Barbri paced program question? Forum

[LAWYER2]

Sample of actual answers I found on the interwebs. Haven't been through them yet, but anything has to be better than the 4 hour open note sample answers Barbri provides as a gauge of realistic responses under a time constraint.
https://courts.arkansas.gov/sites/defau ... wers_0.pdf

[MoneyMay]

Sample of actual answers I found on the interwebs. Haven't been through them yet, but anything has to be better than the 4 hour open note sample answers Barbri provides as a gauge of realistic responses under a time constraint.
https://courts.arkansas.gov/sites/defau ... wers_0.pdf

Lol that made me laugh... Yes they definitely are 4 hours open note essays. I really just need to know how shitty I can do and still pass.

[UndecidedMN]

Was wondering if how you guys felt about the simulated mbe final exam. Got average, I guess its good, but I had been at 80% on the mixed practice sets. Was wondering if the simulated was harder or the same as actual MBE. Thanks

[jd20132013]

Was wondering if how you guys felt about the simulated mbe final exam. Got average, I guess its good, but I had been at 80% on the mixed practice sets. Was wondering if the simulated was harder or the same as actual MBE. Thanks

only done one mixed set, apparently they're easier than normal. SFE was definitely challenging. I think average is good on that. most people on here got average or within 5-6 points of that. someone got 78 but who cares we're not competing with them anyway

[UndecidedMN]

Yeah, three of us took it together. Kinda of funny, my buddy who worked hard on the MEE got a 53, I have worked hard on both and got a 59 and the last one who has only worked on MBE except for lecture got a 67. We compared our answers and got 15 of the same wrong. Discussed those, it was interesting. Figure I will get a 140-150. I had done 4 MPTs and last three were really good 5 or 6 each one, so I figure I should combine 210-220 MPT/MBE with only need 50 on the essays out of 120. Will see.

[jd20132013]

I thought to use the substantial factor test when there are multiple tortfeasors, each tortfeasor's "wrong" must have been able to cause the harm on its own? Apparently it can also be used to impose fault in a case where they only caused harm because they merged?

I don't even know where I got the first principle from but I've been using it for quite some time until I saw this other answer...

[LAWYER2]

I thought to use the substantial factor test when there are multiple tortfeasors, each tortfeasor's "wrong" must have been able to cause the harm on its own? Apparently it can also be used to impose fault in a case where they only caused harm because they merged?

I don't even know where I got the first principle from but I've been using it for quite some time until I saw this other answer...

I was wrong on the first principle you noted for months, (if not years) according to the Torts Essay Question #6 in the Barbri MEE book.
I'm still a tad bit confused though, because somewhere I read an example where P was injured at a gun range, and everyone was held responsible for proving they did not cause P's injury. Seems totally contradictory to the answer they provided about the salmonella chicken salad question.

[jd20132013]

the classic example is the two fires that would each have been able to burn down the house on their own.

but apparently that's just...not the law and I don't know where I got it from


the latter case you mentioned is easier (at least I think): There, the problem is that only one of many caused the injury, and it's unfair to put the burden on the P to show which one when the injury that each person *could have* caused is identical. That is, nothing about the injury will give the P the tools to determine who caused the injury. So we put the burden on Defendants, when they all acted tortiously but only one of them could have actually caused the injury, to show which one did it; if they can't they're held jointly liable.

Slightly different situation from the case where in a sense "both caused" the injury since they merged, for example

[LouEVille]

I thought to use the substantial factor test when there are multiple tortfeasors, each tortfeasor's "wrong" must have been able to cause the harm on its own? Apparently it can also be used to impose fault in a case where they only caused harm because they merged?

I don't even know where I got the first principle from but I've been using it for quite some time until I saw this other answer...

I was wrong on the first principle you noted for months, (if not years) according to the Torts Essay Question #6 in the Barbri MEE book.
I'm still a tad bit confused though, because somewhere I read an example where P was injured at a gun range, and everyone was held responsible for proving they did not cause P's injury. Seems totally contradictory to the answer they provided about the salmonella chicken salad question.

My understanding after the chicken salad question is that you can only use the burden shifting test where there are multiple negligent defendants. In that hypo, only one of them could have been liable, because the health inspector or whoever said it was caused by only one person. So you can't shift the burden between one negligent person and one or more totally innocent people.

[LAWYER2]

I thought to use the substantial factor test when there are multiple tortfeasors, each tortfeasor's "wrong" must have been able to cause the harm on its own? Apparently it can also be used to impose fault in a case where they only caused harm because they merged?

I don't even know where I got the first principle from but I've been using it for quite some time until I saw this other answer...

I was wrong on the first principle you noted for months, (if not years) according to the Torts Essay Question #6 in the Barbri MEE book.
I'm still a tad bit confused though, because somewhere I read an example where P was injured at a gun range, and everyone was held responsible for proving they did not cause P's injury. Seems totally contradictory to the answer they provided about the salmonella chicken salad question.

My understanding after the chicken salad question is that you can only use the burden shifting test where there are multiple negligent defendants. In that hypo, only one of them could have been liable, because the health inspector or whoever said it was caused by only one person. So you can't shift the burden between one negligent person and one or more totally innocent people.

Right, but how is that different from the shooting range example? Is it because there were only 3 contributors to the chicken salad as opposed to several shooters at gun range?

[ditch digger]

I thought to use the substantial factor test when there are multiple tortfeasors, each tortfeasor's "wrong" must have been able to cause the harm on its own? Apparently it can also be used to impose fault in a case where they only caused harm because they merged?

I don't even know where I got the first principle from but I've been using it for quite some time until I saw this other answer...

I was wrong on the first principle you noted for months, (if not years) according to the Torts Essay Question #6 in the Barbri MEE book.
I'm still a tad bit confused though, because somewhere I read an example where P was injured at a gun range, and everyone was held responsible for proving they did not cause P's injury. Seems totally contradictory to the answer they provided about the salmonella chicken salad question.

My understanding after the chicken salad question is that you can only use the burden shifting test where there are multiple negligent defendants. In that hypo, only one of them could have been liable, because the health inspector or whoever said it was caused by only one person. So you can't shift the burden between one negligent person and one or more totally innocent people.

Right, but how is that different from the shooting range example? Is it because there were only 3 contributors to the chicken salad as opposed to several shooters at gun range?

I reread the model answer for the chicken salad question, and it said that the Summers v. Tice burden shifting rule only applies when all of the defendants who may have cause the injury were negligent. According to the model answer, there was no evidence in the fact pattern that would suggest that all of the volunteers who cooked the chicken salad were negligent, and therefore, the burden shifting rule doesn't apply. I don't really buy this explanation because the heath department said that someone who cooked the chicken did not take proper precautions, which to me, sounds like there at least a trial-worthy issue of negligence on the part of the volunteers.

[mvpforme]

where is this chicken salad Q?

[ditch digger]

Check MEET Torts, Question 6

[LAWYER2]

I reread the model answer for the chicken salad question, and it said that the Summers v. Tice burden shifting rule only applies when all of the defendants who may have cause the injury were negligent. According to the model answer, there was no evidence in the fact pattern that would suggest that all of the volunteers who cooked the chicken salad were negligent, and therefore, the burden shifting rule doesn't apply. I don't really buy this explanation because the heath department said that someone who cooked the chicken did not take proper precautions, which to me, sounds like there at least a trial-worthy issue of negligence on the part of the volunteers.

Yea, that one threw me for a loop.

[Law-So-Hard]

It's really annoying that Bar Bri uses essays from the 80s and 90s when there are essays in those subject areas available from more recent years. /Rant

[salvage]

Just an FYI, I started doing one of the practice MBE exams on the NCBE website, and am finding the questions to be very different from the barbri questions. Also, I disagree that the real questions are easier: there's been a dozen or so so far (out of 50) that I can't even tell what law they are testing on (not covered in lectures) and have not been able to narrow down the answer choices at all. I was hoping the real questions would be like the BarBri Mixed Sets, which have been significantly easier, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

[9HeadedCaesar]

Does anyone else have the feeling that you're just completely forgetting even the most basic points that you've learned over the past 2 months? Sign of burning out?

Uch.

[alicrimson]

It's really annoying that Bar Bri uses essays from the 80s and 90s when there are essays in those subject areas available from more recent years. /Rant

What state are you in? Does your state release essay questions with model answers after each administration? If so, it's odd barbri wouldn't provide those. We have all of the past essays with barbri model answers up until the most recent administration.

[alicrimson]

Just an FYI, I started doing one of the practice MBE exams on the NCBE website, and am finding the questions to be very different from the barbri questions. Also, I disagree that the real questions are easier: there's been a dozen or so so far (out of 50) that I can't even tell what law they are testing on (not covered in lectures) and have not been able to narrow down the answer choices at all. I was hoping the real questions would be like the BarBri Mixed Sets, which have been significantly easier, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Are you talking about the ones you purchase for $50 or the released test from the early/mid 90s?

[OklahomasOK]

Does anyone else have the feeling that you're just completely forgetting even the most basic points that you've learned over the past 2 months? Sign of burning out?

Uch.

I make a lot of reading comprehension errors. It's a sign of being tired.

[salvage]

Just an FYI, I started doing one of the practice MBE exams on the NCBE website, and am finding the questions to be very different from the barbri questions. Also, I disagree that the real questions are easier: there's been a dozen or so so far (out of 50) that I can't even tell what law they are testing on (not covered in lectures) and have not been able to narrow down the answer choices at all. I was hoping the real questions would be like the BarBri Mixed Sets, which have been significantly easier, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Are you talking about the ones you purchase for $50 or the released test from the early/mid 90s?

The $50 one. Number 4 specifically. In particular the con law and crim law questions were out of nowhere. There were questions about jurisdiction and like 5 grand jury questions.

[alicrimson]

Just an FYI, I started doing one of the practice MBE exams on the NCBE website, and am finding the questions to be very different from the barbri questions. Also, I disagree that the real questions are easier: there's been a dozen or so so far (out of 50) that I can't even tell what law they are testing on (not covered in lectures) and have not been able to narrow down the answer choices at all. I was hoping the real questions would be like the BarBri Mixed Sets, which have been significantly easier, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Are you talking about the ones you purchase for $50 or the released test from the early/mid 90s?

The $50 one. Number 4 specifically. In particular the con law and crim law questions were out of nowhere. There were questions about jurisdiction and like 5 grand jury questions.

I've heard the stems are different, have you found this to be true? If so, I might go ahead, bite the bullet, and put down another $50 towards the materials. Did you buy all of them? Do you find them helpful? Sorry I can't be of more help towards your problem, but FWIW I've heard mixed reviews on the relative ease of the MBE to barbri. Some folks I talk to say it's much much easier. Others, have said that it's tricky, because 2 of the answers are obviously wrong but the other 2 look debatable.

[salvage]

Just an FYI, I started doing one of the practice MBE exams on the NCBE website, and am finding the questions to be very different from the barbri questions. Also, I disagree that the real questions are easier: there's been a dozen or so so far (out of 50) that I can't even tell what law they are testing on (not covered in lectures) and have not been able to narrow down the answer choices at all. I was hoping the real questions would be like the BarBri Mixed Sets, which have been significantly easier, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Are you talking about the ones you purchase for $50 or the released test from the early/mid 90s?

The $50 one. Number 4 specifically. In particular the con law and crim law questions were out of nowhere. There were questions about jurisdiction and like 5 grand jury questions.

I've heard the stems are different, have you found this to be true? If so, I might go ahead, bite the bullet, and put down another $50 towards the materials. Did you buy all of them? Do you find them helpful? Sorry I can't be of more help towards your problem, but FWIW I've heard mixed reviews on the relative ease of the MBE to barbri. Some folks I talk to say it's much much easier. Others, have said that it's tricky, because 2 of the answers are obviously wrong but the other 2 look debatable.

The stems were different, but I'm most disturbed that the substantive material was very different, and it wasn't as easy to knock off 1 or 2 answers immediately. I only bought one exam: $50 is a racket

[LouEVille]

Does anyone else have the feeling that you're just completely forgetting even the most basic points that you've learned over the past 2 months? Sign of burning out?

Uch.

Yes.

And it's taking me like 2x as long to get through outlines because I'm not retaining new info as easily as I was. Diminishing returns I guess.

[jd20132013]

Lol How in the world are we supposed to be able to keep covenants, equitable servitudes, and easements straight on exam day?

I mean, I know the difference now after reviewing but I'm not sure that in a fact pattern where someone migth or might not be allowed to do something on land that I would be able to pick among three answers where each is one of those three.