Top Law Schools

californiauser wrote:Probably a dumb question, but where do we see what our target score is for problem sets?

Click on the assignment and a window with the description of the assignment pops up. Toward the bottom of the window, it lists the target goals for each problem set for the respective topic.

californiauser wrote:Probably a dumb question, but where do we see what our target score is for problem sets?

They are in the beginning pages of the MBE book. I think there is a PDF of it online as well.

Getting really frustrated with Barbri's BS questions. I feel like many of their correct answers turn on questions of fact, not law. For example, in the con law question set 2, question 14 asking whether an employment termination is constitutional, the facts say that a person "cannot be fired except for cause." So the first thing I do when reading the answer choices is cross out the one that says "yes b/c the employer is free to fire employees at will." Lo and behold, the correct answer is yes its constitutional b/c the person is an at-will employee. Like wtf? Then the explanation says "unless prohibited by statute … a person can be fired for any reason." But the facts literally say it was prohibited by statute. Feel like I've encountered many other questions that are equally dumb. Had to rant about it lol

californiauser wrote:Probably a dumb question, but where do we see what our target score is for problem sets?

http://images.barbri.com/email/pardot/M ... tGoals.pdf

FormerChild wrote:Getting really frustrated with Barbri's BS questions. I feel like many of their correct answers turn on questions of fact, not law. For example, in the con law question set 2, question 14 asking whether an employment termination is constitutional, the facts say that a person "cannot be fired except for cause." So the first thing I do when reading the answer choices is cross out the one that says "yes b/c the employer is free to fire employees at will." Lo and behold, the correct answer is yes its constitutional b/c the person is an at-will employee. Like wtf? Then the explanation says "unless prohibited by statute … a person can be fired for any reason." But the facts literally say it was prohibited by statute. Feel like I've encountered many other questions that are equally dumb. Had to rant about it lol

If I remember correctly, that was the lottery question and I think it turned on whether administration of the lottery was a government function, such that would make the employees of the organization running the lottery public employees. If the employees were public employees, then they would fall within the scope of the statute (which I believe prohibited state employees from being fired without cause). But, because the organization was deemed a private company, the employees were private, and could be fired at-will. The only fact issue here was whether the lottery was public or private.

FormerChild wrote:Getting really frustrated with Barbri's BS questions. I feel like many of their correct answers turn on questions of fact, not law. For example, in the con law question set 2, question 14 asking whether an employment termination is constitutional, the facts say that a person "cannot be fired except for cause." So the first thing I do when reading the answer choices is cross out the one that says "yes b/c the employer is free to fire employees at will." Lo and behold, the correct answer is yes its constitutional b/c the person is an at-will employee. Like wtf? Then the explanation says "unless prohibited by statute … a person can be fired for any reason." But the facts literally say it was prohibited by statute. Feel like I've encountered many other questions that are equally dumb. Had to rant about it lol

did the same exact thing,, crossed out the at-will answer because it said except without cause in the facts and nowhere did it say she was an at-will employee,, lol barbri is really insane with some of these questions

Bobby_Axelrod wrote:

FormerChild wrote:Getting really frustrated with Barbri's BS questions. I feel like many of their correct answers turn on questions of fact, not law. For example, in the con law question set 2, question 14 asking whether an employment termination is constitutional, the facts say that a person "cannot be fired except for cause." So the first thing I do when reading the answer choices is cross out the one that says "yes b/c the employer is free to fire employees at will." Lo and behold, the correct answer is yes its constitutional b/c the person is an at-will employee. Like wtf? Then the explanation says "unless prohibited by statute … a person can be fired for any reason." But the facts literally say it was prohibited by statute. Feel like I've encountered many other questions that are equally dumb. Had to rant about it lol

If I remember correctly, that was the lottery question and I think it turned on whether administration of the lottery was a government function, such that would make the employees of the organization running the lottery public employees. If the employees were public employees, then they would fall within the scope of the statute (which I believe prohibited state employees from being fired without cause). But, because the organization was deemed a private company, the employees were private, and could be fired at-will. The only fact issue here was whether the lottery was public or private.

Yeah, it was basically this. Because the primary function of the business was not state-run, it was deemed independent. But of course, like everyone else I crossed out at-will.

Is anyone else feeling really frustrated at this point? I'm constantly missing the MPQs by about 1-2 questions, especially in Contracts and Property, and I'm getting worried.

vivala wrote:Is anyone else feeling really frustrated at this point? I'm constantly missing the MPQs by about 1-2 questions, especially in Contracts and Property, and I'm getting worried.

Yea, for whatever reason I'm doing horribly in con law - I was 3 questions off from the target MPQ today. pretty sure this whole bar thing isn't going to work out.

okaygo wrote:

vivala wrote:Is anyone else feeling really frustrated at this point? I'm constantly missing the MPQs by about 1-2 questions, especially in Contracts and Property, and I'm getting worried.

Yea, for whatever reason I'm doing horribly in con law - I was 3 questions off from the target MPQ today. pretty sure this whole bar thing isn't going to work out.

Yeah, me too. It seems like the MPQ questions cover a lot that the lectures don't. So I feel like I'm having to learn a lot of new law while doing the MPQs, as opposed to reviewing what I had learned from the lectures.

The weird thing is, my law school offered an MBE class, and the questions given out were from another MBE prep book, and the questions were way different than the ones in Barbri.

I'm trying to keep in mind what Antonio Martinez wrote in Chaos Monkeys: “Truth in the world resides only in mathematical proofs and physics labs. Everywhere else it's really matter of opinion, and if it manages to become group opinion, it's undeservedly crowned as capital-T truth. And so you need to determine whatever the local version of truth is you're inhabiting.”

Subban_Fan wrote:

okaygo wrote:

vivala wrote:Is anyone else feeling really frustrated at this point? I'm constantly missing the MPQs by about 1-2 questions, especially in Contracts and Property, and I'm getting worried.

Yea, for whatever reason I'm doing horribly in con law - I was 3 questions off from the target MPQ today. pretty sure this whole bar thing isn't going to work out.

Yeah, me too. It seems like the MPQ questions cover a lot that the lectures don't. So I feel like I'm having to learn a lot of new law while doing the MPQs, as opposed to reviewing what I had learned from the lectures.

The weird thing is, my law school offered an MBE class, and the questions given out were from another MBE prep book, and the questions were way different than the ones in Barbri.

I'm trying to keep in mind what Antonio Martinez wrote in Chaos Monkeys: “Truth in the world resides only in mathematical proofs and physics labs. Everywhere else it's really matter of opinion, and if it manages to become group opinion, it's undeservedly crowned as capital-T truth. And so you need to determine whatever the local version of truth is you're inhabiting.”

Were they harder or easier than the Barbri questions?

Anyone here using an app called Quizlet to make flashcards?

Cantab10 wrote:Anyone here using an app called Quizlet to make flashcards?

I am, but not making them, I used Quizlet during 1l so was using those ones. But then I searched "critical pass" in the search bar and found numerous sets of both MBE and MEE topics w/ critical pass flashcards already made and accessible. Obviously have to check the accuracy of the material w/ your outlines, but from my experience with them thus far they've been accurate and sufficiently descriptive.

Anyone want to explain question 13 from 1st contract problem set.

I don't really understand the rational that (1) the concert pianist is a merchant and (2) even if so, how storage of a piano for 6 months in an A/Ced warehouse is not a material addition to the contract under 2-207 (this is not even adressed in the answer explanation)

Were they harder or easier than the Barbri questions?

The questions from the book were easier. Way less nuanced and tested on what the book discussed. The book also included some real MBE questions, which were harder than the ones written by the book's authors but still easier than Barbri questions.

I struggle with the Barbri questions because often times I'll go to a 50/50 and choose the wrong one. I think sometimes Barbri questions kind of mislead you like that (they throw in facts that make you think there's an exception you forgot about or they're trying to point at something), whereas I didn't have these issues with the ones out of the book from class we used.

Is there a way I can go back and review one of the questions from the Contracts set today?

acijku2 wrote:Anyone want to explain question 13 from 1st contract problem set.

I don't really understand the rational that (1) the concert pianist is a merchant and (2) even if so, how storage of a piano for 6 months in an A/Ced warehouse is not a material addition to the contract under 2-207 (this is not even adressed in the answer explanation)

Thought the same thing about the concert pianist not being a merchant.. I knew merchant was someone who routinely dealt in the goods but I always applied it to a seller or buyer or company, etc.. I guess because he plays the piano for a living he routinely deals in the goods.

Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Is there a way I can go back and review one of the questions from the Contracts set today?

You can look in the book or just re-read through the quiz.

TheWalrus wrote:

Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Is there a way I can go back and review one of the questions from the Contracts set today?

You can look in the book or just re-read through the quiz.

Ah, ty. Didn't realize these Qs are in the book.

Bobby_Axelrod wrote:

TheWalrus wrote:

Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Is there a way I can go back and review one of the questions from the Contracts set today?

You can look in the book or just re-read through the quiz.

Ah, ty. Didn't realize these Qs are in the book.

I almost exclusively use the book and transfer my answers over later so that I get my percentiles.

Anyone notice that you can basically hit target and still be in the 60th or 70th percentile? Makes me think this whole "target" thing is flame to the extent that it's some pass / fail bright line.

Soooo, was anyone as thrown off by the Con Law Essay #2 as I was?

[+] Spoiler

All I could see was tort, and I sort of assumed that this was a combined tort/con law essay that they just threw into the constitutional law portion. But then the answer was all con law based (with a few discretionary bonus points thrown in for tort stuff).

Also, I tried to find some info on Libel in the CMR for conlaw and there was barely anything. And I felt like Chemerinsky was sparse in the 1A arena in general, and especially so in the 1A freedom of the press stuff. Maybe I'm just salty b/c I seem to be super weak in the 1A area, and this was the second essay in a row on the topic.

It is beyond annoying that Barbri doesn't have a "report question" function where you can try to clarify some of their terrible explanations.

WestWingWatcher wrote:Soooo, was anyone as thrown off by the Con Law Essay #2 as I was?

[+] Spoiler

All I could see was tort, and I sort of assumed that this was a combined tort/con law essay that they just threw into the constitutional law portion. But then the answer was all con law based (with a few discretionary bonus points thrown in for tort stuff).

Also, I tried to find some info on Libel in the CMR for conlaw and there was barely anything. And I felt like Chemerinsky was sparse in the 1A arena in general, and especially so in the 1A freedom of the press stuff. Maybe I'm just salty b/c I seem to be super weak in the 1A area, and this was the second essay in a row on the topic.

yes lol literally thought i was answering a tort question,, but defamation was covered at the end of the barbri lecture and all the libel/invasion of privacy fall under that and the trespass one was basivally a tort answer

ConfusedL1 wrote:It is beyond annoying that Barbri doesn't have a "report question" function where you can try to clarify some of their terrible explanations.

The lack of functions and the way Barbri's website is designed makes me think they majorly cheaped out on web programmers. It's like something my cousin would have built when he was 16. Or they outsourced it's design to save money.

The online MSQ looks like it's from 1999. Definitely not worth their $3000+ asking price.

Do any of you watch the lecture videos on 1.25x speed or more? I want to but my law school bar prep Professors highly "recommend against it." One told me that everyone she knew that did that flunked the Bar.

Subban_Fan wrote:

ConfusedL1 wrote:It is beyond annoying that Barbri doesn't have a "report question" function where you can try to clarify some of their terrible explanations.

The lack of functions and the way Barbri's website is designed makes me think they majorly cheaped out on web programmers. It's like something my cousin would have built when he was 16. Or they outsourced it's design to save money.

The online MSQ looks like it's from 1999. Definitely not worth their $3000+ asking price.

Do any of you watch the lecture videos on 1.25x speed or more? I want to but my law school bar prep Professors highly "recommend against it." One told me that everyone she knew that did that flunked the Bar.

I watch lectures at 1.25-1.75x depending on the topic (if I took the class and did well) or how the lecturer teaches (is he repeating himself a lot and reading off handout verbatim).

While it makes sense that a lot of people who do speed up the videos don't pass I think that's a correlation without causation. I can image those who don't take studying seriously would be likely to speed up the videos and not pay attention. However, it is very possible to actively listen and retain the info at higher speeds. You end up saving up to an hour every day and that extra time can be used to stay up with the completion of assignments and review areas needing improvement.