Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[Tanicius]

Very, very impressed with Birdthistle in his lectures on the topics related to business associations. I though he looked kind of goofy in Themis's study break YouTubue videos, and I guess... well, he still looks goofy. But man, I just appreciate so much someone like him who is clear, concise, and sees the forest for the trees when they are explaining the concepts. I really wish he'd also lectured for Secured Transactions and Commercial Paper.

[klbisho4]

Still at it with the best evidence rule questions on Milestone #2, I see.

I just did the 2nd set of Evidence PQ's yesterday... 6 questions about the best evidence rule. I really don't get why they are focusing so much on a subject that you'll only have maybe 1 question on. I'd rather just get that question wrong and move on.

[Tanicius]

Still at it with the best evidence rule questions on Milestone #2, I see.

I just did the 2nd set of Evidence PQ's yesterday... 6 questions about the best evidence rule. I really don't get why they are focusing so much on a subject that you'll only have maybe 1 question on. I'd rather just get that question wrong and move on.

What's even dumber is that it's a fairly simple analysis:

Are they offering the contents for their truth value and the other party can't agreed to its content? K, I'mma gonna need the original document unless you have a certified copy or you cannot find it because of good faith reasons.

[SilverE2]

So, I just did MBE Contracts Set 3, and the goal score was 80%. Um...okay. Safe to say I didn't get anywhere close.

80%??! Holy Smokes! My scores are weaving all over the place! I'll get in the 60-70% range and then dip back into the 40-50% range in the same subject. Just when I feel confident about something, BOOM. The moment is gone.

About same for me. Nothing like a shit evidence session (I think I got like a 62% on the problem set) combined with an 80% goal score to make a person feel great about their progress.

[Tanicius]

So, I just did MBE Contracts Set 3, and the goal score was 80%. Um...okay. Safe to say I didn't get anywhere close.

80%??! Holy Smokes! My scores are weaving all over the place! I'll get in the 60-70% range and then dip back into the 40-50% range in the same subject. Just when I feel confident about something, BOOM. The moment is gone.

About same for me. Nothing like a shit evidence session (I think I got like a 62% on the problem set) combined with an 80% goal score to make a person feel great about their progress.

This doesn't add up for me. Are you guys in tough jurisdictions? My goal scores have, as far as I remember, always been 50%, except for my latest Milestone which had a goal of 60%.

[SilverE2]

So, I just did MBE Contracts Set 3, and the goal score was 80%. Um...okay. Safe to say I didn't get anywhere close.

80%??! Holy Smokes! My scores are weaving all over the place! I'll get in the 60-70% range and then dip back into the 40-50% range in the same subject. Just when I feel confident about something, BOOM. The moment is gone.

About same for me. Nothing like a shit evidence session (I think I got like a 62% on the problem set) combined with an 80% goal score to make a person feel great about their progress.

This doesn't add up for me. Are you guys in tough jurisdictions? My goal scores have, as far as I remember, always been 50%, except for my latest Milestone which had a goal of 60%.

That's why I was so surprised, mine have also been 50%, except for one of the state-specific practice sets (maybe corporations? I don't remember) which was 70%. I'm in Florida, so while not easy, not particularly hard either. Oh, and I meant to say contracts, not evidence in my reply. It was a contracts practice set with a goal of 80%.

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

So, I just did MBE Contracts Set 3, and the goal score was 80%. Um...okay. Safe to say I didn't get anywhere close.

80%??! Holy Smokes! My scores are weaving all over the place! I'll get in the 60-70% range and then dip back into the 40-50% range in the same subject. Just when I feel confident about something, BOOM. The moment is gone.

About same for me. Nothing like a shit evidence session (I think I got like a 62% on the problem set) combined with an 80% goal score to make a person feel great about their progress.

This doesn't add up for me. Are you guys in tough jurisdictions? My goal scores have, as far as I remember, always been 50%, except for my latest Milestone which had a goal of 60%.

I'm in CA and haven't noticed any "goal" set above 50% yet. Haven't taken milestone 2. Was going to over the weekend and then thought I needed a day or two longer to study.

[Kiwi917]

So, I just did MBE Contracts Set 3, and the goal score was 80%. Um...okay. Safe to say I didn't get anywhere close.

80%??! Holy Smokes! My scores are weaving all over the place! I'll get in the 60-70% range and then dip back into the 40-50% range in the same subject. Just when I feel confident about something, BOOM. The moment is gone.

About same for me. Nothing like a shit evidence session (I think I got like a 62% on the problem set) combined with an 80% goal score to make a person feel great about their progress.

This doesn't add up for me. Are you guys in tough jurisdictions? My goal scores have, as far as I remember, always been 50%, except for my latest Milestone which had a goal of 60%.

My goals have also all been 50%, with the exception of Con Law #3, which was randomly at 80%. At first I thought it was stepping up the goal after having completed the first two sets, but every single session since then has been back at 50%, regardless of how many I have done on that topic or how well I am scoring.

On a related note, does anyone know what the goal and average were for Milestone #2? Mine says the average ranking is 0%, so does that just mean not enough people have taken it yet for them to give a representative number?

[Tanicius]

On a related note, does anyone know what the goal and average were for Milestone #2? Mine says the average ranking is 0%, so does that just mean not enough people have taken it yet for them to give a representative number?

Correct. Still 0% average score for me. The goal is 60%.

[puttycake]

I actually think I did okay on the CA evidence graded essay. ME! In EVIDENCE.

I'm going to preen now.

[bedefan]

Anyone else find themselves guessing as to whether the PQ's they're doing are real MBE PQ's or Themis-drafted ones?

I've gotten several PQ's wrong in Torts where I felt that the question was just too ambiguously worded to be a real question -- as in, the question would have been refined by the NCBE through its testing process, and the ambiguity would have been removed.

For instance, there was a Torts PQ on contributory negligence, with a guy (the plaintiff) texting as he sat at the wheel of his car at a red light in violation of a no-texting-while-driving statute. The question was whether he'd be able to recover against a taxi driver who rear-ended him. The question specifically mentioned that the plaintiff didn't check his mirrors as he sat texting. The correct answer was yes, plaintiff would be able to recover, because his negligence did not contribute to the accident. And I thought, well actually that depends entirely on whether the court finds a duty to check your mirrors.

So I just thought, meh, that question wouldn't get asked on the real bar, so I'm not going to sweat it.

Anybody else doing this? I'm kind of wishing I didn't bother with Themis and just bought access to the NCBE question bank from Barmax or somebody... So I wouldn't be getting myself confused.

[SilverE2]

Anyone else find themselves guessing as to whether the PQ's they're doing are real MBE PQ's or Themis-drafted ones?

I've gotten several PQ's wrong in Torts where I felt that the question was just too ambiguously worded to be a real question -- as in, the question would have been refined by the NCBE through its testing process, and the ambiguity would have been removed.

For instance, there was a Torts PQ on contributory negligence, with a guy (the plaintiff) texting as he sat at the wheel of his car at a red light in violation of a no-texting-while-driving statute. The question was whether he'd be able to recover against a taxi driver who rear-ended him. The question specifically mentioned that the plaintiff didn't check his mirrors as he sat texting. The correct answer was yes, plaintiff would be able to recover, because his negligence did not contribute to the accident. And I thought, well actually that depends entirely on whether the court finds a duty to check your mirrors.

So I just thought, meh, that question wouldn't get asked on the real bar, so I'm not going to sweat it.

Anybody else doing this? I'm kind of wishing I didn't bother with Themis and just bought access to the NCBE question bank from Barmax or somebody... So I wouldn't be getting myself confused.

I think NCBE questions have a little blurb at the bottom after answering the question, saying that it's property of the NCBE or something (I can't remember what it says). But yeah, if that's the case, I've noticed that NCBE questions are a lot more logically sound and contain much less ambiguity than the Themis questions, and as a result, are easier.

[Gotti]

Anyone else find themselves guessing as to whether the PQ's they're doing are real MBE PQ's or Themis-drafted ones?

I've gotten several PQ's wrong in Torts where I felt that the question was just too ambiguously worded to be a real question -- as in, the question would have been refined by the NCBE through its testing process, and the ambiguity would have been removed.

For instance, there was a Torts PQ on contributory negligence, with a guy (the plaintiff) texting as he sat at the wheel of his car at a red light in violation of a no-texting-while-driving statute. The question was whether he'd be able to recover against a taxi driver who rear-ended him. The question specifically mentioned that the plaintiff didn't check his mirrors as he sat texting. The correct answer was yes, plaintiff would be able to recover, because his negligence did not contribute to the accident. And I thought, well actually that depends entirely on whether the court finds a duty to check your mirrors.

So I just thought, meh, that question wouldn't get asked on the real bar, so I'm not going to sweat it.

Anybody else doing this? I'm kind of wishing I didn't bother with Themis and just bought access to the NCBE question bank from Barmax or somebody... So I wouldn't be getting myself confused.

Well if you're at a red light you wouldn't have a duty to check the mirrors to try to avoid someone rear-ending you.

But besides that, when Themis uses real MBE questions, they put a "NCBE" message at the end of the explanations for the answers

[SilverE2]

Anyone else find themselves guessing as to whether the PQ's they're doing are real MBE PQ's or Themis-drafted ones?

I've gotten several PQ's wrong in Torts where I felt that the question was just too ambiguously worded to be a real question -- as in, the question would have been refined by the NCBE through its testing process, and the ambiguity would have been removed.

For instance, there was a Torts PQ on contributory negligence, with a guy (the plaintiff) texting as he sat at the wheel of his car at a red light in violation of a no-texting-while-driving statute. The question was whether he'd be able to recover against a taxi driver who rear-ended him. The question specifically mentioned that the plaintiff didn't check his mirrors as he sat texting. The correct answer was yes, plaintiff would be able to recover, because his negligence did not contribute to the accident. And I thought, well actually that depends entirely on whether the court finds a duty to check your mirrors.

So I just thought, meh, that question wouldn't get asked on the real bar, so I'm not going to sweat it.

Anybody else doing this? I'm kind of wishing I didn't bother with Themis and just bought access to the NCBE question bank from Barmax or somebody... So I wouldn't be getting myself confused.

Well if you're at a red light you wouldn't have a duty to check the mirrors to try to avoid someone rear-ending you.

But besides that, when Themis uses real MBE questions, they put a "NCBE" message at the end of the explanations for the answers

Not all of them have the message.

[Genuine4ps]

So, I just did MBE Contracts Set 3, and the goal score was 80%. Um...okay. Safe to say I didn't get anywhere close.

80%??! Holy Smokes! My scores are weaving all over the place! I'll get in the 60-70% range and then dip back into the 40-50% range in the same subject. Just when I feel confident about something, BOOM. The moment is gone.

Yep, I really hate how Themis gets to dictate my mood. lol

[SilverE2]

So, I just did MBE Contracts Set 3, and the goal score was 80%. Um...okay. Safe to say I didn't get anywhere close.

80%??! Holy Smokes! My scores are weaving all over the place! I'll get in the 60-70% range and then dip back into the 40-50% range in the same subject. Just when I feel confident about something, BOOM. The moment is gone.

Yep, I really hate how Themis gets to dictate my mood. lol

I wonder if the national average is not the true, current national average, and instead maybe a national average from the last administration's practice sets or something. They don't seem to change much (if at all?) from practice set to practice set.

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

Very, very impressed with Birdthistle in his lectures on the topics related to business associations. I though he looked kind of goofy in Themis's study break YouTubue videos, and I guess... well, he still looks goofy. But man, I just appreciate so much someone like him who is clear, concise, and sees the forest for the trees when they are explaining the concepts. I really wish he'd also lectured for Secured Transactions and Commercial Paper.

Just got to his lectures. Birdthistle is FANTASTIC. So clear!!!

[NC1]

Civ Pro was so damn boring. I don't know if I retained anything. Then I see that NY Civ Pro is like a 70 page lecture...this can't be life.

I damn near want a study buddy who will split the lectures with me and we can just email each other relevant sections. Goodness...

[j1987]

I keep getting practice essay questions that include topics I haven't done yet. The contracts essay I just did had a part about corporations. I got the answer right, but that was only because I remembered from taking business associations two years ago. Is anyone else having this issue?

Last night, my torts essay had a question regarding evidence. Haven't done evidence yet either. Again, it was relatively simple - a hearsay exception, but there was a nuance in the answer that I wouldn't have gotten because I did not do evidence yet for Themis.

[JJ556]

I keep getting practice essay questions that include topics I haven't done yet. The contracts essay I just did had a part about corporations. I got the answer right, but that was only because I remembered from taking business associations two years ago. Is anyone else having this issue?

Last night, my torts essay had a question regarding evidence. Haven't done evidence yet either. Again, it was relatively simple - a hearsay exception, but there was a nuance in the answer that I wouldn't have gotten because I did not do evidence yet for Themis.

I have this issue as well. The text that appears before starting each essay, for PA at least (and I believe NJ as well), states that there may be other topics in the essay that haven't been covered yet. I think it's something that Themis can't really get around in jurisdictions that test 2 or more areas of law in one essay.

[j1987]

I keep getting practice essay questions that include topics I haven't done yet. The contracts essay I just did had a part about corporations. I got the answer right, but that was only because I remembered from taking business associations two years ago. Is anyone else having this issue?

Last night, my torts essay had a question regarding evidence. Haven't done evidence yet either. Again, it was relatively simple - a hearsay exception, but there was a nuance in the answer that I wouldn't have gotten because I did not do evidence yet for Themis.

I have this issue as well. The text that appears before starting each essay, for PA at least (and I believe NJ as well), states that there may be other topics in the essay that haven't been covered yet. I think it's something that Themis can't really get around in jurisdictions that test 2 or more areas of law in one essay.

Haha, clearly I don't read the text before the actual essay. Oops.

[Shawshank33]

Florida people: be wary of the FL MC questions..I have found an error in one of their "correct" answers and Themis confirmed that they were wrong...I'm super thrilled that they don't seem to be putting much time into fact checking the FL MC questions/answers when it's 1/3 of our exam!!

FL evidence question:
Under Florida law, a statement made by a _______________ can be offered _______________, as non-hearsay.

government agent, in favor of the government
co-conspirator, at the discretion of the government
government agent, against the government
co-conspirator, by itself to prove the existence of the conspiracy

Correct Answer: government agent, in favor of the government

Response from Themis: "The answer to this question is incorrect. The correct answer should be "C - government agent, against the government." You are correct that the defendant can offer a government agent's statements against the prosecution. Thanks for letting us know. We will get this fixed."

[klbisho4]

Florida people: be wary of the FL MC questions..I have found an error in one of their "correct" answers and Themis confirmed that they were wrong...I'm super thrilled that they don't seem to be putting much time into fact checking the FL MC questions/answers when it's 1/3 of our exam!!

FL evidence question:
Under Florida law, a statement made by a _______________ can be offered _______________, as non-hearsay.

government agent, in favor of the government
co-conspirator, at the discretion of the government
government agent, against the government
co-conspirator, by itself to prove the existence of the conspiracy

Correct Answer: government agent, in favor of the government

Response from Themis: "The answer to this question is incorrect. The correct answer should be "C - government agent, against the government." You are correct that the defendant can offer a government agent's statements against the prosecution. Thanks for letting us know. We will get this fixed."

I missed that one too, and was baffled at why. I'm not paying much attention to Themis' FL MC. I have all of BarBri's printed out and am using those to practice.

[kapital98]

I wish NY was all essays. I'm scoring above average on graded essays (77, 81) but below average in MBE questions (~55% depending on subject). At this point I'm just hoping to be above the bottom 15% for MBE questions and then pass the test based on other 60% of the test.

(It's also possible my essay grader is just being really nice )

[Prime]

I wish NY was all essays. I'm scoring above average on graded essays (77, 81) but below average in MBE questions (~55% depending on subject). At this point I'm just hoping to be above the bottom 15% for MBE questions and then pass the test based on other 60% of the test.

(It's also possible my essay grader is just being really nice )

Sounds like me!