/most resembles what to expect on the actual MBE?

I probably have only 100 questions left in me for MBE prep. I don't want to spend it on ridiculously challenging/narrow exception questions. I would rather spend it on likely questions and get a confidence booster before Wednesday.

jwe-houston wrote:

Redamon1 wrote:What is the difference between the ban on double jeopardy and the doctrine of lesser included offenses? If a crime is a lesser included offense, isn't it automatically barred by the double jeopardy prohibition? My understanding is that two crimes are the same unless each one requires proof an additional element that the other does not require. By definition, a lesser included offense requires no element additional to the higher crime. What am I missing?

I guess this goes to that Lvl 2 knowledge they just posted. There is a subtle difference. An acquittal of (for example) murder carries with it an implied acquittal of the lesser charges - manslaughter, depraved heart. Double jeopardy covers situations where there was not an acquittal.

What do you mean double jeopardy covers situations where there was no an acquittal. Double jeopardy covers situations where jeopardy has attached, and then the same sovereign wants to try the person for the same criminal offense again. Double jeopardy covers acquittals. The whole "lesser-included offense" thing is a way of defining whether two offenses are "the same criminal offense or not." In other words, if a defendant is tried and acquitted for murder, double jeopardy will prevent trying him for a lesser-included offense because they don't each require proof of a different element.

So what is everyone's plan for this weekend? There is obviously so much more to do (isn't there always) and my knowledge of basically all of the topics is superficial, at best, with some random specific facts thrown in. But I'm at a crossroads - do I read through all of my notes one more time? Do I try to knock out a bunch more MBE MC to practice those? Or do I sit down and outline as many state essays as I can pump out so I can see as many topics as possible?

Devlin wrote:For those who did the MBE 100 question refresher and did the mixed MPQ sets 5, 6 or 7 - which of them is the easiest/most resembles what to expect on the actual MBE?

I probably have only 100 questions left in me for MBE prep. I don't want to spend it on ridiculously challenging/narrow exception questions. I would rather spend it on likely questions and get a confidence booster before Wednesday.

The refresher is pretty tough and will only test on narrow exceptions. I did the mixed set 5 this morning and thought it was much more reasonable. Not sure either really resembles what to expect though.

Devlin wrote:For those who did the MBE 100 question refresher and did the mixed MPQ sets 5, 6 or 7 - which of them is the easiest/most resembles what to expect on the actual MBE?

I probably have only 100 questions left in me for MBE prep. I don't want to spend it on ridiculously challenging/narrow exception questions. I would rather spend it on likely questions and get a confidence booster before Wednesday.

Mixed sets are by far the easier. But is it anything like the real thing? No clue.

PSP has me doing only MPQ mixed set 3 today and 4 tomorrow. Am I stupid to not spend the rest of the weekend reviewing outlines?

Just finished Mixed Set 5: 35/50 (70%).

It's not genius-level, like Kyle's score, but hey, it's good enough.

I've reached my natural limits. Even if I were to study 18 hours/day for the next few days, I won't improve much more.

My target for the MBE is to get 67-70% correct (129-133/190 correct).

BearState wrote:PSP has me doing only MPQ mixed set 3 today and 4 tomorrow. Am I stupid to not spend the rest of the weekend reviewing outlines?

You aren't stupid to spend time doing things other than reviewing outlines--especially if you have any particularly weak areas but I think there are probably better uses of your time than the mixed sets.

xlawschoolhopefulx wrote:So what is everyone's plan for this weekend? There is obviously so much more to do (isn't there always) and my knowledge of basically all of the topics is superficial, at best, with some random specific facts thrown in. But I'm at a crossroads - do I read through all of my notes one more time? Do I try to knock out a bunch more MBE MC to practice those? Or do I sit down and outline as many state essays as I can pump out so I can see as many topics as possible?

Spending at least 45 minutes-1 hour for every subject going through BarBri outlines, my outline, and essay answers (which actually seem to be the most helpful to me honestly). Probably a bit more for K's and Property.

Will finish off with my last set of 50 Emanuel MBE's as my last thing, since it will likely give me more confidence than BarBri will.

Taking Monday off, as cautioned by previous takers that I know.

xlawschoolhopefulx wrote:So what is everyone's plan for this weekend? There is obviously so much more to do (isn't there always) and my knowledge of basically all of the topics is superficial, at best, with some random specific facts thrown in. But I'm at a crossroads - do I read through all of my notes one more time? Do I try to knock out a bunch more MBE MC to practice those? Or do I sit down and outline as many state essays as I can pump out so I can see as many topics as possible?

Today: 50 MBE Q. Trust/Guardianship review and essays. Review Texas subjects I'm weak in.
Tomorrow: 50 MBE Q. Read every single Texas essay that I have yet to do / look at ones I already did and flagged.
Monday: Sit down and look at MPTs (I have only done one MPT this entire time). Review/practice Tex Procedure and Evidence. Finish up around 5pm (hopefully) and enjoy the rest of my night.

kykiske wrote:Just finished Mixed Set 5: 35/50 (70%).

It's not genius-level, like Kyle's score, but hey, it's good enough.

I've reached my natural limits. Even if I were to study 18 hours/day for the next few days, I won't improve much more.

My target for the MBE is to get 67-70% correct (129-133/190 correct).

Haha, that was an one-off thing. I doubt I can duplicate that kind of result, although I wish I can!

Does anyone else find themselves talking out loud while working multiple choice questions, or is that just me?

Hey guys

So ya'll feel a bit better about quiz day: I'm at the bar sinking my 3rd pint with CMR in front of me. Thanks to you lot I've been reading about SL for wild animals and "dangerous" activities.

I'm about to board a 15 hour flight, followed by a 3 hour layover and a 2.5 he flight to Albany.

I'm picking my gf up from the airport at 1:30 am on Monday morning and my body clock is about 8 hours ahead of NY.

Im going in feeling both confident AND shitty.

You guys are going to nail it.

Devlin wrote:

xlawschoolhopefulx wrote:So what is everyone's plan for this weekend? There is obviously so much more to do (isn't there always) and my knowledge of basically all of the topics is superficial, at best, with some random specific facts thrown in. But I'm at a crossroads - do I read through all of my notes one more time? Do I try to knock out a bunch more MBE MC to practice those? Or do I sit down and outline as many state essays as I can pump out so I can see as many topics as possible?

Today: 50 MBE Q. Trust/Guardianship review and essays. Review Texas subjects I'm weak in.
Tomorrow: 50 MBE Q. Read every single Texas essay that I have yet to do / look at ones I already did and flagged.
Monday: Sit down and look at MPTs (I have only done one MPT this entire time). Review/practice Tex Procedure and Evidence. Finish up around 5pm (hopefully) and enjoy the rest of my night.

You'll do great. Maybe I'd recommend taking all of Monday off, if you can. Being well-rested is way more important than that little extra ounce of knowledge at this point. The test is more a test of physical stamina than intellectual ability, since you've already put in the time.

reinbowbrite wrote:Does anyone else find themselves talking out loud while working multiple choice questions, or is that just me?

I do that too! It actually helps me think. Too bad we can't do it during the exam.

Today: MPQ 3; Lean Sheets review; Try to go through essays in weak areas I haven't completed just to see what's out there; drink beer and relax

Tomorrow: MPQ 4; watch BarBri Mini Review Lectures; drink beer and relax

Monday: buy a watch

So I'm taking Themis but gonna ask Barbri people here because Themis may be wrong. Civ pro question.

According to themis, a crossclaim asserted by 1 defendant against another must relate to the original claim that was asserted by the plaintiff against both defendants. So far so good. The question becomes then what happens if additional cross claims are asserted. Themis suggests, and I have long understood to be the case, that ANY cross claim needs to relate to the original claim

But I came across a model answer prepared by a group of VA law profs for an old VA exam question that asserted that only the first cross claim needs to be related, and as long as it is, any additional cross claims can be independent and not at all related to the original claim.

Now I know FRCP 13(g) seems pretty clear that crossclaims need to relate to the original claim, but the profs justify their answer on the basis of FRCP 18(a)...arguing that "A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party."

Thus, according to them, only the first crossclaim needs to relate, and if it is, any other cross claim can be independent. This blows my mind so wondering what you barbri guys think of this.

Good Guy Gaud wrote:Today: MPQ 3; Lean Sheets review; Try to go through essays in weak areas I haven't completed just to see what's out there; drink beer and relax

Tomorrow: MPQ 4; watch BarBri Mini Review Lectures; drink beer and relax

Monday: buy a watch

Oh, your state lets you have a watch? Fancy.

Question:

What are most of you planning to do this weekend:

(i) learn new material that you haven't memorized;
(ii) review/master stuff you've got done pretty well;
(iii) lol barzam i'm relaxing not learning any more?

I'm caught between (i) and (ii) and am wondering what you guys think. Is it worthwhile, at this point, to even try to learn new things or should I just trust that I know enough and make sure I've got what I know under control?

#don'twanttoburnout

Killingly wrote:

Good Guy Gaud wrote:Today: MPQ 3; Lean Sheets review; Try to go through essays in weak areas I haven't completed just to see what's out there; drink beer and relax

Tomorrow: MPQ 4; watch BarBri Mini Review Lectures; drink beer and relax

Monday: buy a watch

Oh, your state lets you have a watch? Fancy.

Good Guy Gaud wrote:Question:

What are most of you planning to do this weekend:

(i) learn new material that you haven't memorized;
(ii) review/master stuff you've got done pretty well;
(iii) lol barzam i'm relaxing not learning any more?

I'm caught between (i) and (ii) and am wondering what you guys think. Is it worthwhile, at this point, to even try to learn new things or should I just trust that I know enough and make sure I've got what I know under control?

#don'twanttoburnout

Go with (iii). Would you spend the two day before a marathon training the shit out of yourself? No, doesn't make sense right. The bar exam is more a test of physical stamina than any other 4-5 hour exam. We all surpassed the passing level of knowledge ages ago. It's just about putting it together on game day now. Give your body a break.

I've been relaxing hard and recommend you do the same gaud

We're all gonna make it (no matter what we do this weekend)

BelugaWhale wrote:So I'm taking Themis but gonna ask Barbri people here because Themis may be wrong. Civ pro question.

According to themis, a crossclaim asserted by 1 defendant against another must relate to the original claim that was asserted by the plaintiff against both defendants. So far so good. The question becomes then what happens if additional cross claims are asserted. Themis suggests, and I have long understood to be the case, that ANY cross claim needs to relate to the original claim

But I came across a model answer prepared by a group of VA law profs for an old VA exam question that asserted that only the first cross claim needs to be related, and as long as it is, any additional cross claims can be independent and not at all related to the original claim.

Now I know FRCP 13(g) seems pretty clear that crossclaims need to relate to the original claim, but the profs justify their answer on the basis of FRCP 18(a)...arguing that "A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party."

Thus, according to them, only the first crossclaim needs to relate, and if it is, any other cross claim can be independent. This blows my mind so wondering what you barbri guys think of this.

Pretty sure the later part of your thoughts are correct where you derived the info from the law professors.

So the original defendant (now third party plaintiff) asserts a cross claim against the 3rd party (now the third party D). That first cross claim must be related to the same T/O. This will almost invariably satisfy the test for supp jx. After this first claim satisfies the test, the third party plaintiff can then assert any other claims she may have against the third party defendant. However, keep in mind, that there needs to be a proper jurisdictional basis for any of those claims. If they don't arise out of the same T/O, then supplemental jx is out the window. Thus, the jx basis will need to be DVJX or FQJX.

This same principle applies to compulsory counterclaims. Once you file a compulsory counterclaim against the P, you can then add to it any additional unrelated claims that you have. Again, there needs to be the proper basis for jx to file anyone of those claims.