THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

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

New
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:41 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby MRSP » Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:52 pm

So I haven't never been great on the Themis PQs, the highest I have received on the mixed sets is 64%, and my scores have dipped into the mid 50s even when I started out (I have only done around 5 of them so far), however on the 21 NCBE sample questions I did way better, about 76% ( 5/21 wrong), should I take that with a grain of salt since the mix of questions on Themis is more indicative of what we will actually see on the bar? Or should I scrap focusing on doing the rest of the mixed sets (maybe just do a few more) and purchase the NCBE study questions/OPEs and focus my time there? I can't afford to underestimate the MBE in my state, it counts for 50%. What say ye? lol
Last edited by MRSP on Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lawworld19

Bronze
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby Lawworld19 » Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:52 pm

Also for anyone on here wondering. I did that 200 question study aid which was released last year by the NCBE. The ?'s which were supposed to be "harder" and more up to date. I got a 64% overall. So with the average scale of July should put me at a 144 roughly.

On the Mixed sets I get 60-70%.

Hopefully that clarifies any questions people had on the study aid.

I'd say there were more questions I either really knew or just had no clue. Less in the middle. But overall it wasn't too bad.

User avatar
radio1nowhere

Bronze
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:01 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby radio1nowhere » Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:17 pm

jetsetter2000 wrote:
radio1nowhere wrote:The family law lecture/handout says "The 'innocent spouse' is entitled to a greater degree of property [upon fault-based divorce]" but the answer to Practice Essay #288 says "In most states, the fact that a divorce is granted on a fault ground, such as adultery, is not a factor in the distribution of property."

???


I thought they meant most states are no fault states, so it'd be tech. true.


But right above the language I quoted (in the model answer) it says "Most jurisdictions recognize both fault and no-fault grounds for divorce."

abogado2018

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:50 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby abogado2018 » Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:21 pm

MRSP wrote:So I haven't never been great on the Themis PQs, the highest I have received on the mixed sets is 64%, and my scores have dipped into the mid 50s even when I started out (I have only done around 5 of them so far), however on the 21 NCBE sample questions I did way better, about 76% ( 5/21 wrong), should I take that with a grain of salt since the mix of questions on Themis is more indicative of what we will actually see on the bar? Or should I scrap focusing on doing the rest of the mixed sets (maybe just do a few more) and purchase the NCBE study questions/OPEs and focus my time there? I can't afford to underestimate the MBE in my state, it counts for 50%. What say ye? lol


I don't understand why people are freaking out about the 21 NCBE question set. That is a tiny sample size. I suspect Themis's Qs are slightly harder overall. I don't think you can go wrong either way. If you are in CA I would probably do it.

MRSP

New
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:41 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby MRSP » Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:12 pm

abogado2018 wrote:
MRSP wrote:So I haven't never been great on the Themis PQs, the highest I have received on the mixed sets is 64%, and my scores have dipped into the mid 50s even when I started out (I have only done around 5 of them so far), however on the 21 NCBE sample questions I did way better, about 76% ( 5/21 wrong), should I take that with a grain of salt since the mix of questions on Themis is more indicative of what we will actually see on the bar? Or should I scrap focusing on doing the rest of the mixed sets (maybe just do a few more) and purchase the NCBE study questions/OPEs and focus my time there? I can't afford to underestimate the MBE in my state, it counts for 50%. What say ye? lol


I don't understand why people are freaking out about the 21 NCBE question set. That is a tiny sample size. I suspect Themis's Qs are slightly harder overall. I don't think you can go wrong either way. If you are in CA I would probably do it.


I just did the sample Civ Pro questions and those seemed easier than Themis. You mentioned you did OPE 4 and got an 80% (unless that is your norm on themis as well, if so, congrats already cause you should auto pass lol!), it seems like what has been said about Themis users usually seeing a bump on the actual MBE may be true? Thankful Themis prepares us with harder questions at least. Either way going to keep plugging away at both the mixed sets and NCBE study questions to be safe.

AZ123

New
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 10:08 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby AZ123 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:05 am

I had been consistently scoring around 70-72% on MBE mixed sets, even as high as 80% on one, but my scores have dropped into the sixties during the last few sets (I just finished set 12). Does themis make questions harder if you're doing well? Or am I regressing? I was hoping to have my scores in a more comfortable range (like mid-70s) as the bar gets closer, but I seem to be trending in the opposite direction.

lawlurk

New
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:17 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby lawlurk » Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:57 am

JustBrowsing123 wrote:
2015_Splitter wrote:I'm struggling with what I think is a fairly easy question:

"A company contracted with a builder to construct a new corporate headquarters for a fixed price of $100 million. At the time of the contract, structural steel was widely available and was included in the contract as a $6 million item. Before work began on the project, tornado damage shut down the production facility of the biggest structural steel supplier in the country, and the price of structural steel increased by 20% as a result. The builder informed the company of the steel price increase, and the parties then orally agreed to increase the project price to $101 million. The builder proceeded with construction and delivered the project on time. The company paid the builder $100 million but refused to pay the additional $1 million. If the builder sues the company for $1 million, is the builder likely to prevail?

(A) No, because the modification was never reduced to a writing signed by the party to be charged.
(B) No, because there was no consideration for the modification of the contract.
(C) Yes, because the company’s promise was supported by consideration.
(D) Yes, because the modification was fair and equitable in view of the unanticipated increase in the price of structural steel."


Going through this problem - I determined that this was a services contract and the common law applied. Thus, I immediately eliminated answer A. However, since UCC uses the "good-faith standard" for contract modifications, I also eliminated answer D. Finally, I chose answer B because of the pre-existing duty and the fact that there didn't seem to be any consideration for the modification.

Can anyone explain why the answer is D? Is there an exception in the common law that allows for no consideration modification for unexpected changes in underlying economy or something?



Made an account just to give my take on this. The question states, "structural steel was widely available and was included in the contract as a $6 million item." This line is the basis for my reasoning. Contracts for mixed goods and services adhere to the predominant purpose test unless such goods and services are divisible. Because the steel had its own line item, it is divisible, and thus, is covered by the UCC. Modifications in good faith under the UCC are valid.


I would have thought this was a common law contract. The primary purpose was to build the office, that just so happened to require goods in the process. (like most would) Someone set me straight if I am wrong on that lol I think dividing the parts of the contract and applying CL or UCC is more like a contract to purchase a washer/dryer set (goods) and then its delivered along side a guy who comes to install them (services). But if were were able to split it, I agree with the previous poster.

But, if we say its governed by common law, Emmanuel's MBE book says this regarding exceptions to common law requirement of consideration for modifications (I didn't see this in Themis...):

"An agreement to modify may still be enforced if i) there is a rescission of the old contract by tearing it up or some outward sign, and then the entering into the new contract where one the parties must perform more than what she was to perform under the original contract; ii) unforeseen difficulties make performance impracticable, and the other party agreed to compensate the other, iii) there are new obligations to BOTH SIDES."

Typically, when someone contracts at a fixed price (here, 100mil, 6 mil for the steel) they bear the risk that their costs will increase, and if it increased they suffer the loss, all usually deemed foreseeable due to typical market conditions or known seasonal weather, etc. Thus, usually a price increase isn't enough for grounds of impracticability- its foreseeable and the party assumed that risk. You won't be saved from making a bad deal. But thats not the case here. Here it was not foreseeable there would be a tornado that would then shut down the nation's major supplier and make it considerably more expensive for the builder. The risk of such an event occurring was not assumed. These were the unanticipated circumstances.

This whole impracticality thing I'm assuming is also what would make it fair and equitable if we apply the UCC and forget about the CL consideration problem, especially since he had not even began building, its not like he was in the position to extort the company by threatening to quit mid-job if the company doesn't fork over an extra mil.

juliejul

New
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:24 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby juliejul » Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:25 am

Neilt001 wrote:BULLSHITTING ESSAYS:
For everyone complaining about essay graders, I'll just repeat my experience. I agree with you. I think I generally scored like a 2/6 to 4/6. No matter what I could never properly improve my score and there was little rhyme or reason to the grades. I never did very well and usually got the same comments (eg "IRAC better" "use better headings", "apply more facts" etc). I then scored in the 89th percentile on the MEE and was like WTF??

So I'm not sure why but I reckon the Themis graders are too tough. As someone said maybe it's a psychological thing to prepare you better. Who knows. Either way, just know that the real bar graders aren't actually that tough.

I made up two of the six essays because I hadn't studied what they were asking and didn't know the actual legal rules. What REALLY matters is using all the facts you're given, and letting them guide you. You can usually come up with a pretty intelligent sounding statement of the law based on the facts because they will be pointing you to something. For instance, I had no idea what the test for a criminal's capacity to stand trial was, and yet that's what the essay was all about. But the facts indicated that the criminal didn't understand what a trial was, didn't understand what guilt meant, etc etc. Now, that's a pretty simple scenario but it's pretty easy to use those facts to come up with a ballpark statement of the rule (eg "in order to stand trial, a criminal must understand the case put to him" or something. Even if that's wrong, you can still do well if you understand how to BS).

And Always :
- IRAC
- use good headings
- use an easy to understand format using lots of signposting language
- consider a counter argument
- come to a conclusion one way or another

Your statement of the law doesn't matter that much, so long as you're in the ballpark. Memorization isn't the key. Of course, if you want full points, you need the correct statement of the law, but you can pass without it, for sure.


This is EXCELLENT advice and pretty much my exact scenario, down to the fact that I didn't remember the rule for capacity to stand trial, and ended up scoring in the 98-99th percentile for essays. I also didn't remember the sanctions rules, which was another essay question, so I BS'd it.

Stay organized in your responses, apply ALL OF THE FACTS, and don't panic!

User avatar
Neilt001

Bronze
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:35 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby Neilt001 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:29 am

juliejul wrote:
Neilt001 wrote:BULLSHITTING ESSAYS:
For everyone complaining about essay graders, I'll just repeat my experience. I agree with you. I think I generally scored like a 2/6 to 4/6. No matter what I could never properly improve my score and there was little rhyme or reason to the grades. I never did very well and usually got the same comments (eg "IRAC better" "use better headings", "apply more facts" etc). I then scored in the 89th percentile on the MEE and was like WTF??

So I'm not sure why but I reckon the Themis graders are too tough. As someone said maybe it's a psychological thing to prepare you better. Who knows. Either way, just know that the real bar graders aren't actually that tough.

I made up two of the six essays because I hadn't studied what they were asking and didn't know the actual legal rules. What REALLY matters is using all the facts you're given, and letting them guide you. You can usually come up with a pretty intelligent sounding statement of the law based on the facts because they will be pointing you to something. For instance, I had no idea what the test for a criminal's capacity to stand trial was, and yet that's what the essay was all about. But the facts indicated that the criminal didn't understand what a trial was, didn't understand what guilt meant, etc etc. Now, that's a pretty simple scenario but it's pretty easy to use those facts to come up with a ballpark statement of the rule (eg "in order to stand trial, a criminal must understand the case put to him" or something. Even if that's wrong, you can still do well if you understand how to BS).

And Always :
- IRAC
- use good headings
- use an easy to understand format using lots of signposting language
- consider a counter argument
- come to a conclusion one way or another

Your statement of the law doesn't matter that much, so long as you're in the ballpark. Memorization isn't the key. Of course, if you want full points, you need the correct statement of the law, but you can pass without it, for sure.


This is EXCELLENT advice and pretty much my exact scenario, down to the fact that I didn't remember the rule for capacity to stand trial, and ended up scoring in the 98-99th percentile for essays. I also didn't remember the sanctions rules, which was another essay question, so I BS'd it.

Stay organized in your responses, apply ALL OF THE FACTS, and don't panic!


Same here! Sanctions and capacity to stand trial I TOTALLY made up haha. So funny someone else had the same issues as me and came out on top. It's definitely a good lesson to learn about the MEE. You'll never learn al of it, and you will likely need to BS at least one essay, so may as well know how to do it :lol:
Last edited by Neilt001 on Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Neilt001

Bronze
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:35 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby Neilt001 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:32 am

abogado2018 wrote:
MRSP wrote:So I haven't never been great on the Themis PQs, the highest I have received on the mixed sets is 64%, and my scores have dipped into the mid 50s even when I started out (I have only done around 5 of them so far), however on the 21 NCBE sample questions I did way better, about 76% ( 5/21 wrong), should I take that with a grain of salt since the mix of questions on Themis is more indicative of what we will actually see on the bar? Or should I scrap focusing on doing the rest of the mixed sets (maybe just do a few more) and purchase the NCBE study questions/OPEs and focus my time there? I can't afford to underestimate the MBE in my state, it counts for 50%. What say ye? lol


I don't understand why people are freaking out about the 21 NCBE question set. That is a tiny sample size. I suspect Themis's Qs are slightly harder overall. I don't think you can go wrong either way. If you are in CA I would probably do it.


Yeah seriously, as I've been saying all along, the NCBE Qs are easier than Themis, which is why you will in all likelihood score better on the MBE than on Themis. So I wouldn't worry too much about scoring in the 60s at best on Themis, because you will probably (like me) end up scoring a good 10 points higher on the bar and you'll be good. Themis pass rates are great so just do lots of MBE PQs and you'll be sweet.

jcwest

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:48 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby jcwest » Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:32 am

So, just curious. Did the both of you outline your answers before typing them out?

I tend to not but I'm getting the feeling I probably should.

User avatar
Neilt001

Bronze
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:35 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby Neilt001 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:35 am

jcwest wrote:So, just curious. Did the both of you outline your answers before typing them out?

I tend to not but I'm getting the feeling I probably should.


Personally (and this is just me) I just start typing and then modify my answer as I progress, if necessary. That's the beauty of typing. I found outlining (esp during a 30minute essay) just took too much time out of simply getting words on the page. The more words you type, the better your score I think.

jcwest

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:48 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby jcwest » Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:39 am

Neilt001 wrote:
jcwest wrote:So, just curious. Did the both of you outline your answers before typing them out?

I tend to not but I'm getting the feeling I probably should.


Personally (and this is just me) I just start typing and then modify my answer as I progress, if necessary. That's the beauty of typing. I found outlining (esp during a 30minute essay) just took too much time out of simply getting words on the page. The more words you type, the better your score I think.

Yeah... that's why I have not outlined for the most part. The only issue is, and maybe this is an issue I have because of the Themis essay answer page, but its hard to see what I have previously typed in that little box.

I'm sure Examplify will be better though. Thanks.

User avatar
Auxilio

Silver
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:51 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby Auxilio » Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:44 am

(this is for CA which are 1 hour but still kind of applies). As much as I "outline" I do it around 35 minutes in. When I get the question I read through it, and just start writing up the easy/long stuff, which involves thinking about the facts more and more.

Then around half way, I stop, read through the fact pattern again, and sort of list out any issues I haven't covered yet.

This serves two purposes in my mind: (1) it gives me a brief break from writing half way through to sort of clear head/re-energise and (2) it lets me think about potential issues when I'm more familiar with the fact pattern than just reading it once.

ETA: it also lets you have a better sense of how much time you have left for issues remaining and if you have to start getting bare bones

CrawlingToTheBar

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:50 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby CrawlingToTheBar » Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:59 am

AZ123 wrote:I had been consistently scoring around 70-72% on MBE mixed sets, even as high as 80% on one, but my scores have dropped into the sixties during the last few sets (I just finished set 12). Does themis make questions harder if you're doing well? Or am I regressing? I was hoping to have my scores in a more comfortable range (like mid-70s) as the bar gets closer, but I seem to be trending in the opposite direction.


In my experience, they seem to. Also, I have found its really helpful for my MBE sets to take a day off and relax or focus on MEE topics. Usually, my MBE PQ scores bump back up to upper 70s if I approach them without being stressed/frustrated about how I did on my last set. I would also suggest taking at least a day before the actual exam to just relax. Last thing you want to do is score poorly on a 34 or 50 question MBE set because Themis threw the hardest questions at you and go into the test with that mentality.

deacon

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby deacon » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:17 am

A defendant was charged with assault after being involved in a barroom fight in the middle of the day. The defendant admitted to being at the bar at the time of the fight, but claimed that he was only a bystander. At the defendant’s trial, the prosecutor intended to call the defendant’s former employer. The employer was to testify that the defendant had been fired and was not working at the time of his arrest. The defendant objected to the employer’s testimony.

How should the court rule?

A Overrule the objection, because it tends to make it more likely that the defendant was at the bar in the middle of the day and involved in the fight.
B Overrule the objection, because the employer will be testifying based on his personal knowledge of the defendant’s employment.
C Sustain the objection on the basis that the employer’s testimony is unfairly prejudicial.
D Sustain the objection on the basis that the employer’s testimony is not probative of a material fact.

I did not get why the answer is C. I choose D but the answer says "Answer choice D is incorrect because the employer’s testimony regarding the defendant’s unemployment is relevant to whether the defendant was present at the bar (and therefore potentially involved in the fight). The mere fact that the defendant has stipulated to his presence at the bar does not automatically preclude the prosecution from presenting the employer’s testimony, which also suggests the defendant was at the bar. However, such testimony should be excluded because it is unfairly prejudicial."

The thing makes me confuse that D already admitted that he was at the bar at the time of fight. How come the former employer's testimony will not be a cumulative evidence?

Any help appreciated

User avatar
Auxilio

Silver
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:51 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby Auxilio » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:24 am

deacon wrote:A defendant was charged with assault after being involved in a barroom fight in the middle of the day. The defendant admitted to being at the bar at the time of the fight, but claimed that he was only a bystander. At the defendant’s trial, the prosecutor intended to call the defendant’s former employer. The employer was to testify that the defendant had been fired and was not working at the time of his arrest. The defendant objected to the employer’s testimony.

How should the court rule?

A Overrule the objection, because it tends to make it more likely that the defendant was at the bar in the middle of the day and involved in the fight.
B Overrule the objection, because the employer will be testifying based on his personal knowledge of the defendant’s employment.
C Sustain the objection on the basis that the employer’s testimony is unfairly prejudicial.
D Sustain the objection on the basis that the employer’s testimony is not probative of a material fact.

I did not get why the answer is C. I choose D but the answer says "Answer choice D is incorrect because the employer’s testimony regarding the defendant’s unemployment is relevant to whether the defendant was present at the bar (and therefore potentially involved in the fight). The mere fact that the defendant has stipulated to his presence at the bar does not automatically preclude the prosecution from presenting the employer’s testimony, which also suggests the defendant was at the bar. However, such testimony should be excluded because it is unfairly prejudicial."

The thing makes me confuse that D already admitted that he was at the bar at the time of fight. How come the former employer's testimony will not be a cumulative evidence?

Any help appreciated


Just because it's stipulated, doesn't mean it's not relevant (I always remember this because it's outrageous that you can't stipulate to being a prior felon, they still get to introduce the prior conviction). However, the fact that it's stipulated does make the probative value less, so the prejudicial analysis ends in favour of D.

gladiator0flaw11

Bronze
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:22 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby gladiator0flaw11 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:33 am

Has anyone scored around 48% on the Themis MBE simulations and managed to still pass the UBE? I improved about 10 points as this was my worst area along with the MPT, trying to do as many mixed practice sets as I can to improve my % these last few days. I'll re-enroll if I fail and go back in for February 2019 if I can't get it done. fml

User avatar
MGH1989

Bronze
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:59 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby MGH1989 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:36 am

AZ123 wrote:I had been consistently scoring around 70-72% on MBE mixed sets, even as high as 80% on one, but my scores have dropped into the sixties during the last few sets (I just finished set 12). Does themis make questions harder if you're doing well? Or am I regressing? I was hoping to have my scores in a more comfortable range (like mid-70s) as the bar gets closer, but I seem to be trending in the opposite direction.


I generally think that some sets are just harder than others. I was in the 70's when I first started the mixed sets, the latter sets I have scored anywhere between the mid 50's and the low 70's, with an average around the low to mid 60's. Anyone correct me if I am wrong, but I feel like a lot of the questions on these mixed sets can sometimes reflect areas that will be a small portion of the test for a subject. For instance, you can get a mixed set and out of 6 questions you will have like 1 negligence question. That certainly won't be what is on test day since about half the torts questions will be negligence.

Lawworld19

Bronze
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby Lawworld19 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:37 am

If it is this late in the game just do NCBE questions. They wont kill your confidence as much and might be more similar. I would go with the while writing the wrong answer rule on flash cards and going over them at night the next 5 days.

gladiator0flaw11

Bronze
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:22 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby gladiator0flaw11 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:37 am

juliejul wrote:
Neilt001 wrote:BULLSHITTING ESSAYS:
For everyone complaining about essay graders, I'll just repeat my experience. I agree with you. I think I generally scored like a 2/6 to 4/6. No matter what I could never properly improve my score and there was little rhyme or reason to the grades. I never did very well and usually got the same comments (eg "IRAC better" "use better headings", "apply more facts" etc). I then scored in the 89th percentile on the MEE and was like WTF??

So I'm not sure why but I reckon the Themis graders are too tough. As someone said maybe it's a psychological thing to prepare you better. Who knows. Either way, just know that the real bar graders aren't actually that tough.

I made up two of the six essays because I hadn't studied what they were asking and didn't know the actual legal rules. What REALLY matters is using all the facts you're given, and letting them guide you. You can usually come up with a pretty intelligent sounding statement of the law based on the facts because they will be pointing you to something. For instance, I had no idea what the test for a criminal's capacity to stand trial was, and yet that's what the essay was all about. But the facts indicated that the criminal didn't understand what a trial was, didn't understand what guilt meant, etc etc. Now, that's a pretty simple scenario but it's pretty easy to use those facts to come up with a ballpark statement of the rule (eg "in order to stand trial, a criminal must understand the case put to him" or something. Even if that's wrong, you can still do well if you understand how to BS).

And Always :
- IRAC
- use good headings
- use an easy to understand format using lots of signposting language
- consider a counter argument
- come to a conclusion one way or another

Your statement of the law doesn't matter that much, so long as you're in the ballpark. Memorization isn't the key. Of course, if you want full points, you need the correct statement of the law, but you can pass without it, for sure.


This is EXCELLENT advice and pretty much my exact scenario, down to the fact that I didn't remember the rule for capacity to stand trial, and ended up scoring in the 98-99th percentile for essays. I also didn't remember the sanctions rules, which was another essay question, so I BS'd it.

Stay organized in your responses, apply ALL OF THE FACTS, and don't panic!


Apply only the relevant facts though correct? I also noticed CREAC gave me better essay scores than IRAC for some reason. If a contract essay has to do with UCC good faith modification, I still need to start with the definition of a contract and UCC governs goods instead of just diving into merchants dealing with one another only require good faith in modification, failure to object to a material change on the contract is assent to the agreement etc. Thank you in advance

deacon

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby deacon » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:52 am

Auxilio wrote:
deacon wrote:A defendant was charged with assault after being involved in a barroom fight in the middle of the day. The defendant admitted to being at the bar at the time of the fight, but claimed that he was only a bystander. At the defendant’s trial, the prosecutor intended to call the defendant’s former employer. The employer was to testify that the defendant had been fired and was not working at the time of his arrest. The defendant objected to the employer’s testimony.

How should the court rule?

A Overrule the objection, because it tends to make it more likely that the defendant was at the bar in the middle of the day and involved in the fight.
B Overrule the objection, because the employer will be testifying based on his personal knowledge of the defendant’s employment.
C Sustain the objection on the basis that the employer’s testimony is unfairly prejudicial.
D Sustain the objection on the basis that the employer’s testimony is not probative of a material fact.

I did not get why the answer is C. I choose D but the answer says "Answer choice D is incorrect because the employer’s testimony regarding the defendant’s unemployment is relevant to whether the defendant was present at the bar (and therefore potentially involved in the fight). The mere fact that the defendant has stipulated to his presence at the bar does not automatically preclude the prosecution from presenting the employer’s testimony, which also suggests the defendant was at the bar. However, such testimony should be excluded because it is unfairly prejudicial."

The thing makes me confuse that D already admitted that he was at the bar at the time of fight. How come the former employer's testimony will not be a cumulative evidence?

Any help appreciated


Just because it's stipulated, doesn't mean it's not relevant (I always remember this because it's outrageous that you can't stipulate to being a prior felon, they still get to introduce the prior conviction). However, the fact that it's stipulated does make the probative value less, so the prejudicial analysis ends in favour of D.


I see. So it won't be cumulative if it is coming from the prosecution as in this case. Thank you!

User avatar
Neilt001

Bronze
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:35 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby Neilt001 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:04 pm

Auxilio wrote:(this is for CA which are 1 hour but still kind of applies). As much as I "outline" I do it around 35 minutes in. When I get the question I read through it, and just start writing up the easy/long stuff, which involves thinking about the facts more and more.

Then around half way, I stop, read through the fact pattern again, and sort of list out any issues I haven't covered yet.

This serves two purposes in my mind: (1) it gives me a brief break from writing half way through to sort of clear head/re-energise and (2) it lets me think about potential issues when I'm more familiar with the fact pattern than just reading it once.

ETA: it also lets you have a better sense of how much time you have left for issues remaining and if you have to start getting bare bones


Yep, this is exactly how I approach both the MEEs and MPTs, and that is exactly the reason I do it.

The guy next to me during the MPT spent about 10 minutes(!!) after he finished reading to write an outline by hand. Meanwhile I was furiously typing. Don't know how he did, but I did great using this method, and I think it's because I just kept on typing, discussing facts, considering counter-arguments, and refining my answer on an ongoing basis. Maybe his answer was of a higher quality, but I would have hit more points than him for sure.

User avatar
Neilt001

Bronze
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:35 pm

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby Neilt001 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:09 pm

gladiator0flaw11 wrote:
juliejul wrote:
Neilt001 wrote:BULLSHITTING ESSAYS:
For everyone complaining about essay graders, I'll just repeat my experience. I agree with you. I think I generally scored like a 2/6 to 4/6. No matter what I could never properly improve my score and there was little rhyme or reason to the grades. I never did very well and usually got the same comments (eg "IRAC better" "use better headings", "apply more facts" etc). I then scored in the 89th percentile on the MEE and was like WTF??

So I'm not sure why but I reckon the Themis graders are too tough. As someone said maybe it's a psychological thing to prepare you better. Who knows. Either way, just know that the real bar graders aren't actually that tough.

I made up two of the six essays because I hadn't studied what they were asking and didn't know the actual legal rules. What REALLY matters is using all the facts you're given, and letting them guide you. You can usually come up with a pretty intelligent sounding statement of the law based on the facts because they will be pointing you to something. For instance, I had no idea what the test for a criminal's capacity to stand trial was, and yet that's what the essay was all about. But the facts indicated that the criminal didn't understand what a trial was, didn't understand what guilt meant, etc etc. Now, that's a pretty simple scenario but it's pretty easy to use those facts to come up with a ballpark statement of the rule (eg "in order to stand trial, a criminal must understand the case put to him" or something. Even if that's wrong, you can still do well if you understand how to BS).

And Always :
- IRAC
- use good headings
- use an easy to understand format using lots of signposting language
- consider a counter argument
- come to a conclusion one way or another

Your statement of the law doesn't matter that much, so long as you're in the ballpark. Memorization isn't the key. Of course, if you want full points, you need the correct statement of the law, but you can pass without it, for sure.


This is EXCELLENT advice and pretty much my exact scenario, down to the fact that I didn't remember the rule for capacity to stand trial, and ended up scoring in the 98-99th percentile for essays. I also didn't remember the sanctions rules, which was another essay question, so I BS'd it.

Stay organized in your responses, apply ALL OF THE FACTS, and don't panic!


Apply only the relevant facts though correct? I also noticed CREAC gave me better essay scores than IRAC for some reason. If a contract essay has to do with UCC good faith modification, I still need to start with the definition of a contract and UCC governs goods instead of just diving into merchants dealing with one another only require good faith in modification, failure to object to a material change on the contract is assent to the agreement etc. Thank you in advance


Yep, I would say CREAC is good too, and you're right about that contracts point.

As to the facts, I don't think there are many scenarios where all the facts aren't relevant. Or at least, they can be discussed in terms of a counter-argument or relevance (eg "Although fact X exists, this is not relevant because Y...") I would urge you to always address all facts in your answer for completness' sake and for those extra points to show you've really considered it all.

jcwest

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:48 am

Re: THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION

Postby jcwest » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:39 pm

Stupid question but is anyone else hitting in the 70%-76% range on mixed sets and still feel like they don't know half this stuff well enough for the essay portion?



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot] and 7 guests