BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam Forum

[Mroberts3]

On my very, very best days, I can get in around 8 hours of studying if I really, really try. But on most days, I think I'm doing 4-6 actual hours of work, if not less. I take tons of breaks. I'm also watching movies every night. I can't do the 12-hour push.

+1.

I honestly think the people that study "12 hours a day" are including all the wasted time. If you spend 8 hours in the library but spend 4 on facebook, that isn't really 8 hours. I'm not saying those people aren't studying, its just that the amount of burnout I feel after 4-6 hours every day for 2 months makes me feel like its impossible to really do 10+ of real work every day.

I think studying is unique in this aspect. In the real world you can do certain tasks on autopilot after 2 months of practice and it doesn't take away from your mental reserves. To study effectively you have to be actively engaging with the material. This goes back to my point above: one CAN study 12 hours a day, but only if they zombie through it the way one does menial work tasks. It takes less energy, but there is little or no return on the investment.

Work smarter, not harder is a cliche but it is very apt here.

[usuaggie]

I'm half-heartedly making flashcards while watching Netflix. I kept up with the Paced Program, albeit only outlining/reading the essays, but this is about all I can accomplish at the this point.

Exact same. Should probably do an MPT or two since I've only done 2 all summer

[Pretzel_Logic]

I'm putting in 90 minute blocks where my only breaks are to get up for water. the goal is 4-5 a day which I've been putting in for a few days. that's really only 6-7.5/8 hours of real work per day, and I am DUN at the end. which leads me to believe that people saying they're doing 10+ hours a day are lying. or including a lot of goof off time and lying to themselves.

[cabartaker13]

Have people done MPQ2 Set 9? The average passing score is 33, so a two points lower than Sets 1-6 (35/50) and one point lower than Sets 7 & 8 (34/50).

Set 9 felt much harder than sets 1-6 .... felt like the average passing score should have been lower than only two less than the first sets.....

[cabartaker13]

Also - has anyone done the BarBri MBE sets and the Kaplan MBE Final Review course (set of 200 Qs). How did they compare? Is it helpful to do the Kaplan set after doing the barbri? Or just more of the same?

[Matteliszt]

Comparing your time to other people's is pretty much worthless. If you're putting in the time, getting good scores, and you are learning from your mistakes/learning the law, you'll pass provided you don't shit the bed test day. Every other metric is useless.

[blong4133]

Have people done MPQ2 Set 9? The average passing score is 33, so a two points lower than Sets 1-6 (35/50) and one point lower than Sets 7 & 8 (34/50).

Set 9 felt much harder than sets 1-6 .... felt like the average passing score should have been lower than only two less than the first sets.....

Yeah I noticed that too. I've taken all of the tests in the MPQ 2 book except one and I've hit between 38-45 on all of them except set 9 where I hit 33. It's definitely a lot trickier. I did set 8 today to get away from family law and get some extra practice and it seemed like it was much easier than set 9. But according to the benchmark, it should be relatively the same difficulty.

[Pepsi&SweetTea]

Comparing your time to other people's is pretty much worthless. If you're putting in the time, getting good scores, and you are learning from your mistakes/learning the law, you'll pass provided you don't shit the bed test day. Every other metric is useless.

About what do you think we should be doing each day at this point?

[BCLS]

Comparing your time to other people's is pretty much worthless. If you're putting in the time, getting good scores, and you are learning from your mistakes/learning the law, you'll pass provided you don't shit the bed test day. Every other metric is useless.

About what do you think we should be doing each day at this point?

I do some MC's in the morning, essays mid day, and some memorizing in the evening. It really depends what you need to work on. For me, I'm strong on the MBE, so I just do a MPQ2 set in the morning with a brief review, followed by ONE MBE subject complete review. Then I do the stuff above for the essays.

[c3pO4]

anybody do the "full day" 200 question MBE at the beginning of MPQ2. did better on it than the SFE, but still brutal. great way to kill your confidence if you've been scoring 80+% on the MPQ2 sets. thx barbri.

[healthlaw]

Hi, all, thank you for your posts. The advice has been lifesaving - especially about downloading, reading the NY essays from the BOLE site. I also downloaded their content overview for the NY day, seeing that I am now most terrified about that (http://www.nybarexam.org/Content/ContentOutline.htm). Funny how before totally tanking the BarBri MBE day, I was more nervous about that - on that note, I cannot recommend enough the MBE Review lectures. I swear, that old man is getting flowers from me if I pass. I could kiss him. So clear, and friendly, and just makes you feel like goddammit, you can do this. AND my scores on practice MBE questions have gone through the roof, so the proof is in the pudding.

Still torn about whether to pony up the dough and do the review tomorrow or just do a bunch of MBE Qs/essays.... As an "older, wiser" law grad, I found the lecture hall far too reminiscent of 1L and have just been studying at home the past month, which is working much better for my sanity. Would love a fairy godmother to come tell me if it's worth it or will just stress me out more...

Anyway, mostly wanted to post to thank you all. Back to the grind.....

[healthlaw]

no way to speed up videos on mac this year is there?

PS I was told how to speed up the lectures but I learn better by reading, generally (space out during lectures), so I never did it - you have to have an iPad or iPhone AS WELL AS a Mac, and download the lectures to your mobile device then use something called iExplore and then watch them on VPN on your computer. Yes, it sounds like a bitch just to speed up a video. LOL not sure if that's any help whatsoever. Especially at this late date. But wanted to share in case someone needed it.

[Green Crayons]

Are the BarBri Virginia "SAQs" (assorted MC and short answer) up to date?

For example, Question 2 asks how many witnesses are required for a holographic will. The answer says that at least two competent witnesses are required, but O'Brien's handout said that witnesses aren't required for a holographic will, you only need two disinterested persons to verify the handwriting after the fact (e.g., during probate, not at the time of execution).

Similarly, Question 14 speaks to valid holographic will requirements. The answer says that only a date and completely handwritten is required (and says that a signature is not required), but, once again, O'Brien's handout says that a signature and completely handwritten is required (no mention of needing a date).

So, which answer is the right answer?



Also, Question 20 asks whether bringing a motion for judgment that has passed the applicable statutes of limitations is a violation of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. The answer says yes, it is a violation. But isn't a SOL defense an affirmative defense that can be waived and therefore the claim has merit unless if the defense makes the appropriate special plea (and therefore no violation of Professional Rules)? I thought Freer said something like that way back when, but maybe I'm just making shit up at this point.

[EijiMiyake]

Is there anyone that actually knows all the rules for the essays? I feel like I make up at least one rule (and sometimes an issue) for every essay that I do.

[BCLS]

Is there anyone that actually knows all the rules for the essays? I feel like I make up at least one rule (and sometimes an issue) for every essay that I do.

totally normal. I do as well.

[joeshmo39]

Is there anyone that actually knows all the rules for the essays? I feel like I make up at least one rule (and sometimes an issue) for every essay that I do.

A lot of people I've talked to are feeling this way. MBE is strong, not a lot of problems except for property. But the Wills/state evidence stuff is tough to remember. I think that's fine though. If you have to BS part of an essay, you'll live. Here in PA each essay part is worth 3-8 points depending on how involved it is. Even if you don't know the rule you can put something sensible down and that will give you some points. Analyze it well and you'll get a few more. Maybe you go 4/7 on points for that section, it's not the end of the world. It's not even close.

[Stinson]

I would imagine in most states that making something up that's wrong probably doesn't hurt your score, even if it may not help you. And the thing you make up may well be right or get points anyway. The one sample perfect score from my state threw in something about conspiracy liability and was completely wrong about the law. But I imagine it wouldn't have gotten as many points if it just left it out.

[DwightSchruteFarms]

I had a quick question:

I am having trouble understanding one portion of Equal Protection. When there is a fundamental right, I normally analyze it under Subst. Due Process. Apparently I need to analyze it under both SDP and EP. How does the EP analysis differ from the SDP analysis?

Thanks

[hrcycle]

I had a quick question:

I am having trouble understanding one portion of Equal Protection. When there is a fundamental right, I normally analyze it under Subst. Due Process. Apparently I need to analyze it under both SDP and EP. How does the EP analysis differ from the SDP analysis?

Thanks

My understanding is that it doesn't differ at all. You just have to mention that EPC protects fundamental rights so strict scrutiny should apply...but then likely the counter argument is "on the other hand, the state will argue that there is no suspect classification because all individuals are treated the same, thus rational basis applies..."

Anyone else have something more thoughtful? I was surprised to see the EPC invoked for fundamental rights as well.

[blong4133]

I had a quick question:

I am having trouble understanding one portion of Equal Protection. When there is a fundamental right, I normally analyze it under Subst. Due Process. Apparently I need to analyze it under both SDP and EP. How does the EP analysis differ from the SDP analysis?

Thanks

My understanding is that it doesn't differ at all. You just have to mention that EPC protects fundamental rights so strict scrutiny should apply...but then likely the counter argument is "on the other hand, the state will argue that there is no suspect classification because all individuals are treated the same, thus rational basis applies..."

Anyone else have something more thoughtful? I was surprised to see the EPC invoked for fundamental rights as well.

Substantive Due Process is the basis of Equal Protections. I.e. Equal protections states that you can't treat a group of people differently from similarly situated people. If you try to do that, you have to meet strict scrutiny (which is your substantive due process requirement...is there a compelling reason why the state is denying this group of people a fundamental right? stated another way, is there an adequate reason why the state is treating these people differently).

Substantive due process requires that the state show they have an adequate reason for denying someone/or people, the right to life, liberty or property. When you are trying to prevent a group of people (say a suspect class), you have to show, that the state has a compelling reason why their taking away these people's rights.

That's the way I understand it at least. Con law is probably my worst subject though so take it with a grain of salt

Edit for clarity

[DwightSchruteFarms]

I had a quick question:

I am having trouble understanding one portion of Equal Protection. When there is a fundamental right, I normally analyze it under Subst. Due Process. Apparently I need to analyze it under both SDP and EP. How does the EP analysis differ from the SDP analysis?

Thanks

My understanding is that it doesn't differ at all. You just have to mention that EPC protects fundamental rights so strict scrutiny should apply...but then likely the counter argument is "on the other hand, the state will argue that there is no suspect classification because all individuals are treated the same, thus rational basis applies..."

Anyone else have something more thoughtful? I was surprised to see the EPC invoked for fundamental rights as well.

Substantive Due Process is the basis of Equal Protections. I.e. Equal protections states that you can't treat a group of people differently from similarly situated people. If you try to do that, you have to meet strict scrutiny (which is your substantive due process requirement...is there a compelling reason why the state is denying this group of people a fundamental right? stated another way, is there an adequate reason why the state is treating these people differently).

That's the way I understand it at least. Con law is probably my worst subject though so take it with a grain of salt

I think I understand what you're saying: SDP: Standard Fundamental Right analysis that must meet SS. Under EP, the question would revolve around why "those" people are being denied the right to, for ex, raise their children. Is that right?

Does anyone have a rule statement for a EP Fundamental Right argument?

Thanks for all the help so far guys

[hrcycle]

I had a quick question:

I am having trouble understanding one portion of Equal Protection. When there is a fundamental right, I normally analyze it under Subst. Due Process. Apparently I need to analyze it under both SDP and EP. How does the EP analysis differ from the SDP analysis?

Thanks

My understanding is that it doesn't differ at all. You just have to mention that EPC protects fundamental rights so strict scrutiny should apply...but then likely the counter argument is "on the other hand, the state will argue that there is no suspect classification because all individuals are treated the same, thus rational basis applies..."

Anyone else have something more thoughtful? I was surprised to see the EPC invoked for fundamental rights as well.

Substantive Due Process is the basis of Equal Protections. I.e. Equal protections states that you can't treat a group of people differently from similarly situated people. If you try to do that, you have to meet strict scrutiny (which is your substantive due process requirement...is there a compelling reason why the state is denying this group of people a fundamental right? stated another way, is there an adequate reason why the state is treating these people differently).

That's the way I understand it at least. Con law is probably my worst subject though so take it with a grain of salt

Right, I agree. I think that the trick is that EPC also protects non-fundamental rights IF you're treating people differently. For example, only US citizens can ride an elevator...or something like that. Then, you break it down to suspect classifications, quasi-suspect or non-suspect and apply the applicable standard (strict, intermediate, rational basis).

[Green Crayons]

You folks are making it more complicated than it needs to be.

SDP issues arise when the government acts to infringe on a right. So you look for laws that prohibit a person from doing something. You then ask if that right (the thing the person wants to do) is fundamental: if the right is fundamental, then strict scrutiny applies; if the right is not fundamental, then rational basis applies.

EPC issues arise when the government treats different people differently. So you look for laws that treat a group or classification different from the general populace. You then ask what type of class the plaintiff (the party who is part of the group of class treated differently) is part of: if a suspect class (including classes defined by fundamental rights), then strict scrutiny applies; if a quasi-suspect class, then intermediate scrutiny applies; if neither a suspect nor a quasi-suspect class, then rational basis applies.

So, method of analysis:
Step 1: see how the law applies to the plaintiff (this determines whether the law implicates SDP, EPC, or both)
Step 2: determine what scrutiny under the applicable constitutional principal applies
Step 3: evaluate the law per that scrutiny

[DwightSchruteFarms]

if a suspect class (including classes defined by fundamental rights), then strict scrutiny applies;

This is what I am getting at. What would your rule statement say? "SS should be applied because the government is prohibiting "these people" from exercising a fundamental right." Sounds awk.

[bailey123456789]

You folks are making it more complicated than it needs to be.

SDP issues arise when the government acts to infringe on a right. So you look for laws that prohibit a person from doing something. You then ask if that right (the thing the person wants to do) is fundamental: if the right is fundamental, then strict scrutiny applies; if the right is not fundamental, then rational basis applies.

EPC issues arise when the government treats different people differently. So you look for laws that treat a group or classification different from the general populace. You then ask what type of class the plaintiff (the party who is part of the group of class treated differently) is part of: if a suspect class (including classes defined by fundamental rights), then strict scrutiny applies; if a quasi-suspect class, then intermediate scrutiny applies; if neither a suspect nor a quasi-suspect class, then rational basis applies.

So, method of analysis:
Step 1: see how the law applies to the plaintiff (this determines whether the law implicates SDP, EPC, or both)
Step 2: determine what scrutiny under the applicable constitutional principal applies
Step 3: evaluate the law per that scrutiny

I've always struggled a little bit with when to raise both SDP and EPC when your EPC claim is based on a fundamental right...it seems so redundant. But is that basically what I'm supposed to do?