Might actually fail the MPRE Forum

[MBZags]

yeah probably failed.

+1

I thought the BarBri questions were easier.

[Slimpee]

yeah probably failed.

Ill hope on the failboat with ya, Trae...

[BarbellDreams]

Seriously, the first 10 questions straight I didn't think I knew what was going on at all. 50/50 chance, also I'd say 50% of the things on the test were NOT covered by BarBri that I went to.

[choochoo]

Fingers crossed those hard questions in the beginning were experimental. If not, there's a good chance I failed.

[howell]

Would it help if I was really unethical and just picked the answer opposite of what I would actually do?

It's best to pick the second most ethical option.

[huckabees]

Can anyone clarify whether the approx 35 questions to pass standard is for # out of 60 or # out of 50? Because those are drastically different proportions...

[somewhatwayward]

Can anyone clarify whether the approx 35 questions to pass standard is for # out of 60 or # out of 50? Because those are drastically different proportions...

Unfortunately it is out of 50. I have heard that, depending on the test, an 85 requires anywhere from 32 to 38 out of 50. If you are in a state that requires less than an 85 obviously you have more room. The weird thing to me is if it is a 50 to 150 scale and, say, 35/50 gets you an 85, does every question that you get right past 35 jump your score a lot? Or maybe it is just little bumps until, like, 43/50 and then big bumps after that?

[JusticeHarlan]

Can anyone clarify whether the approx 35 questions to pass standard is for # out of 60 or # out of 50? Because those are drastically different proportions...

Unfortunately it is out of 50. I have heard that, depending on the test, an 85 requires anywhere from 32 to 38 out of 50.

What's your source on that? Upthread, someone said it only took 53% right to get an 85, so that would be 27/50.

This would also explain the scaling question:

The weird thing to me is if it is a 50 to 150 scale and, say, 35/50 gets you an 85, does every question that you get right past 35 jump your score a lot? Or maybe it is just little bumps until, like, 43/50 and then big bumps after that?

If ~27, rather than ~35, gets an 85, then the scale makes a lot more sense, right? I don't know, I'm just speculating, but that makes sense to me.

[thesealocust]

Can anyone clarify whether the approx 35 questions to pass standard is for # out of 60 or # out of 50? Because those are drastically different proportions...

Unfortunately it is out of 50. I have heard that, depending on the test, an 85 requires anywhere from 32 to 38 out of 50. If you are in a state that requires less than an 85 obviously you have more room. The weird thing to me is if it is a 50 to 150 scale and, say, 35/50 gets you an 85, does every question that you get right past 35 jump your score a lot? Or maybe it is just little bumps until, like, 43/50 and then big bumps after that?

No, when people say you need ~32+ correct, it's out of 60. You need to get just barely over half of the questions correct to get a passing score. That works out to 32+ or so correct out of all 60, or 26-27+ correct out of the 50 that count.

So you're looking at getting an overall total of 32+ questions of 60 correct to get an 85+ on the exam.

Info and links to sources here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=166105

Concrete example from that thread: In November 2005, getting 32 correct answers out of all 60 questions was enough to earn you an 85 on the exam.

[traehekat]

lol no fucking way i got 32 of those right.

[09042014]

I think I might have gotten to 32 only by narrowing the answers down to two, and then guessing. That plus getting maybe 10 right for sure.

[dresden doll]

I think I might have gotten to 32 only by narrowing the answers down to two, and then guessing. That plus getting maybe 10 right for sure.

That's how it was for me, actually. FWIW, I wound up passing by a comfortable margin.

[thesealocust]

If you did a decent job studying, your odds of (% of questions you knew the answer to) + (% of questions you narrowed to 2 and guessed correctly) - (% of questions you thought you narrowed to 2 but accidentally eliminated the correct answer) > 53% is pretty good.

It's a lot like the MBE on the bar exam; it's hard as balls but you don't need to perform that much better than random guessing to get a score in the passing range.

[blong4133]

Not like "haha, oh yeah I might fail the MPRE" but rather "oh shit I might actually fail the MPRE."

I'm sure you did fine. I said the same thing after I took it in August and passed it comfortably.

Just wait until the scores come out before you start freaking out. haha.

You did fine!

[thesealocust]

Not like "haha, oh yeah I might fail the MPRE" but rather "oh shit I might actually fail the MPRE."

I'm sure you did fine. I said the same thing after I took it in August and passed it comfortably.

Just wait until the scores come out before you start freaking out. haha.

You did fine!

Read the thread (which is months old); Rayiner actually did fail the first time

[blong4133]

Not like "haha, oh yeah I might fail the MPRE" but rather "oh shit I might actually fail the MPRE."

I'm sure you did fine. I said the same thing after I took it in August and passed it comfortably.

Just wait until the scores come out before you start freaking out. haha.

You did fine!

Read the thread (which is months old); Rayiner actually did fail the first time

Whoops!

I guess that's what I get for not reading through the post or paying attention to the date.

[Gamecubesupreme]

This exam sucked.

[09042014]

Anyone get the question about the Def. Attorney who didn't corrett a Prosecutors when the P inncorrectly said the D had no prior convictins?

[ben4848]

So I ranked the questions with either a check, a dash, or an x. I put a check if I was reasonably sure I got it right, a dash if there was a even chance, and an x if it may as well have been in french.
There were 29 checks, 25 dashes, and 6 x'es. So if figure there's a better than even chance I passed. Then I got pizza.

[Dignan]

Anyone get the question about the Def. Attorney who didn't corrett a Prosecutors when the P inncorrectly said the D had no prior convictins?

Yep. I had no idea what to do with that question.

[omg clay aiken !]

Anyone get the question about the Def. Attorney who didn't corrett a Prosecutors when the P inncorrectly said the D had no prior convictins?

I think I said that he had a duty to correct it because it was a false statement made a tribunal.. or something like that

how about the one about the judge writing the letter of recommendation for the clerk?

[The Duck]

Anyone get the question about the Def. Attorney who didn't corrett a Prosecutors when the P inncorrectly said the D had no prior convictins?

Yep. I had no idea what to do with that question.

The lawyer's duty of candor to the tribunal doesn't extend that far. The lawyer must correct misrepresentations he, his witness, or his client made. See Rule 3.3.

If the rule was otherwise, extend the proposition. This is the prosecutors burden. If the defense had to correct anytime the prosecutor made a misstatement of fact, they'd be responsible for prosecuting their own client. The prosecutor could make up anything and present it and the defense would have to correct it.

Whenever confronted by an unknown with the ethical rules, consider what effect the rule would have on the adversarial process and the lawyer-client relationship. We chip away at that to prevent a lawyer from allowing himself, his witness, or his client from lying but extend it no further.

There is a BarBri question somewhere right on point for this.

Edit: The consideration of the process/relationship is what leads to the "second best" ethical choice suggestion for many questions.

Edit 2: I think maybe where you are getting confused is that the lawyer does have to disclose if its controlling legal precedent. (And even then only if directly adverse to his position.) The idea being this shouldn't impair the lawyer/client relationship and would lead to overturns on appeal, etc.

[thesealocust]

Anyone get the question about the Def. Attorney who didn't corrett a Prosecutors when the P inncorrectly said the D had no prior convictins?

I think I said that he had a duty to correct it because it was a false statement made a tribunal.. or something like that

how about the one about the judge writing the letter of recommendation for the clerk?

The judicial ethics rules are really short and get into this in detail if you want to look it up. I forget the exact rule, but in general there's a lot of latitude for clerks when things would otherwise be against the ethics rules.

[The Duck]

Anyone get the question about the Def. Attorney who didn't corrett a Prosecutors when the P inncorrectly said the D had no prior convictins?

I think I said that he had a duty to correct it because it was a false statement made a tribunal.. or something like that

how about the one about the judge writing the letter of recommendation for the clerk?

Judges can make recommendations on official letterhead if based off personal knowledge and the recommendations states that is is personal and there is no likelihood it would appear to be judicial pressure. Section XIII(B)(4)(a) in the 2011 BarBri book. It references CJC Rule 1.3 comment 2.

[omg clay aiken !]

Anyone get the question about the Def. Attorney who didn't corrett a Prosecutors when the P inncorrectly said the D had no prior convictins?

Yep. I had no idea what to do with that question.

The lawyer's duty of candor to the tribunal doesn't extend that far. The lawyer must correct misrepresentations he, his witness, or his client made. See Rule 3.3.

If the rule was otherwise, extend the proposition. This is the prosecutors burden. If the defense had to correct anytime the prosecutor made a misstatement of fact, they'd be responsible for prosecuting their own client. The prosecutor could make up anything and present it and the defense would have to correct it.

Whenever confronted by an unknown with the ethical rules, consider what effect the rule would have on the adversarial process and the lawyer-client relationship. We chip away at that to prevent a lawyer from allowing himself, his witness, or his client from lying but extend it no further.

There is a BarBri question somewhere right on point for this.

shit