Kaplan Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[shredderrrrrr]

Is it Corn? That's who we got in CA. Surprisingly, I like him. Or at least, he was easier to follow than say torts and Civ Pro.

I just gave up on watching Levine for Torts. His bar notes drove me nuts because they were in track changes mode with way too many spaces in between everything. And he was far too monotone/reading off the outline, after he said he wouldn't "just read the outline"

Yep, Corn for Crim and Levine for Torts.

That just goes to show how personalized teaching preferences are. I really enjoyed Levine and hated Corn. While Levine isn't generally my type of professor (I much prefer the Civ Pro guy--I think it was Preis?), I felt like he broke things up well and actually explained each concept. He gave good short examples that were memorable (to me at least). I think it probably helped that he went at a pace that was perfect for me to watch at 2x speed. My only issue with him was that what he was saying departed just enough from the outline to be annoying (by like phrasing a definition slightly differently than how it was presented for us to fill in or skipping over something we were supposed to fill in). Conversely, I want to punch Corn in the face. Funny how that works!

With regards to the outline formatting though, I decided after the very first lecture to spend an hour or two putting the entire outline into a new document and formatting it how I like it (and how I'm used to from law school). It may be a waste of time, but I much prefer having an outline that is clean and easy to navigate than the ugly messes I download from Kaplan. Then again, I'm pretty OCD about that sort of thing.

[fadedsunrise]

My favorites were either Fromm or Kermit actually, but I think they were everyone's favorites lol. I think Kermit followed the outline enough for me to be able take notes but also departed enough to give meaningful examples I still remember even without rereading the notes I took. If only they could trade off on doing all the subjects...

Also to the people who say they are getting questions wrong because they know just enough law, add me plez. Then again, some of these questions I wonder if were made up by vindictive recent grads. One of the explanations basically went "adverse possessors might have to follow equitable servitudes, but there is no case that decided this. Still, this is the right answer."

Say what. -_-

[odoylerulez]

Kaplan just feels like the "Average Joes" of Bar Prep. Was still the best value for me $$ wise, but sometimes it feels like a joke.

Fromm was OK, so were Corn, the Property guy, and Preis. The only real complaint I have about Corn is that he really glossed over some of the Criminal Procedure stuff -- didn't even talk about habeus corpus, for example. The rest were just bad. Kermit and Levine were especially difficult to follow. Barnes wasn't great either, but I felt I could get by with him.

[smaug]

yeah this is all taste

I thought Kermit was pretty good/felt like an actual lecturer. Barnes was no. 2 for the MBE stuff, imo. I like Fromm as well.

[robinhoodOO]

Is it Corn? That's who we got in CA. Surprisingly, I like him. Or at least, he was easier to follow than say torts and Civ Pro.

I just gave up on watching Levine for Torts. His bar notes drove me nuts because they were in track changes mode with way too many spaces in between everything. And he was far too monotone/reading off the outline, after he said he wouldn't "just read the outline"

Yep, Corn for Crim and Levine for Torts.

That just goes to show how personalized teaching preferences are. I really enjoyed Levine and hated Corn. While Levine isn't generally my type of professor (I much prefer the Civ Pro guy--I think it was Preis?), I felt like he broke things up well and actually explained each concept. He gave good short examples that were memorable (to me at least). I think it probably helped that he went at a pace that was perfect for me to watch at 2x speed. My only issue with him was that what he was saying departed just enough from the outline to be annoying (by like phrasing a definition slightly differently than how it was presented for us to fill in or skipping over something we were supposed to fill in). Conversely, I want to punch Corn in the face. Funny how that works!

With regards to the outline formatting though, I decided after the very first lecture to spend an hour or two putting the entire outline into a new document and formatting it how I like it (and how I'm used to from law school). It may be a waste of time, but I much prefer having an outline that is clean and easy to navigate than the ugly messes I download from Kaplan. Then again, I'm pretty OCD about that sort of thing.

We are like twins...Holy shit. Preferred Preis--check. (listened to him at 1.5 speed, though) Preferred Levine--check. Re-outline the shitty bar notes first--check. OCD--not diagnosed, but probably? haha

I shut Corn off today. Got 20 minutes in and just said fuck it...No way. I found my outline from law school and re-wrote a new outline using Kaplan's materials and mine.

[LAW813FL]

I liked Kermit because I felt like Teddy Roosevelt was teaching me Con Law.

[shredderrrrrr]

Is it Corn? That's who we got in CA. Surprisingly, I like him. Or at least, he was easier to follow than say torts and Civ Pro.

I just gave up on watching Levine for Torts. His bar notes drove me nuts because they were in track changes mode with way too many spaces in between everything. And he was far too monotone/reading off the outline, after he said he wouldn't "just read the outline"

Yep, Corn for Crim and Levine for Torts.

That just goes to show how personalized teaching preferences are. I really enjoyed Levine and hated Corn. While Levine isn't generally my type of professor (I much prefer the Civ Pro guy--I think it was Preis?), I felt like he broke things up well and actually explained each concept. He gave good short examples that were memorable (to me at least). I think it probably helped that he went at a pace that was perfect for me to watch at 2x speed. My only issue with him was that what he was saying departed just enough from the outline to be annoying (by like phrasing a definition slightly differently than how it was presented for us to fill in or skipping over something we were supposed to fill in). Conversely, I want to punch Corn in the face. Funny how that works!

With regards to the outline formatting though, I decided after the very first lecture to spend an hour or two putting the entire outline into a new document and formatting it how I like it (and how I'm used to from law school). It may be a waste of time, but I much prefer having an outline that is clean and easy to navigate than the ugly messes I download from Kaplan. Then again, I'm pretty OCD about that sort of thing.

We are like twins...Holy shit. Preferred Preis--check. (listened to him at 1.5 speed, though) Preferred Levine--check. Re-outline the shitty bar notes first--check. OCD--not diagnosed, but probably? haha

I shut Corn off today. Got 20 minutes in and just said fuck it...No way. I found my outline from law school and re-wrote a new outline using Kaplan's materials and mine.

Haha that's awesome! Glad someone agree with me. I can't do Corn. I am going insane here.

[fadedsunrise]

Is it Corn? That's who we got in CA. Surprisingly, I like him. Or at least, he was easier to follow than say torts and Civ Pro.

I just gave up on watching Levine for Torts. His bar notes drove me nuts because they were in track changes mode with way too many spaces in between everything. And he was far too monotone/reading off the outline, after he said he wouldn't "just read the outline"

Yep, Corn for Crim and Levine for Torts.

That just goes to show how personalized teaching preferences are. I really enjoyed Levine and hated Corn. While Levine isn't generally my type of professor (I much prefer the Civ Pro guy--I think it was Preis?), I felt like he broke things up well and actually explained each concept. He gave good short examples that were memorable (to me at least). I think it probably helped that he went at a pace that was perfect for me to watch at 2x speed. My only issue with him was that what he was saying departed just enough from the outline to be annoying (by like phrasing a definition slightly differently than how it was presented for us to fill in or skipping over something we were supposed to fill in). Conversely, I want to punch Corn in the face. Funny how that works!

With regards to the outline formatting though, I decided after the very first lecture to spend an hour or two putting the entire outline into a new document and formatting it how I like it (and how I'm used to from law school). It may be a waste of time, but I much prefer having an outline that is clean and easy to navigate than the ugly messes I download from Kaplan. Then again, I'm pretty OCD about that sort of thing.

We are like twins...Holy shit. Preferred Preis--check. (listened to him at 1.5 speed, though) Preferred Levine--check. Re-outline the shitty bar notes first--check. OCD--not diagnosed, but probably? haha

I shut Corn off today. Got 20 minutes in and just said fuck it...No way. I found my outline from law school and re-wrote a new outline using Kaplan's materials and mine.

Haha that's awesome! Glad someone agree with me. I can't do Corn. I am going insane here.

Ok TBQF I shut Corn off on Crim Pro too and dug up my crim pro class outline. Maybe I just prefer him slightly because he still sounds normal on 1.5x, whereas Preis/Levine didn't enunciate much and became impossible to follow at that speed.

Also, bought Critical Pass flashcards. Gonna give up on struggling to fill in Bar Points with the variations and give these a go. But 12 bucks for shipping a bunch of flashcards, ouch...

[a male human]

Am I the only one who hated Kermit? Like the way he kept stroking his hands, read off the outline, and had an upward intonation for every sentence... although this was back in 2013. Maybe there's a new recording of him.

[Florence Night]

It's all just personal preference. I don't know their names, but I loved the crim guy and thought the evidence and conlaw guys were the two worst.


For those of you not supplementing with Adaptibar, do you think you'll get through all 22XX questions in the Qbank?

[hoppingabird]

I understand that your favorite lecturer or the ones you like more than others are all personal preference; however, I am quite surprised to hear that some people disliked Kermit. What kind of personal preference must you have to dislike that guy, listening to him, his lecutre style, his ability to explain and teach, and the vast amount of knowledge the dude possesses in the subject of Con Law?

Not only did he clerk for Supreme Court Justice Souter, he wrote an article about it! 35 J.S.Ct.Hist 7 (2010)

I do not like Con Law at all, but I credit my ability to understand the concepts, minimally enough to pass and then completley forget them after the exam, to Kermit.

[odoylerulez]

God, Kaplan essay grading can be absolutely worthless if you get the wrong grader.

Here was the only comment I got on one sub-issue in a Torts fact pattern: "You needed to be more specific in analyzing this issue. Your analysis here is somewhat vague, and as such, would not be worth full credit."

Your feedback is somewhat vague. The irony is real. Didn't even tell me what issue needed to be analyzed more specifically (there were at least two issues involved, as well as a comparative negligence defense in play). What a great help.... not.

[robinhoodOO]

God, Kaplan essay grading can be absolutely worthless if you get the wrong grader.

Here was the only comment I got on one sub-issue in a Torts fact pattern: "You needed to be more specific in analyzing this issue. Your analysis here is somewhat vague, and as such, would not be worth full credit."

Your feedback is somewhat vague. The irony is real. Didn't even tell me what issue needed to be analyzed more specifically (there were at least two issues involved, as well as a comparative negligence defense in play). What a great help.... not.

I posted earlier about my experience with a grader. She gave me a 50 for apparently failing to discuss 2 issues. In fact, I had fully discussed those issues...I even underlined them, IRAC'd, etc. I'm not even sure the grader read it.

That said, I've had better feedback on a couple of other essays. Hit or miss, but when they miss, they miss big.

[despina]

State domestic relations prof just referred to someone who deliberately sets their spouse up to commit adultery as a "divorce yenta." I think I have a new favorite prof. Anybody else have Kevin Noble Maillard from Syracuse?

[fadedsunrise]

God, Kaplan essay grading can be absolutely worthless if you get the wrong grader.

Here was the only comment I got on one sub-issue in a Torts fact pattern: "You needed to be more specific in analyzing this issue. Your analysis here is somewhat vague, and as such, would not be worth full credit."

Your feedback is somewhat vague. The irony is real. Didn't even tell me what issue needed to be analyzed more specifically (there were at least two issues involved, as well as a comparative negligence defense in play). What a great help.... not.

Lolol I'm pretty sure I've gotten this.

Also, am I reading too much into this answer choice, or is this a Kaplan question drafting issue: [Crim Law/Procedure]
A defendant goes to a local video store. He picks out a DVD and brings it up to the counter, where he gives his brother's name instead of his own because he does not have an account there and his brother does. The defendant plans to take the DVD, make multiple copies of it, and sell them for profit. He never intends to return the original DVD.

This was apparently the correct answer for what would be larceny by trick. But to me the part that said "he gives his brother's name instead of his own" because his brother had an account there made me conclude that he wanted to put the DVD on his brother's tab and therefore pay for it. I then read the second part about "the defendant plans to take the dvd" to mean /after/ he paid for the dvd and walked out with it, he would make multiple copies, etc.

[despina]

Also, am I reading too much into this answer choice, or is this a Kaplan question drafting issue: [Crim Law/Procedure]
A defendant goes to a local video store. He picks out a DVD and brings it up to the counter, where he gives his brother's name instead of his own because he does not have an account there and his brother does. The defendant plans to take the DVD, make multiple copies of it, and sell them for profit. He never intends to return the original DVD.

This was apparently the correct answer for what would be larceny by trick. But to me the part that said "he gives his brother's name instead of his own" because his brother had an account there made me conclude that he wanted to put the DVD on his brother's tab and therefore pay for it. I then read the second part about "the defendant plans to take the dvd" to mean /after/ he paid for the dvd and walked out with it, he would make multiple copies, etc.

Hmm. I think this is just an outdated question because most people taking the bar now probably haven't rented a physical video from a store in 10 years.

My memory was that at Blockbuster etc, you had to have an account in order to rent a video. You'd provide your contact info and they might harass you if your video was late, and refuse to let you borrow future videos unless you paid your back fines. But your account wasn't something you could "charge" a video to. So somebody who doesn't have an account, and gives an accountholder's name, does not necessarily intend to pay. They're just fraudulently saying "I have an account here, and you can find me and fine me if I don't return the video."

So larceny by trick makes sense to me, since he did something fraudulent in order to gain possession of the property. He didn't get title, since it was just a rental.

[shredderrrrrr]

For those of you not supplementing with Adaptibar, do you think you'll get through all 22XX questions in the Qbank?

I highly, highly doubt it. But then again, no one should be using me as a metric.

[EZ as AsDf]

Fuck, the person teaching the Criminal Law lecture is absolutely horrible.

Yes, he is very bad at repeating himself correctly. I try to write down what he says, but he always has a second version.

[despina]

For those of you not supplementing with Adaptibar, do you think you'll get through all 22XX questions in the Qbank?

I highly, highly doubt it. But then again, no one should be using me as a metric.

Cosign.

[anjmissy]

So how's everyone using the days with no video watching ..my schedule is free of videos until the 8th..I'm definitely behind with state specific one sheets..I'll find myself starting them but not enough time to finish them because the next subject is starting so quickly..but I'm promising myself no work on Saturday..let's hope I stick to it

[shredderrrrrr]

Fuck, the person teaching the Criminal Law lecture is absolutely horrible.

Yes, he is very bad at repeating himself correctly. I try to write down what he says, but he always has a second version.

Most of the time, he would only say it once. If he repeaed it, he'd generally just say the keywords. It drove me crazy!

[robinhoodOO]

So how's everyone using the days with no video watching ..my schedule is free of videos until the 8th..I'm definitely behind with state specific one sheets..I'll find myself starting them but not enough time to finish them because the next subject is starting so quickly..but I'm promising myself no work on Saturday..let's hope I stick to it

Yesterday was an "open" day. I did 4 essays and 100 MBE's. Surprised myself on the MBE's...Getting ready for the CA Mid-Term, so let's see if my luck carries over.

Anyway, not going to do their one-sheets/notes. Gonna find someone else's. I want to make absolute sure I have the most concise and easy to remember rule statements/key words. I haven't been fond of some of the 'rules' from Kaplan. A potential defense to a CoA isn't necessarily a fucking element you morons...I'll remember defenses as defenses.

[robinhoodOO]

Fuck, the person teaching the Criminal Law lecture is absolutely horrible.

Yes, he is very bad at repeating himself correctly. I try to write down what he says, but he always has a second version.

Most of the time, he would only say it once. If he repeaed it, he'd generally just say the keywords. It drove me crazy!

The irony is him prefacing the lecture by saying he was going to repeat himself often and asking to not get annoyed. Then he goes on to almost never repeat himself or do it half-assedly. WTF Corn...

[theramblinman]

So how's everyone using the days with no video watching ..my schedule is free of videos until the 8th..I'm definitely behind with state specific one sheets..I'll find myself starting them but not enough time to finish them because the next subject is starting so quickly..but I'm promising myself no work on Saturday..let's hope I stick to it

Yesterday was an "open" day. I did 4 essays and 100 MBE's. Surprised myself on the MBE's...Getting ready for the CA Mid-Term, so let's see if my luck carries over.

Anyway, not going to do their one-sheets/notes. Gonna find someone else's. I want to make absolute sure I have the most concise and easy to remember rule statements/key words. I haven't been fond of some of the 'rules' from Kaplan. A potential defense to a CoA isn't necessarily a fucking element you morons...I'll remember defenses as defenses.

Have you had any luck finding good one sheets? I was spending time working on them, but I realized they are time consuming to make and did not increase my understanding at all. That being said I still think they would be helpful to have for quick review. I was thinking about buying lean sheets but I do not know how good they are.

[fadedsunrise]

Got 114 on the midterm. Not time to throw myself onto the fire horrible but not fond of being below the average they said in the email Time to pray to the critical pass flashcards that they will really make stuff clear to me in the last 20 some days...