KAPLAN BAR REVIEW hangout Forum

[los blancos]

Kaplan is such crap, but it doesn't seem like BarBri is at all better. These test prep companies are fucking crooks.

[a male human]

Kaplan is such crap, but it doesn't seem like BarBri is at all better. These test prep companies are fucking crooks.

At least Kaplan doesn't load the wrong and/or outdated DVDs during the live lectures, nor does its website go down unexpectedly for whole days lol

[Torvon]

These MBE criminal procedure questions in the big red book are an absolute joke. Some are wrong on the law and others add facts in the explanation as to why one answer is better than another.

Here I was feeling relieved about getting more of them right than I thought ;(

It's my worst subject at this point, so I'm sure at least some of it is just frustration. However, it is pretty lame that they add something like "the officer deliberated didn't give Miranda warnings" in the explanation and there are no such facts in the question. I could list more...but, whatev.

[los blancos]

These MBE criminal procedure questions in the big red book are an absolute joke. Some are wrong on the law and others add facts in the explanation as to why one answer is better than another.

They do this fucking shit all the time. I have been spending much of the last 3 weeks trying to figure out how these objectively shitty companies get away with this stuff.

[mness]

I seem to be in the minority here, but I find the QBank questions to be easier than the red book, and hopefully also more similar to real MBE questions. While the QBank questions do often test the exceptions to the rules, the red book seems to test incredibly nuanced and obscure concepts in subtle ways. I do much, much worse on the redbook then the QBank.

[SAOJD10]

Anyone elses Qbank going extremely slow? At this point I can't even use the Qbank or the State multiple choice bank

[Doritos]

I seem to be in the minority here, but I find the QBank questions to be easier than the red book, and hopefully also more similar to real MBE questions. While the QBank questions do often test the exceptions to the rules, the red book seems to test incredibly nuanced and obscure concepts in subtle ways. I do much, much worse on the redbook then the QBank.

I don't really know how to gauge myself with the MBE. I will have a 50 problem set in the Qbank and get rocked getting like 60% right. Then I took the final MBE and got a 143. I know that's supposed to be good but it's hard to feel that way when I'll get a random Qbank set that crushes me. I haven't used the redbook since the midterm so I can't really comment on how hard those are.

[dudeman2014]

I seem to be in the minority here, but I find the QBank questions to be easier than the red book, and hopefully also more similar to real MBE questions. While the QBank questions do often test the exceptions to the rules, the red book seems to test incredibly nuanced and obscure concepts in subtle ways. I do much, much worse on the redbook then the QBank.

I don't really know how to gauge myself with the MBE. I will have a 50 problem set in the Qbank and get rocked getting like 60% right. Then I took the final MBE and got a 143. I know that's supposed to be good but it's hard to feel that way when I'll get a random Qbank set that crushes me. I haven't used the redbook since the midterm so I can't really comment on how hard those are.

The redbook is pretty terrible. Some of the questions are absurdly long to the point where you become filled with anger/hatred while reading them, and many of the answer explanations do not help you understand the material any better if you get a question wrong. I think the Qbank is pretty solid. I am thinking of doing some questions out of the "Additional MBE" exam just to get back to the feel of taking MBE questions on paper instead of on the screen which I have been doing this whole time.

[SAOJD10]

I agree that the red book tests on some extremely far out and weird material (i.e., the section in Con Law about "oaths"). Like the above poster I did relatively decent on the Final MBE from Kaplan but my Qbank performance is literally whatever way the wind blows that morning when I do questions - it swings anywhere from 58% to 85%

[a male human]

I feel the opposite. The Qbank tested some weird stuff I have never seen before. On the other hand the red book has questions that seemed somewhat similar to the midterm and final MBE questions. Granted I haven't done all the questions in the red book, nor do I plan to.

[dudeman2014]

Did anyone else think it was hilarious when during the Final MBE review the video just cuts to like an older version of Chris Fromm reviewing the question because they were too lazy to have him re-record it?

[cruzgator]

My favorite is when Fromm reads wrong answer choices that are no longer on the exam. There were a few of those on there.

Maybe I am in the minority but I didn't find the Final to be that difficult compared to the Qbank. I also find the redbook to be much easier than the Qbank. The Qbank still rocks me on 33 question sets. I feel those are by far the hardest questions.

[sconnie86]

the qbank regularly kicks my ass. i'm just trying to see as many questions as i can before tuesday

[dudeman2014]

My favorite is when Fromm reads wrong answer choices that are no longer on the exam. There were a few of those on there.

Maybe I am in the minority but I didn't find the Final to be that difficult compared to the Qbank. I also find the redbook to be much easier than the Qbank. The Qbank still rocks me on 33 question sets. I feel those are by far the hardest questions.

I have to say I agree with you. I did find the final harder than the midterm which I think they do on purpose. The one thing Fromm says about the questions that I actually agree with is that the more you get wrong the more law you internalize because you are reading the answer explanations while thinking about the concepts and paying more attention to the law. So, it's probably a good thing that Qbank whoops us.

Well it will all be over soon. Until February.

[Doritos]

Is it just me or is the kaplan website extremely slow to the point of being unusable

[SAOJD10]

Is it just me or is the kaplan website extremely slow to the point of being unusable

It was for me yesterday, couldn't do any timed practice questions in the Qbank b/c it took upwards of two minutes to transition from question to question. Today its working fine for me though.

[DwightSchruteFarms]

Had a quick question:

I just did a question in the Qbank re: Torts. Basically this guy X, gets injured when he is pushed down a flight of stairs by Y. X sustains some back problems. A year later, X is walking a dog for Z on Z's property and he steps in a hidden hole and screws his ankle. The facts say that had X not been pushed by Y a year ago, he would have been able to regain his balance and not hurt his ankle. The question asks if Y has any liability?

For some ridiculous reason, Kaplan says that this is a foreseeable injury and that Y is liable. Can someone explain this to me? The injury occurred A YEAR AGO.

Thanks

[dudeman2014]

It is not so much that the future injury of falling in the hole is "foreseeable", its more just a rule of tort law. Because the original injury was proximately caused by "Y", then Y is responsible for all further injuries that are directly attributable to the initial injury. So, future injuries that plaintiffs experience as a direct result of the original injury are always going to result in liability for the original tortfeasor. It is just a black letter rule that may seem counter-intuitive, but nonetheless exists.

You take your plaintiff as you find him, both at the time of the injury and going forward.

Had a quick question:

I just did a question in the Qbank re: Torts. Basically this guy X, gets injured when he is pushed down a flight of stairs by Y. X sustains some back problems. A year later, X is walking a dog for Z on Z's property and he steps in a hidden hole and screws his ankle. The facts say that had X not been pushed by Y a year ago, he would have been able to regain his balance and not hurt his ankle. The question asks if Y has any liability?

For some ridiculous reason, Kaplan says that this is a foreseeable injury and that Y is liable. Can someone explain this to me? The injury occurred A YEAR AGO.

Thanks

[DwightSchruteFarms]

It is not so much that the future injury of falling in the hole is "foreseeable", its more just a rule of tort law. Because the original injury was proximately caused by "Y", then Y is responsible for all further injuries that are directly attributable to the initial injury. So, future injuries that plaintiffs experience as a direct result of the original injury are always going to result in liability for the original tortfeasor. It is just a black letter rule that may seem counter-intuitive, but nonetheless exists.

You take your plaintiff as you find him, both at the time of the injury and going forward.

Had a quick question:

I just did a question in the Qbank re: Torts. Basically this guy X, gets injured when he is pushed down a flight of stairs by Y. X sustains some back problems. A year later, X is walking a dog for Z on Z's property and he steps in a hidden hole and screws his ankle. The facts say that had X not been pushed by Y a year ago, he would have been able to regain his balance and not hurt his ankle. The question asks if Y has any liability?

For some ridiculous reason, Kaplan says that this is a foreseeable injury and that Y is liable. Can someone explain this to me? The injury occurred A YEAR AGO.

Thanks

Thanks for the response. However, how would this not be defeated by Assumption of the Risk? Moreover, the fact that a "year later" this happened has to cause a break in the chain for proximate causation. I understand what you're saying but for this to be a direct result, it could not be so far in time...at least to my understanding.

[dudeman2014]

I don't think that assumption of the risk applies here because the plaintiff was not engaged in a risky activity. The best way to think of it would be to just accept that future injuries, caused because of the plaintiff's original injury, are considered "foreseeable" in the eyes of the law.

Whenever you have a fact pattern where the only reason a future injury results is because the plaintiff was weakened by the lingering effects of the first injury, that counts as foreseeable. I'm not sure if you and I have the same Bar Notes, but if you look on page 478 of the Bar Notes, you will see a little graph that explains what counts as "foreseeable" and what counts as "unforeseeable".
Under the "foreseeable" side, you will notice that "Subsequent...injuries resulting from the plaintiff's weakened condition" are included.

It is not so much that the future injury of falling in the hole is "foreseeable", its more just a rule of tort law. Because the original injury was proximately caused by "Y", then Y is responsible for all further injuries that are directly attributable to the initial injury. So, future injuries that plaintiffs experience as a direct result of the original injury are always going to result in liability for the original tortfeasor. It is just a black letter rule that may seem counter-intuitive, but nonetheless exists.

You take your plaintiff as you find him, both at the time of the injury and going forward.

Had a quick question:

I just did a question in the Qbank re: Torts. Basically this guy X, gets injured when he is pushed down a flight of stairs by Y. X sustains some back problems. A year later, X is walking a dog for Z on Z's property and he steps in a hidden hole and screws his ankle. The facts say that had X not been pushed by Y a year ago, he would have been able to regain his balance and not hurt his ankle. The question asks if Y has any liability?

For some ridiculous reason, Kaplan says that this is a foreseeable injury and that Y is liable. Can someone explain this to me? The injury occurred A YEAR AGO.

Thanks

Thanks for the response. However, how would this not be defeated by Assumption of the Risk? Moreover, the fact that a "year later" this happened has to cause a break in the chain for proximate causation. I understand what you're saying but for this to be a direct result, it could not be so far in time...at least to my understanding.

[DwightSchruteFarms]

I don't think that assumption of the risk applies here because the plaintiff was not engaged in a risky activity. The best way to think of it would be to just accept that future injuries, caused because of the plaintiff's original injury, are considered "foreseeable" in the eyes of the law.

Whenever you have a fact pattern where the only reason a future injury results is because the plaintiff was weakened by the lingering effects of the first injury, that counts as foreseeable. I'm not sure if you and I have the same Bar Notes, but if you look on page 478 of the Bar Notes, you will see a little graph that explains what counts as "foreseeable" and what counts as "unforeseeable".
Under the "foreseeable" side, you will notice that "Subsequent...injuries resulting from the plaintiff's weakened condition" are included.

It is not so much that the future injury of falling in the hole is "foreseeable", its more just a rule of tort law. Because the original injury was proximately caused by "Y", then Y is responsible for all further injuries that are directly attributable to the initial injury. So, future injuries that plaintiffs experience as a direct result of the original injury are always going to result in liability for the original tortfeasor. It is just a black letter rule that may seem counter-intuitive, but nonetheless exists.

You take your plaintiff as you find him, both at the time of the injury and going forward.

Had a quick question:

I just did a question in the Qbank re: Torts. Basically this guy X, gets injured when he is pushed down a flight of stairs by Y. X sustains some back problems. A year later, X is walking a dog for Z on Z's property and he steps in a hidden hole and screws his ankle. The facts say that had X not been pushed by Y a year ago, he would have been able to regain his balance and not hurt his ankle. The question asks if Y has any liability?

For some ridiculous reason, Kaplan says that this is a foreseeable injury and that Y is liable. Can someone explain this to me? The injury occurred A YEAR AGO.

Thanks

Thanks for the response. However, how would this not be defeated by Assumption of the Risk? Moreover, the fact that a "year later" this happened has to cause a break in the chain for proximate causation. I understand what you're saying but for this to be a direct result, it could not be so far in time...at least to my understanding.

Ill just accept that I'm wrong. Thanks for the help dude. Good luck with your bowels

[DwightSchruteFarms]

Sorry one more question guys:

Are these Qbank questions supposed to be harder than the real thing? I've been on the Barbri sched and just bought the Qbank three weeks ago and they seem meh. I've been scoring about 65% on them, which is a bit worrisome. Is this normal?

[a male human]

Sorry one more question guys:

Are these Qbank questions supposed to be harder than the real thing? I've been on the Barbri sched and just bought the Qbank three weeks ago and they seem meh. I've been scoring about 65% on them, which is a bit worrisome. Is this normal?

I think the Qbank is hard. I think not being able to write on paper also slows me down and confuses me.

Anyone know how hard Kaplan's additional MBE practice exam is supposed to be? I just did the first 100 and got 73 right, which means I need more than straight 60s on the written portions, which I'm not counting on.

[cruzgator]

Honestly how awful are the essay graders on Kaplan? Sometimes I think they don't even read the essays. I just sent in a model answer from the Florida bar website. Let see how how below the standard this essay turns out to be.

[ndirish2010]

I haven't been wasting my time sending in essays to the graders after my first one was such a joke. All I know is I better pass, because I'm not getting a retaker offer.

138 on final MBE, so I feel a little better about that.