BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam Forum

[taxman021]

^^^

I did that same essay Q today, and went the same route, talking about how he didn't participate in it, since he merely solicited the other guy into doing it and then sat back and waited for it to happen. But then again, the facts aren't clear as to his level of participation. Yet nothing suggests he did anything more than ask the other guy to do it.

right, did you go the accomplice route too then? was accomplice liability even correct then?

[kaiser]

^^^

I did that same essay Q today, and went the same route, talking about how he didn't participate in it, since he merely solicited the other guy into doing it and then sat back and waited for it to happen. But then again, the facts aren't clear as to his level of participation. Yet nothing suggests he did anything more than ask the other guy to do it.

right, did you go the accomplice route too then? was accomplice liability even correct then?

Accomplice liability is right. But all the conspiracy stuff and vicarious liablity discussion wasn't even in there

[kaiser]

Oh, and just finished the 1st NCBE 100 Q test I bought. 80/100, which it said is 163 scaled.

Like my mid-test comment said: Much shorter fact patterns makes it much easier to read and process, answer choices, while a bit different-feeling, are clear and to the point, and there are more than enough easy ones peppered in to make it move fast. I finished the whole 100 Q set in 2 hrs 5 min. I literally would have had an additional hour to sit and go through the property crap to review and closely read things while I try and recall the rules. With the software on the site, I didn't see how to mark Q's as uncertains, so I didn't want to be clicking through and trying to recall, so I just scored it after 2 hrs, 5 min when I finished.

Oddly enough, I got more evidence wrong than property. Evidence is one of my best subjects, whereas property kills me. Oh, and con law was laughably easy.

If this is what the real test is like, then bring is the hell on, dudes.

[jawsthegreat]

^^^

I did that same essay Q today, and went the same route, talking about how he didn't participate in it, since he merely solicited the other guy into doing it and then sat back and waited for it to happen. But then again, the facts aren't clear as to his level of participation. Yet nothing suggests he did anything more than ask the other guy to do it.

Well if he gave the guy the keys to the building, that's active participation.

[jawsthegreat]

Just checked my notes. If you merely conspire and don't participate, there's no pinkerton. But, if you do any participation it's fair game.

[kaiser]

^^^

I did that same essay Q today, and went the same route, talking about how he didn't participate in it, since he merely solicited the other guy into doing it and then sat back and waited for it to happen. But then again, the facts aren't clear as to his level of participation. Yet nothing suggests he did anything more than ask the other guy to do it.

Well if he gave the guy the keys to the building, that's active participation.

It didn't say he gave the guy the keys to the building, I don't think. They found the arsonist's gas can inside. And you would think that, if the owner has any common sense, he would tell the accomplice to break in, so that no one would suspect that the owner had anything to do with it. So I highly doubt he just gave him the key.

[kaiser]

I'm not really a math/stats person, but I was curious how 80/100 (which would obviously be on pace for 160/200), could be a scaled score of 163. Does the scaling really add that few points?

[c3pO4]

I'm not really a math/stats person, but I was curious how 80/100 (which would obviously be on pace for 160/200), could be a scaled score of 163. Does the scaling really add that few points?

i think its a bigger scale if you are raw 120, but the scale decreases as you approach 170?

[kaiser]

I'm not really a math/stats person, but I was curious how 80/100 (which would obviously be on pace for 160/200), could be a scaled score of 163. Does the scaling really add that few points?

i think its a bigger scale if you are raw 120, but the scale decreases as you approach 170?

I checked the conversion scale for 2011, and raw 160 was 172.5 or something right around there. Thats pretty crazy that the scale would change up that much. Not sure when this NCBE 100 Q test is from. They provide the scaling, so there is obviously data to back it up.

[NWI Lawyer 13]

I am kinda at a loss...I was wondering what other people think is the best approach? I did pretty decent (145) on the simulated MBE, but during the lead up to that I focused pretty heavily on the MBE stuff, while just going to lecture and summarily reviewing the notes for the state topics. I have been using the last week to get ready for the Indiana essays, which are not too bad (10 topics, 6 questions, 3 topics known to appear on every exam). What is the best approach for remaining fresh on the MBE rules (with the exception of doing practice questions, which I continue to do, have done over 1400)? Contracts and Property are my weakest topics, is re-reading the CMR or lecture outlines something that any one else is doing to brush up?

Lastly, there are not many blogs on this...are there a lot of people who have done ok on the Barbri simulated MBE and then failed the MBE portion of the exam? Maybe a dumb question?

[jawsthegreat]

I'm not really a math/stats person, but I was curious how 80/100 (which would obviously be on pace for 160/200), could be a scaled score of 163. Does the scaling really add that few points?

i think its a bigger scale if you are raw 120, but the scale decreases as you approach 170?

I checked the conversion scale for 2011, and raw 160 was 172.5 or something right around there. Thats pretty crazy that the scale would change up that much. Not sure when this NCBE 100 Q test is from. They provide the scaling, so there is obviously data to back it up.

Probably explains why most people posting in this thread are saying they're destroying it, probably statistically easier, thus the lighter curve. Regardless 163/200 is fantastic.

[bgdddymtty]

I'm not really a math/stats person, but I was curious how 80/100 (which would obviously be on pace for 160/200), could be a scaled score of 163. Does the scaling really add that few points?

i think its a bigger scale if you are raw 120, but the scale decreases as you approach 170?

I checked the conversion scale for 2011, and raw 160 was 172.5 or something right around there. Thats pretty crazy that the scale would change up that much. Not sure when this NCBE 100 Q test is from. They provide the scaling, so there is obviously data to back it up.

Y'all are forgetting that on the real MBE, only 190 of the questions count. An 80/100 score is equal to a raw 152/190, so the scale--which will always add at least 10 points to your score--is here giving you 11 points.

[jawsthegreat]

I am kinda at a loss...I was wondering what other people think is the best approach? I did pretty decent (145) on the simulated MBE, but during the lead up to that I focused pretty heavily on the MBE stuff, while just going to lecture and summarily reviewing the notes for the state topics. I have been using the last week to get ready for the Indiana essays, which are not too bad (10 topics, 6 questions, 3 topics known to appear on every exam). What is the best approach for remaining fresh on the MBE rules (with the exception of doing practice questions, which I continue to do, have done over 1400)? Contracts and Property are my weakest topics, is re-reading the CMR or lecture outlines something that any one else is doing to brush up?

Lastly, there are not many blogs on this...are there a lot of people who have done ok on the Barbri simulated MBE and then failed the MBE portion of the exam? Maybe a dumb question?

145 is in the top ~5% of overall scores on the practice MBE. I think you'll be fine.

[rnf1292]

To those of you that have friends that have taken the exam... Do people come out of the exam feeling OK about it? As in shit that was hard but I probably passed?
....because after all this work I seriously cannot handle freaking out about failure for 2+ months.

[imchuckbass58]

FINE. You talked me into it. Anybody got a link?

--LinkRemoved--

Is this actually worth paying $50 for? That is, is there any value in actually doing it in order to get a feel for the different question format? Or is it just useful to reassure ourselves that the barbri questions are ridiculous?

If it's the latter, I'll just take your word for it. If you guys think it's actually worthwhile to get used to the question format, then I guess I'll spring the $50.

[get it to x]

FINE. You talked me into it. Anybody got a link?

--LinkRemoved--

Is this actually worth paying $50 for? That is, is there any value in actually doing it in order to get a feel for the different question format? Or is it just useful to reassure ourselves that the barbri questions are ridiculous?

If it's the latter, I'll just take your word for it. If you guys think it's actually worthwhile to get used to the question format, then I guess I'll spring the $50.

Would love to know this as well along with whether there is overlap between these questions and what's in the mixed sets?

[kaiser]

FINE. You talked me into it. Anybody got a link?

--LinkRemoved--

Is this actually worth paying $50 for? That is, is there any value in actually doing it in order to get a feel for the different question format? Or is it just useful to reassure ourselves that the barbri questions are ridiculous?

If it's the latter, I'll just take your word for it. If you guys think it's actually worthwhile to get used to the question format, then I guess I'll spring the $50.

Would love to know this as well along with whether there is overlap between these questions and what's in the mixed sets?

If you actually read the thread from that post onward, you will see that people, myself included, made comments on how the Q's compare.

My thoughts again: The fact patterns are MUCH shorter and easier to digest. Very much to the point, and far less tricks. Typically, you either know the point or law, or you don't. For lots of Q's, I knew what answer I was looking for before I even saw it. That saved me lots of time. For every Q that takes a lot of thought, there were numerous others that took under 30 seconds. Finished the entire 100 Q set in 2 hours and 5 min. Would have had nearly 1 hour to spare on the real thing to go back to the harder ones.

My score was higher on the NCBE set (80% right) than on any BarBri test (aside from the MPQ2 sets, where I was hitting close to 90). There are a solid bunch of Q's in the NCBE tests that are pretty similar to MPQ2 mixed sets, but enough tricky ones that its not like you can rock 90% every time).

[imchuckbass58]

If you actually read the thread from that post onward, you will see that people, myself included, made comments on how the Q's compare.

My thoughts again: The fact patterns are MUCH shorter and easier to digest. Very much to the point, and far less tricks. Typically, you either know the point or law, or you don't. For lots of Q's, I knew what answer I was looking for before I even saw it. That saved me lots of time. For every Q that takes a lot of thought, there were numerous others that took under 30 seconds. Finished the entire 100 Q set in 2 hours and 5 min. Would have had nearly 1 hour to spare on the real thing to go back to the harder ones.

My score was higher on the NCBE set (80% right) than on any BarBri test (aside from the MPQ2 sets, where I was hitting close to 90). There are a solid bunch of Q's in the NCBE tests that are pretty similar to MPQ2 mixed sets, but enough tricky ones that its not like you can rock 90% every time).

Thanks. I guess my question is, do you think what you describe is actually worth seeing for myself? Or is it straightforward enough that I would be none the worse for seeing these "easier" questions for the first time on test day?

[kaiser]

Honestly, I'm not sure its necessary. Though the confidence boost was certainly worth something to me (but, of course, it depends on how much you value that at this stage). I can't imagine someone being totally comfortable with BarBri Q's, and then being that thrown by these real ones. The wording is fairly similar. The answer choices have the rules of law pretty clear laid out. At very few points did I feel like I had to pick the "least wrong" answer, as BarBri makes you do so often.

But I was bordering a mental breakdown, since I'm not doing well on the essays, and haven't mastered the state-specific law. So I needed to know that my MBE performance will at least be good enough to give me some leeway on the essays. Now, these 100 Q sets may not be perfect indicators, but I would assume NCBE makes them representative, as they have every incentive to do so. And after seeing a 160+ scaled score on it, it makes these next 4 days of essay prep a lot less stressful, since I know I don't have to slay every essay top to bottom.

Again, I needed that, while others may have more confidence in themselves, and don't need that boost.

[Mroberts3]

I'm not really a math/stats person, but I was curious how 80/100 (which would obviously be on pace for 160/200), could be a scaled score of 163. Does the scaling really add that few points?

i think its a bigger scale if you are raw 120, but the scale decreases as you approach 170?

I checked the conversion scale for 2011, and raw 160 was 172.5 or something right around there. Thats pretty crazy that the scale would change up that much. Not sure when this NCBE 100 Q test is from. They provide the scaling, so there is obviously data to back it up.

Probably explains why most people posting in this thread are saying they're destroying it, probably statistically easier, thus the lighter curve. Regardless 163/200 is fantastic.

There are two aspects to the scaling differences with the 100 question practice tests. First, the tests might be statistically easier so an 80% is a lower scaled score than it would be on the real thing. Second, as already mentioned, the real thing is scored out of 190 which throws things off a bit when trying to compare your raw score on a 200 question test.

[Mroberts3]

FINE. You talked me into it. Anybody got a link?

--LinkRemoved--

Is this actually worth paying $50 for? That is, is there any value in actually doing it in order to get a feel for the different question format? Or is it just useful to reassure ourselves that the barbri questions are ridiculous?

If it's the latter, I'll just take your word for it. If you guys think it's actually worthwhile to get used to the question format, then I guess I'll spring the $50.

How much did you spend on law school? Barbri? Trust me, this is the best $50 you will spend on your legal education. Even if it is just the peace of mind to get you through this last week.

[hds2388]

Wanted to gripe about/hear other takes on a problem. MPQ2, Mixed Set 7, Question 25. I know these queries are sometimes boring, and I apologize to all for having to even read this far because I am being petty over 1 missed MBE question.

The gist of the question is, given a US congressional regulation requiring specifications for containers that nonprescription drugs had to be in for marketing those products, is congress's power to pass this legislation derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause. Barbri says the answer is commerce clause.

My initial answer (in my head) was both; obviously I needed to choose one or the other. The grant of power over interstate congress certainly puts the subject of this legislation in the realm of commerce clause, but the very power to adopt the legislation (and the stem of the question is: "Congress's power to pass this legislation is derived from:"), in my mind, comes from N+P. So I focused on the "power to pass" language. To bolster my case, I cite to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_ ... per_Clause, in the Later Applications section.

Can someone explain to me why this is wrong? In general, I'm bad at con law, so I will happily defer to everyone else's choice wisdom.

Again, sorry for being petty.

[Mroberts3]

Wanted to gripe about/hear other takes on a problem. MPQ2, Mixed Set 7, Question 25. I know these queries are sometimes boring, and I apologize to all for having to even read this far because I am being petty over 1 missed MBE question.

The gist of the question is, given a US congressional regulation requiring specifications for containers that nonprescription drugs had to be in for marketing those products, is congress's power to pass this legislation derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause. Barbri says the answer is commerce clause.

My initial answer (in my head) was both; obviously I needed to choose one or the other. The grant of power over interstate congress certainly puts the subject of this legislation in the realm of commerce clause, but the very power to adopt the legislation (and the stem of the question is: "Congress's power to pass this legislation is derived from:"), in my mind, comes from N+P. So I focused on the "power to pass" language. To bolster my case, I cite to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_ ... per_Clause, in the Later Applications section.

Can someone explain to me why this is wrong? In general, I'm bad at con law, so I will happily defer to everyone else's choice wisdom.

Again, sorry for being petty.

Because necessary and proper clause can't ever stand alone. It must be linked with another enumerated power. I don't know the question first hand, but if the answer choice only says N+P it will always be wrong. Plus, congress doesn't need it to pass the drug packaging law because that is entirely within the commerce power anyway...no need to rely on necessary and proper clause.

[hds2388]

Wanted to gripe about/hear other takes on a problem. MPQ2, Mixed Set 7, Question 25. I know these queries are sometimes boring, and I apologize to all for having to even read this far because I am being petty over 1 missed MBE question.

The gist of the question is, given a US congressional regulation requiring specifications for containers that nonprescription drugs had to be in for marketing those products, is congress's power to pass this legislation derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause. Barbri says the answer is commerce clause.

My initial answer (in my head) was both; obviously I needed to choose one or the other. The grant of power over interstate congress certainly puts the subject of this legislation in the realm of commerce clause, but the very power to adopt the legislation (and the stem of the question is: "Congress's power to pass this legislation is derived from:"), in my mind, comes from N+P. So I focused on the "power to pass" language. To bolster my case, I cite to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_ ... per_Clause, in the Later Applications section.

Can someone explain to me why this is wrong? In general, I'm bad at con law, so I will happily defer to everyone else's choice wisdom.

Again, sorry for being petty.

Because necessary and proper clause can't ever stand alone. It must be linked with another enumerated power. I don't know the question first hand, but if the answer choice only says N+P it will always be wrong. Plus, congress doesn't need it to pass the drug packaging law because that is entirely within the commerce power anyway...no need to rely on necessary and proper clause.

Fair enough. Better explanation than barbri's.

[kaiser]

Wanted to gripe about/hear other takes on a problem. MPQ2, Mixed Set 7, Question 25. I know these queries are sometimes boring, and I apologize to all for having to even read this far because I am being petty over 1 missed MBE question.

The gist of the question is, given a US congressional regulation requiring specifications for containers that nonprescription drugs had to be in for marketing those products, is congress's power to pass this legislation derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause. Barbri says the answer is commerce clause.

My initial answer (in my head) was both; obviously I needed to choose one or the other. The grant of power over interstate congress certainly puts the subject of this legislation in the realm of commerce clause, but the very power to adopt the legislation (and the stem of the question is: "Congress's power to pass this legislation is derived from:"), in my mind, comes from N+P. So I focused on the "power to pass" language. To bolster my case, I cite to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_ ... per_Clause, in the Later Applications section.

Can someone explain to me why this is wrong? In general, I'm bad at con law, so I will happily defer to everyone else's choice wisdom.

Again, sorry for being petty.

Because necessary and proper clause can't ever stand alone. It must be linked with another enumerated power. I don't know the question first hand, but if the answer choice only says N+P it will always be wrong. Plus, congress doesn't need it to pass the drug packaging law because that is entirely within the commerce power anyway...no need to rely on necessary and proper clause.

Fair enough. Better explanation than barbri's.

Right, the N & P clause is never a standalone source of power. You would never say that "X action is justified by the N & P clause". You would instead say that X action is justified by Congress's enumerated power to do so and so (ex. regulate commerce). The N & P clause merely gives them the flexibility to carry out action pursuant to enumerated powers.

Another very common "power" that isn't a power is the general welfare clause. I keep seeing that one, and its never right. Congress can tax and spend for the general welfare, but they can't just do anything, and say it is in the general welfare.