July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout Forum

[SowhatsNU]

Did anyone take the 50 question MPQ test and get TOTALLY ROCKED? I only got 26/50 right, and I'm wondering I should start looking at different professions...

[Futuregohan14]

Took the Simulated MBE a couple days ago just to get it over with. I did it from home using their scantron and just submitted the results online - Barbri makes it a pretty straightforward process. Finished after a little over 6 hours feeling totally drained and expecting to have gotten demolished, but ended up doing somewhat better than expected. Looking forward to see where the percentiles put me since there's not enough data for Barbri to put them out yet.

Don't know how much time I want to spend viewing Barbri analysis lectures when I can just read the explanations and do some more Critical Pass drills and Adaptibar questions. That just seems like it'd be more helpful than watching some dudes lecture me through each and every question.

What I feel I really need to do is ramp up on these essay assignments. Between Adaptibar and Barbri I've gained some measure of comfort with the MBE, but the MEE still scares me. Still some serious anxiety even thinking about the essays.

Can't wait for July 27 so I can start actually living life again.

[Cantab10]

Took the Simulated MBE a couple days ago just to get it over with. I did it from home using their scantron and just submitted the results online - Barbri makes it a pretty straightforward process. Finished after a little over 6 hours feeling totally drained and expecting to have gotten demolished, but ended up doing somewhat better than expected. Looking forward to see where the percentiles put me since there's not enough data for Barbri to put them out yet.

Don't know how much time I want to spend viewing Barbri analysis lectures when I can just read the explanations and do some more Critical Pass drills and Adaptibar questions. That just seems like it'd be more helpful than watching some dudes lecture me through each and every question.

What I feel I really need to do is ramp up on these essay assignments. Between Adaptibar and Barbri I've gained some measure of comfort with the MBE, but the MEE still scares me. Still some serious anxiety even thinking about the essays.

Can't wait for July 27 so I can start actually living life again.

Totally agree with your sentiments on the essays! Actually quite comfortable with the MPT but the MEE.... bleh whole different ball game...

Good luck to everyone taking the simulated MBE today!

[runthetrap1990]

I'm absolutely dreading the essays. I feel like I can bullshit through MBE's enough to have passable knowledge, but putting that law knowledge into language seems way more challenging.

[LSATWiz.com]

I'm absolutely dreading the essays. I feel like I can bullshit through MBE's enough to have passable knowledge, but putting that law knowledge into language seems way more challenging.

I actually teach this, and have taught it for a # of the large companies (not going to be specific beyond that). The trick is to memorize very simple one sentence statements of the laws you know will show up like:

Negligence is defined as one's failure to behave as a reasonable person would under the circumstances.

Beyond that, you only need to know a few key words and the key is to simplify, simplify, simplify. One of the most common mistakes i see is people will have some 300 word doctrine of law, and a 100 words of analysis when about 3/4 of the points are coming from the analysis. This is how people fail. A lot of these people would actually get a better score if they applied incorrect laws, but applied them to fact.

Technically a 50-word paragraph stating that D will prevail, because they have a shorter first name and the rule is the person with the shorter name always wins is worth more points than one says, "for P to prevail they must show that D was negligent... negligence is..." because the latter only lays out the correct rule while the former applies the law and reaches a conclusion based off the law it applies.

It's better to memorize exact doctrine in the way you will write, but this is unlikely to be why you pass or fail. I'd really think of the essays as longer MBE's kind of like high school math - the points are less in the conclusion, and more in showing your work. All that stuff you're doing in your head on an MBE problem gets you points on the MEE, which is something to keep in mind. Practice essays in terms of attack outline, timing and strategy but don't kill yourself memorizing just to memorize.

[Bobby_Axelrod]

Ya'll see the misprints in the civ pro handout for the MBE simulation, right? Just making sure I'm not losing it.

[Subban_Fan]

When you guys do the graded practice essays, how much time do you give yourself? On Barbri for each graded essay assignment it says "time allotted: 1.5 hours." The last one I finished in 1 hour and the grader said he was concerned about the time I spent on it.

Don't know how much time I want to spend viewing Barbri analysis lectures when I can just read the explanations and do some more Critical Pass drills and Adaptibar questions.

I hate their video lectures, but these ones aren't as bad as their other MBE ones.

I'm absolutely dreading the essays. I feel like I can bullshit through MBE's enough to have passable knowledge, but putting that law knowledge into language seems way more challenging.

It's better to memorize exact doctrine in the way you will write, but this is unlikely to be why you pass or fail. I'd really think of the essays as longer MBE's kind of like high school math - the points are less in the conclusion, and more in showing your work. All that stuff you're doing in your head on an MBE problem gets you points on the MEE, which is something to keep in mind. Practice essays in terms of attack outline, timing and strategy but don't kill yourself memorizing just to memorize.

I find the barbri rule statements to be really tough to memorize and unnatural because I don't think I a lot of people write the way that way with the way they use pronouns (for instance, their statement for robbery). I'm hesistant to restate it the way I would write though, as I don't want to misstate the law.

[californiauser]

When you guys do the graded practice essays, how much time do you give yourself? On Barbri for each graded essay assignment it says "time allotted: 1.5 hours." The last one I finished in 1 hour and the grader said he was concerned about the time I spent on it.

30 minutes of writing time for the MEEs. The 1.5 hours includes the time reviewing the provided answer

[bballbb02]

ANY predictions for essays yet??

[crumb cake]

Substantive questions below.

1. Can someone explain to me how the use of prior inconsistent statements differs from the former testimony exception to hearsay? The difficulty I am having is this: PIS is admissible for both impeachment purposes and substantive evidence if it was made under oath, whereas former testimony has additional requirements (unavailability, similar parties with opportunity for cross). But what use is the narrow former testimony exception if most of that content is admissible via PIS?

2. Barbri's answer explanation to Question #16123 (Civ Pro Set 2) states that "the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the witness is unavailable. [Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3)]." This seems broader than the former testimony exception. What's the deal?

[Bobby_Axelrod]

Substantive questions below.

1. Can someone explain to me how the use of prior inconsistent statements differs from the former testimony exception to hearsay? The difficulty I am having is this: PIS is admissible for both impeachment purposes and substantive evidence if it was made under oath, whereas former testimony has additional requirements (unavailability, similar parties with opportunity for cross). But what use is the narrow former testimony exception if most of that content is admissible via PIS?

2. Barbri's answer explanation to Question #16123 (Civ Pro Set 2) states that "the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the witness is unavailable. [Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3)]." This seems broader than the former testimony exception. What's the deal?

There are a number of ways the former testimony exception can be used to admit a statement that does not come within the scope of the prior inconsistent statement exemption. But, because the former testimony exception requires unavailability, essentially, the only situation in which the PIS exemption and the former testimony exception will interplay is when you are trying to admit a statement from an out of court declarant. As I understand the PIS exemption, it does not apply to out of court declarants because they cannot be cross-examined. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe the requirement that the witness have the opportunity to explain the statement is waived only with respect to the statement's impeachment ability, not for its substantive use. So, prior inconsistent statements from out of court declarants can only be used to impeach. If these statements come in under the former testimony exception they can be used substantively.

[FormerChild]

Substantive questions below.

1. Can someone explain to me how the use of prior inconsistent statements differs from the former testimony exception to hearsay? The difficulty I am having is this: PIS is admissible for both impeachment purposes and substantive evidence if it was made under oath, whereas former testimony has additional requirements (unavailability, similar parties with opportunity for cross). But what use is the narrow former testimony exception if most of that content is admissible via PIS?

2. Barbri's answer explanation to Question #16123 (Civ Pro Set 2) states that "the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the witness is unavailable. [Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3)]." This seems broader than the former testimony exception. What's the deal?

I'm not exactly sure how to articulate a bette way to explain how to use them, but your statement of the rules isn't precisely correct and that may be where your issue lies. The PIS is only admissible for substantive purposes if the witness being impeached is currently subject to cross-examination and the PIS was made orally under oath and as part of a formal hearing or proceeding, otherwise it is only admissible to impeach. With former testimony, the witness who testified before must be unavailable aka not subject to cross at the current proceeding and the prior proceeding must've been regarding essentially the same issue. So the difference is whether the party who made the statements is available or unavailable

[SowhatsNU]

Anyone have a gameplan on how we should divy up our precious study time between MEE and MBE prep? By MEE I mean stuff that isn't on the MBE (Wills, Trusts, Secured Transactions, etc.)

Like it'll take time to memorize all those rules, and I don't even have everything down pat for the MBE stuff...

[TheWalrus]

Does anyone remember what barrk stood for? Have it written down, but I can't remember if it's what can or can't be the basis for felony murder.

Thanks.

[ConfusedL1]

Does anyone remember what barrk stood for? Have it written down, but I can't remember if it's what can or can't be the basis for felony murder.

Thanks.

Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape, Kidnapping I think?

[TheWalrus]

Does anyone remember what barrk stood for? Have it written down, but I can't remember if it's what can or can't be the basis for felony murder.

Thanks.

Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape, Kidnapping I think?

My bad. I worded that wrong, but that's correct. I meant can those be the basis for felony murder or not?

[crumb cake]

Does anyone remember what barrk stood for? Have it written down, but I can't remember if it's what can or can't be the basis for felony murder.

Thanks.

Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape, Kidnapping I think?

My bad. I worded that wrong, but that's correct. I meant can those be the basis for felony murder or not?

Killings during BARRK = felony murder.

[ConfusedL1]

Does anyone remember what barrk stood for? Have it written down, but I can't remember if it's what can or can't be the basis for felony murder.

Thanks.

Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape, Kidnapping I think?

My bad. I worded that wrong, but that's correct. I meant can those be the basis for felony murder or not?

Yeah if it's not one of those you can't get felony murder (specific states differ on this I'm sure.)

Keep in mind they still have to be independent though. Some one feel free to correct the below if I'm wrong:

If you steal a car and accidentally run somebody over in the getaway, that's felony murder.

If you're setting some one's house on fire to kill them, that's not felony murder. It's just murder.

[de minimis]

Anyone else completely bombing the essays at this point?

I've done 25 of them so far. The first ones went well, but they've progressively gotten worse the further away from the lectures I get. Almost as if I've forgotten all of the law. Frustrating as hell and not sure how to get back on track.

[ConfusedL1]

Anyone else completely bombing the essays at this point?

I've done 25 of them so far. The first ones went well, but they've progressively gotten worse the further away from the lectures I get. Almost as if I've forgotten all of the law. Frustrating as hell and not sure how to get back on track.

Are you writing them out? I think only outlining sufficient to make sure you're issue spotting correctly and then memorizing the law is much more effective at this point. I don't plan on fully writing out a single essay up to exam time, but I do plan to memorize all the law the barbri essays used. You should recognize almost immediately how screwed you are.

My point is to familiarize yourself with the issues that are test and leave the fact application portions for the actual exam. While MEE topics are annoyingly complex/large subjects, certain issues are tested MUCH more frequently, and you can entirely miss entire issues and still pass an essay if you cover your bases on other ones.

[de minimis]

Anyone else completely bombing the essays at this point?

I've done 25 of them so far. The first ones went well, but they've progressively gotten worse the further away from the lectures I get. Almost as if I've forgotten all of the law. Frustrating as hell and not sure how to get back on track.

Are you writing them out? I think only outlining sufficient to make sure you're issue spotting correctly and then memorizing the law is much more effective at this point. I don't plan on fully writing out a single essay up to exam time, but I do plan to memorize all the law the barbri essays used. You should recognize almost immediately how screwed you are.

My point is to familiarize yourself with the issues that are test and leave the fact application portions for the actual exam. While MEE topics are annoyingly complex/large subjects, certain issues are tested MUCH more frequently, and you can entirely miss entire issues and still pass an essay if you cover your bases on other ones.

I'm writing them out - I figure since they are only a half hour, that I'm not wasting too much time by going through the motions and keeping my analysis sharp. Your point about focusing on memorizing the law is a good one though. I think that will be a good way to focus memorizing on key testable issues.

[crumb cake]

The PIS is only admissible for substantive purposes if the witness being impeached is currently subject to cross-examination and the PIS was made orally under oath and as part of a formal hearing or proceeding, otherwise it is only admissible to impeach.

Thanks, that helps a lot.

For some reason I thought PIS had to be under oath at all times (even for impeachment).

[TheWalrus]

The PIS is only admissible for substantive purposes if the witness being impeached is currently subject to cross-examination and the PIS was made orally under oath and as part of a formal hearing or proceeding, otherwise it is only admissible to impeach.

Thanks, that helps a lot.

For some reason I thought PIS had to be under oath at all times (even for impeachment).

Dumb question, but what is PIS?

[crumb cake]

The PIS is only admissible for substantive purposes if the witness being impeached is currently subject to cross-examination and the PIS was made orally under oath and as part of a formal hearing or proceeding, otherwise it is only admissible to impeach.

Thanks, that helps a lot.

For some reason I thought PIS had to be under oath at all times (even for impeachment).

Dumb question, but what is PIS?

Prior inconsistent statement

[runthetrap1990]

For MEE prep - would you say that the barbri lecture notes are better for prep than Conviser? Some of these subjects in the CMR have so much information vs. what gets covered (and how it is presented) in the lecture handouts.