Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
whitecollar23

Bronze
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby whitecollar23 » Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:05 pm

So I've been doing some practice essays and during about half of them, I overthink the question, make it way more difficult than it should be, and screw up. This is the result of never using IRAC in law school, never writing rule statements, and never having to be this rigid when writing essays.

Has anyone experienced a similar issue and might be able to give me advice on how you got past it?

joeyc328

Bronze
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:54 pm

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby joeyc328 » Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:46 am

I would do

Section 1
Section 2
Section 3

Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3

then

Rule 1
Rule 2
Rule 3

After that you do the application and conclusion for each individual section. This way you are focused on just one rule at a time without overthinking things. Here you also can maximize your points.

User avatar
bobbypin

Bronze
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:50 pm

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby bobbypin » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:25 pm

joeyc328 wrote:I would do

Section 1
Section 2
Section 3

Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3

then

Rule 1
Rule 2
Rule 3

After that you do the application and conclusion for each individual section. This way you are focused on just one rule at a time without overthinking things. Here you also can maximize your points.


Absolutely do NOT do what the above poster suggested!

Header
Issue 1
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

Header
Issue 2
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

The graders look at your essay for a couple of minutes. Make it easy for them to give you points. Part of the points are based upon format.

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby LionelHutzJD » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:35 pm

bobbypin wrote:
joeyc328 wrote:I would do

Section 1
Section 2
Section 3

Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3

then

Rule 1
Rule 2
Rule 3

After that you do the application and conclusion for each individual section. This way you are focused on just one rule at a time without overthinking things. Here you also can maximize your points.


Absolutely do NOT do what the above poster suggested!

Header
Issue 1
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

Header
Issue 2
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

The graders look at your essay for a couple of minutes. Make it easy for them to give you points. Part of the points are based upon format.


What is a header? What would it look like?

joeyc328

Bronze
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:54 pm

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby joeyc328 » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:56 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:
bobbypin wrote:
joeyc328 wrote:I would do

Section 1
Section 2
Section 3

Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3

then

Rule 1
Rule 2
Rule 3

After that you do the application and conclusion for each individual section. This way you are focused on just one rule at a time without overthinking things. Here you also can maximize your points.


Absolutely do NOT do what the above poster suggested!

Header
Issue 1
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

Header
Issue 2
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

The graders look at your essay for a couple of minutes. Make it easy for them to give you points. Part of the points are based upon format.


What is a header? What would it look like?


A header is basically the answer of the question mark. If the question reads something like. Did Executive A violate a Duty of Care? Duty of Loyalty?

I would start by Bolding the Phrases Duty of Care and Duty of Loyalty.

Duty of Care
Duty of Loyalty

Then I would had the Rule of Duty of Care then the Rule of Duty of Loyalty in light of the view.

For example: Executive A had a Duty of Care because Executive A had to act as a reasonably prudent person and if an executive director has greater knowledge about situation x it is in their duty of care to further protect that company in regards to situation x

joeyc328

Bronze
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:54 pm

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby joeyc328 » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:57 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:
bobbypin wrote:
joeyc328 wrote:I would do

Section 1
Section 2
Section 3

Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3

then

Rule 1
Rule 2
Rule 3

After that you do the application and conclusion for each individual section. This way you are focused on just one rule at a time without overthinking things. Here you also can maximize your points.


Absolutely do NOT do what the above poster suggested!

Header
Issue 1
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

Header
Issue 2
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

The graders look at your essay for a couple of minutes. Make it easy for them to give you points. Part of the points are based upon format.


What is a header? What would it look like?


A header is basically the answer of the question mark. If the question reads something like. Did Executive A violate a Duty of Care? Duty of Loyalty?

I would start by Bolding the Phrases Duty of Care and Duty of Loyalty.

Duty of Care
Duty of Loyalty

Then I would had the Rule of Duty of Care then the Rule of Duty of Loyalty in light of the view.

For example: Executive A had a Duty of Care because Executive A had to act as a reasonably prudent person and if an executive director has greater knowledge about situation x it is in their duty of care to further protect that company in regards to situation x

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby LionelHutzJD » Tue Jul 12, 2016 3:04 pm

Can anyone clarify whether Headers are appropriate for NY-UBE?

whitecollar23

Bronze
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby whitecollar23 » Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:31 pm

So I tried at first to specifically write out: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion, but it drove me crazy. My issue isn't really with organization; it's more with realizing what rule I'm supposed to provide, to what extent I'm supposed to provide it, and not going down rabbit holes and analyzing more than the question wanted. Since most questions can take you down rabbit holes, I sometimes take them instead of realizing that essay questions tend to be straightforward (these are) and just being very succinct with my answers.

It kind of ticks me off that model answers provided are answers that were written up and rewritten over a few hours instead of being written in 30 minutes by someone with a mastery of the material, so that I could see what a quick outline really looks like and what a quick essay, even though written by an expert, looks like. It helps a little to see a model answer, but it also makes me wonder how much of that is actually realistic from a model student. Y'all feel me?

User avatar
bobbypin

Bronze
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:50 pm

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby bobbypin » Tue Jul 12, 2016 5:12 pm

whitecollar23 wrote:So I tried at first to specifically write out: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion, but it drove me crazy. My issue isn't really with organization; it's more with realizing what rule I'm supposed to provide, to what extent I'm supposed to provide it, and not going down rabbit holes and analyzing more than the question wanted. Since most questions can take you down rabbit holes, I sometimes take them instead of realizing that essay questions tend to be straightforward (these are) and just being very succinct with my answers.

It kind of ticks me off that model answers provided are answers that were written up and rewritten over a few hours instead of being written in 30 minutes by someone with a mastery of the material, so that I could see what a quick outline really looks like and what a quick essay, even though written by an expert, looks like. It helps a little to see a model answer, but it also makes me wonder how much of that is actually realistic from a model student. Y'all feel me?


There are some states that publish actual passing and failing bar essays. IDK which ones do tho. Google it.

I think you will feel better when you see some of the crap essays that pass.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby mvp99 » Tue Jul 12, 2016 5:38 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:Can anyone clarify whether Headers are appropriate for NY-UBE?


I'm interested in this as well. I'm guessing it's based on the question asked?

Like today I answered a question relating to easements and BFPs and I used as a header the easement in the questions.

E.g.

Header: Power-line easement (first question)

Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

Final conclusion based on my two previous conclusions, which answers the question.

Header: Gas line Easement (second question)

etc.


Writing the whole question takes too much time so I just take an identifiable element of the question and use it as a header. If the question has can be divided because of multiple issues I might also use the subparts as headers.

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby LionelHutzJD » Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:05 pm

Idk. I've done class with a Kaplan instructor and now Barbri. Neither has told me to use a header. If the question asks whether a valid easement exists:

CIRAC

The company does not have a valid easement. I R A C

If there are other issues to be discussed under the first question they will each get their own IRAC.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby mvp99 » Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:28 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:Idk. I've done class with a Kaplan instructor and now Barbri. Neither has told me to use a header. If the question asks whether a valid easement exists:

CIRAC

The company does not have a valid easement. I R A C

If there are other issues to be discussed under the first question they will each get their own IRAC.


This is what I did. There were two issues that needed to be addressed before answering the question. The header it's a way to let the reader know what question I'm answering. Does it make sense?

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby LionelHutzJD » Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:31 pm

mvp99 wrote:
LionelHutzJD wrote:Idk. I've done class with a Kaplan instructor and now Barbri. Neither has told me to use a header. If the question asks whether a valid easement exists:

CIRAC

The company does not have a valid easement. I R A C

If there are other issues to be discussed under the first question they will each get their own IRAC.


This is what I did. There were two issues that needed to be addressed before answering the question. The header it's a way to let the reader know what question I'm answering. Does it make sense?


I think so. So let's say u have a SMJ question and you know you have to discuss Domicile (present intent and physical presence) as well as amount in controversy. If you don't mind, could you show me how you would do it?

squiggle

Bronze
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 2:07 am

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby squiggle » Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:37 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
LionelHutzJD wrote:Idk. I've done class with a Kaplan instructor and now Barbri. Neither has told me to use a header. If the question asks whether a valid easement exists:

CIRAC

The company does not have a valid easement. I R A C

If there are other issues to be discussed under the first question they will each get their own IRAC.


This is what I did. There were two issues that needed to be addressed before answering the question. The header it's a way to let the reader know what question I'm answering. Does it make sense?


I think so. So let's say u have a SMJ question and you know you have to discuss Domicile (present intent and physical presence) as well as amount in controversy. If you don't mind, could you show me how you would do it?


This is how I would approach at SMJ question


I. P was/was not domiciled in State A. (add relevant facts into header)

Explain the rule that leads you to analyze the subtopics that you will discuss below.

A. P has present intent to be domiciled in State A
Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

B. P was physically present in State A at time of the incident
Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

Discuss the conclusion you reach for I (mentioning your conclusions in A and B)

II. The amount in controversy was adequate

A. P can aggregate two claims
Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

B. P's aggregated claims exceed $75,000k

Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

Discuss the conclusion you reach for II (mentioning your conclusions in A and B)

III. Overall Conclusion

Discuss outcome of overall issues
---------------------------

I hope that helps!
Last edited by squiggle on Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby LionelHutzJD » Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:41 pm

squiggle wrote:
LionelHutzJD wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
LionelHutzJD wrote:Idk. I've done class with a Kaplan instructor and now Barbri. Neither has told me to use a header. If the question asks whether a valid easement exists:

CIRAC

The company does not have a valid easement. I R A C

If there are other issues to be discussed under the first question they will each get their own IRAC.


This is what I did. There were two issues that needed to be addressed before answering the question. The header it's a way to let the reader know what question I'm answering. Does it make sense?


I think so. So let's say u have a SMJ question and you know you have to discuss Domicile (present intent and physical presence) as well as amount in controversy. If you don't mind, could you show me how you would do it?


This is how I would approach at SMJ question


I. P was/was not domiciled in State A. (add relevant facts into header)

Explain the rule that leads you to analyze the subtopics that you will discuss below.

A. Was there present intent?
Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

B. Was he physical present?
Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

Discuss the conclusion you reach for I (mentioning your conclusions in A and B)

II. Was the amount in controversy adequate?

Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

---------------------------

I hope that helps!


Separate paragraphs for the sub issue of Domicile? I'm not sure I would approach it this way.

squiggle

Bronze
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 2:07 am

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby squiggle » Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:44 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:
squiggle wrote:
LionelHutzJD wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
LionelHutzJD wrote:Idk. I've done class with a Kaplan instructor and now Barbri. Neither has told me to use a header. If the question asks whether a valid easement exists:

CIRAC

The company does not have a valid easement. I R A C

If there are other issues to be discussed under the first question they will each get their own IRAC.


This is what I did. There were two issues that needed to be addressed before answering the question. The header it's a way to let the reader know what question I'm answering. Does it make sense?


I think so. So let's say u have a SMJ question and you know you have to discuss Domicile (present intent and physical presence) as well as amount in controversy. If you don't mind, could you show me how you would do it?


This is how I would approach at SMJ question


I. P was/was not domiciled in State A. (add relevant facts into header)

Explain the rule that leads you to analyze the subtopics that you will discuss below.

A. Was there present intent?
Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

B. Was he physical present?
Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

Discuss the conclusion you reach for I (mentioning your conclusions in A and B)

II. Was the amount in controversy adequate?

Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

---------------------------

I hope that helps!


Separate paragraphs for the sub issue of Domicile? I'm not sure I would approach it this way.


Like I said, that's how I would do it, but it's up to you. It will also be largely driven by the facts. Maybe the subtopic of domicile will not be at issue. Though, by doing subtopic headers, you clearly show the grader that you know the elements of domicile and you don't risk the change that they'll miss it if it's within paragraphs. Again, it's totally up to you.

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby LionelHutzJD » Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:46 pm

Thank you. The fact that formatting is such a big deal due to the laziness of graders is fucking annoying.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby mvp99 » Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:57 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
LionelHutzJD wrote:Idk. I've done class with a Kaplan instructor and now Barbri. Neither has told me to use a header. If the question asks whether a valid easement exists:

CIRAC

The company does not have a valid easement. I R A C

If there are other issues to be discussed under the first question they will each get their own IRAC.


This is what I did. There were two issues that needed to be addressed before answering the question. The header it's a way to let the reader know what question I'm answering. Does it make sense?


I think so. So let's say u have a SMJ question and you know you have to discuss Domicile (present intent and physical presence) as well as amount in controversy. If you don't mind, could you show me how you would do it?


Sure, although I'm in the same boat as you, I don't know if this is what the NY examiners want...

Header: 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

First issue is whether there complete diversity exists. (I would write it this way even if the true narrow issue the examiners are testing is P's domicile, because I want to go through the domicile of each party even if it is obvious to us. Lets say P is a human suing corp, in the Rules section I would also include the rules for domicile of corporations and analyze the domicile of the corp even if the true narrow "tricky" issue the examiners want to test is P's domicile)
R
A
C

Second issue is whether P meets the amount in controversy requirement.
R
A
C

Final conclusion to answer the question.

edit: I think the previous poster's separation of presence and intent makes the answer clearer so I would probably do that as well. I would still analyze the domicile of all parties if the question is asking about SMJ generally.

squiggle

Bronze
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 2:07 am

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby squiggle » Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:14 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:Thank you. The fact that formatting is such a big deal due to the laziness of graders is fucking annoying.


I agree. I'm taking my 3rd state this summer (I took NY/NJ before they were UBE), and one of the biggest things I've learned is never to assume a topic is too simple. Err on the side of talking about an issue rather than glossing it over. For example, for statute of frauds, discuss what constitutes a "writing." Or for some torts or crimes, explain some of elements, rather than merely listing them.

You never really know where your essay points will come from, but if it's not in your essay, the grader may assume you don't know it. Make it easy for them to give you point, even though it's super annoying.

squiggle

Bronze
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 2:07 am

Re: Dumbing Myself Down for the MEE

Postby squiggle » Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:19 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:
squiggle wrote:
LionelHutzJD wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
LionelHutzJD wrote:Idk. I've done class with a Kaplan instructor and now Barbri. Neither has told me to use a header. If the question asks whether a valid easement exists:

CIRAC

The company does not have a valid easement. I R A C

If there are other issues to be discussed under the first question they will each get their own IRAC.


This is what I did. There were two issues that needed to be addressed before answering the question. The header it's a way to let the reader know what question I'm answering. Does it make sense?


I think so. So let's say u have a SMJ question and you know you have to discuss Domicile (present intent and physical presence) as well as amount in controversy. If you don't mind, could you show me how you would do it?


This is how I would approach at SMJ question


I. P was/was not domiciled in State A. (add relevant facts into header)

Explain the rule that leads you to analyze the subtopics that you will discuss below.

A. Was there present intent?
Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

B. Was he physical present?
Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

Discuss the conclusion you reach for I (mentioning your conclusions in A and B)

II. Was the amount in controversy adequate?

Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

---------------------------

I hope that helps!


Separate paragraphs for the sub issue of Domicile? I'm not sure I would approach it this way.


Also, your discussion of the subtopics don't have to be long at all. It may only be four sentences (one for each part of IRAC). It's an opportunity to show what you know and make it obvious (with headers) that you know the information. I also find that by breaking it out into subtopics, I don't tend to forget elements or issues that I might accidentally forget to talk about if I were just talking about the larger issue. Will largely be driven by the facts though. Some subtopics will be obviously irrelevant and should only be mentioned in passing.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests