Kaplan Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[shintopig]

That Mid-Term MBE . . . terrible

._.

Time to kick it into overdrive; sure as hell am not coming back in February.

[SiRR]

Good news! I have no idea what hearsay actually is.

[LAW813FL]

Well we get a few days off after the mid-term...maybe if you could still wrap up the mid term before July you'd be caught up. I really doubt its going to take 3 days to review the mid-term so I think that would be an easy place to catch up.

Damn, my schedule only has one day off after the midterm.

3 days? Which state is that. NY had 1.

For Florida, our midterm (at least mine) is scheduled for this coming Friday.

[Geaux12]

Good news! I have no idea what hearsay actually is.

Knowing what is hearsay, what isn't hearsay, and what qualifies as a hearsay exception is total bullshit.

[gabewatch]

NY Wills and Trusts Lecture for Today.

Estimated time on syllabus: 2 hours.

Actual length of video lecture: 4 hours.

Syllabus assignment: 33 questions for both yesterday and today from the State Q bank from topics covered in wills and trusts.

Total questions available: 42.

Thanks Kaplan.

[LAW813FL]

NY Wills and Trusts Lecture for Today.

Estimated time on syllabus: 2 hours.

Actual length of video lecture: 4 hours.

Syllabus assignment: 33 questions for both yesterday and today from the State Q bank from topics covered in wills and trusts.

Total questions available: 42.

Thanks Kaplan.

Ya and I bet half of those questions are repetitive questions but with different party names.

[odoylerulez]

I can't get a false imprisonment question correct to save my life.

I consistently disagree with the question writers, apparently, as to what constitutes reasonable means of escape. I've missed like four of these in a row. Usually, I think a reasonable means of escape is available, and the question writer usually writes it so the means of escape is considered unreasonable.

Actually, I just seem to consistently have my own version of what "reasonable" means in any context, and, any time an answer hinges on it, it's a crapshoot. Any advice for these types of questions?

[despina]

Actually, I just seem to consistently have my own version of what "reasonable" means in any context, and, any time an answer hinges on it, it's a crapshoot. Any advice for these types of questions?

I was just saying this to someone yesterday. Apparently I got through law school by being able to argue my own definition of reasonable, and analogizing to cases we had read together. On the MBE, I just have to read people's minds? I'm finding it especially challenging with crim pro with respect to reasonable suspicion, reasonable expectation of privacy, etc.

My rule of thumb for "reasonable escape" is -- do I have to put my physical safety at risk (jump out a third story window) or greatly embarrass myself (run outside naked)? If not, it's probably reasonable. Has worked so far.

[odoylerulez]

Actually, I just seem to consistently have my own version of what "reasonable" means in any context, and, any time an answer hinges on it, it's a crapshoot. Any advice for these types of questions?

I was just saying this to someone yesterday. Apparently I got through law school by being able to argue my own definition of reasonable, and analogizing to cases we had read together. On the MBE, I just have to read people's minds? I'm finding it especially challenging with crim pro with respect to reasonable suspicion, reasonable expectation of privacy, etc.

My rule of thumb for "reasonable escape" is -- do I have to put my physical safety at risk (jump out a third story window) or greatly embarrass myself (run outside naked)? If not, it's probably reasonable. Has worked so far.

I just answered one where a lawyer woman was effectively trapped in her apartment because a group of guys was harrassing her when she came home from work, and one of the guys told her something like "she better not come back out." She was very frightened and she felt she couldn't leave her apartment and stayed there for several hours.

Her only two means of escape were the front door and an old, rusted ladder (fire escape, basically) that went to the ground from the second-floor window. She also felt it would be embarrassing if her neighbors saw her climbing down the window while she was dressed up. Without anything more, I assumed she wasn't falsely imprisoned. I assumed there would be more facts if the author wanted us to assume it was unreasonable -- but, I guess that's what the authors were going for when they mentioned the ladder was old. I didn't think that made it automatically unsafe or anything without more facts. I thought the embarrassment was irrelevant because that wasn't objectively reasonable (not exactly being asked to leave naked or anything -- and, she's in her apartment, so why can't she just change clothes?). I was wrong. Meh.

[despina]

Ugh I remember that question. I agree that the "embarrassing" element seemed weird / probably not enough on its own, but rusty ladder + 12 foot jump seems dangerous enough to me to be unreasonable.

[despina]

Oh wait... the ladder went all the way to the ground in that question? Hmm, then maybe it's just the fact that it's old and rusty and therefore maybe inherently unsafe (it might collapse, she might get tetanus)? Otherwise that makes no sense.

[odoylerulez]

.

[odoylerulez]

Oops, ignore this post. I suck at message boards.

[odoylerulez]

Hmmm. I just looked at the question again and the word the author used was "decrepit," not "old." The definition of decrepit is "worn out or ruined because of age or neglect." But yeah, there's nothing in there about the ladder not going all the way to the ground, so it's probably safe to assume it's a standard fire escape. 62% of people chose the answer that said she had a reasonable means of escape. Welp.

So, we were probably supposed to assume that the ladder was inherently unsafe based on their word choice. I wonder if we can bring a dictionary to the exam. That would be nice.

[despina]

So, we were probably supposed to assume that the ladder was inherently unsafe based on their word choice. I wonder if we can bring a dictionary to the exam. That would be nice.

Yeah there have been several questions where the writers seemed to have assumptions that are not clearly borne out in the question, and the answer percentages seem to reflect that confusion. I'm hoping that the MBE folks actually are better and more consistent question writers, because the questions we get will have been given a test run for validity in prior administrations?

[robinhoodOO]

Actually, I just seem to consistently have my own version of what "reasonable" means in any context, and, any time an answer hinges on it, it's a crapshoot. Any advice for these types of questions?

I was just saying this to someone yesterday. Apparently I got through law school by being able to argue my own definition of reasonable, and analogizing to cases we had read together. On the MBE, I just have to read people's minds? I'm finding it especially challenging with crim pro with respect to reasonable suspicion, reasonable expectation of privacy, etc.

My rule of thumb for "reasonable escape" is -- do I have to put my physical safety at risk (jump out a third story window) or greatly embarrass myself (run outside naked)? If not, it's probably reasonable. Has worked so far.

I just answered one where a lawyer woman was effectively trapped in her apartment because a group of guys was harrassing her when she came home from work, and one of the guys told her something like "she better not come back out." She was very frightened and she felt she couldn't leave her apartment and stayed there for several hours.

Her only two means of escape were the front door and an old, rusted ladder (fire escape, basically) that went to the ground from the second-floor window. She also felt it would be embarrassing if her neighbors saw her climbing down the window while she was dressed up. Without anything more, I assumed she wasn't falsely imprisoned. I assumed there would be more facts if the author wanted us to assume it was unreasonable -- but, I guess that's what the authors were going for when they mentioned the ladder was old. I didn't think that made it automatically unsafe or anything without more facts. I thought the embarrassment was irrelevant because that wasn't objectively reasonable (not exactly being asked to leave naked or anything -- and, she's in her apartment, so why can't she just change clothes?). I was wrong. Meh.

I had this same question today. Just remember embarrassment can be enough...Don't look outside the 4 corners of these questions. (for example, she could have reasonably changed her clothes, etc.). They just wanted to see that you saw the exception.

Dumb? Yes. But that's what you gotta do...

[robinhoodOO]

So, we were probably supposed to assume that the ladder was inherently unsafe based on their word choice. I wonder if we can bring a dictionary to the exam. That would be nice.

Yeah there have been several questions where the writers seemed to have assumptions that are not clearly borne out in the question, and the answer percentages seem to reflect that confusion. I'm hoping that the MBE folks actually are better and more consistent question writers, because the questions we get will have been given a test run for validity in prior administrations?

Not only are they better, but it's my understanding that many of the questions are tested for these types of inconsistencies (the 10 or 20 whatever Q's that aren't graded towards your grade). They go through probably a dozen people, as opposed to Kaplan's Q's probably being written by 1-2 for each topic and then only be subjected to an edit/proofreader.

[robinhoodOO]

Oops, ignore this post. I suck at message boards.

You can delete your posts

[despina]

Kaplan's Q's ... subjected to an edit/proofreader.

A proofreader who doesn't understand comma rules or verb tenses.

[odoylerulez]

Actually, I just seem to consistently have my own version of what "reasonable" means in any context, and, any time an answer hinges on it, it's a crapshoot. Any advice for these types of questions?

I was just saying this to someone yesterday. Apparently I got through law school by being able to argue my own definition of reasonable, and analogizing to cases we had read together. On the MBE, I just have to read people's minds? I'm finding it especially challenging with crim pro with respect to reasonable suspicion, reasonable expectation of privacy, etc.

My rule of thumb for "reasonable escape" is -- do I have to put my physical safety at risk (jump out a third story window) or greatly embarrass myself (run outside naked)? If not, it's probably reasonable. Has worked so far.

I just answered one where a lawyer woman was effectively trapped in her apartment because a group of guys was harrassing her when she came home from work, and one of the guys told her something like "she better not come back out." She was very frightened and she felt she couldn't leave her apartment and stayed there for several hours.

Her only two means of escape were the front door and an old, rusted ladder (fire escape, basically) that went to the ground from the second-floor window. She also felt it would be embarrassing if her neighbors saw her climbing down the window while she was dressed up. Without anything more, I assumed she wasn't falsely imprisoned. I assumed there would be more facts if the author wanted us to assume it was unreasonable -- but, I guess that's what the authors were going for when they mentioned the ladder was old. I didn't think that made it automatically unsafe or anything without more facts. I thought the embarrassment was irrelevant because that wasn't objectively reasonable (not exactly being asked to leave naked or anything -- and, she's in her apartment, so why can't she just change clothes?). I was wrong. Meh.

I had this same question today. Just remember embarrassment can be enough...Don't look outside the 4 corners of these questions. (for example, she could have reasonably changed her clothes, etc.). They just wanted to see that you saw the exception.

Dumb? Yes. But that's what you gotta do...

The embarrassment has to be reasonable though, right? For example, if it were in the facts that the woman had a back door to her apartment, which was in working order and was safe, but she refused to use it because she subjectively believed that if she walked through the back door of the apartment, it would bring her ten years of bad luck, that surely wouldn't be false imprisonment.

It seems to me that you almost have to look outside of the four corners of the question on some of these to figure out whether something is reasonable or unreasonable. Maybe not quite as much on this one, but it seems to be a recurring thing. I always assume that every fact can matter -- here, I thought it was relevant that the writer of the question chose to say that she was locked in her apartment as opposed to, say, a second-story restroom with a window.

[smaug]

i think you're overthinking it

is all of the examples of false imprisonment there's been some objective element(s) to make escape impossible: public nudity, jumping from a building, using a bad fire escape because there are goons outside

none of those things are subjective

despite the RP standard, i'd wager if you see additional facts that indicate "hey, escape is not ideal" they're trying to give you false imprisonment

i also think you have some wishful thinking re: what the actual questions will be like:

they're not going to say "escape was unreasonable"—they're not just going to give you the rule of law. instead they're going to give you facts that make you think about the rule of law

[SiRR]

I've definitely found myself "overthinking" MBE prompts as well. It's happened more on evidence (so far) than any other topic. It comes with taking three years of essay tests, and it's rough to override. But, I agree with others that say to strictly limit your analysis to the literal words in the prompt and the facts given. It's only when I let my mind wander to what more the words could mean that I get in trouble.

[odoylerulez]

I've definitely found myself "overthinking" MBE prompts as well. It's happened more on evidence (so far) than any other topic. It comes with taking three years of essay tests, and it's rough to override. But, I agree with others that say to strictly limit your analysis to the literal words in the prompt and the facts given. It's only when I let my mind wander to what more the words could mean that I get in trouble.

Yeah, it's tricky. On an essay, most professors expect you to argue both sides if there's any sort of colorable counterargument, and if there's a conclusion to be made, most professors don't care what you conclude, but care more about overall analysis. But, on a lot of these MBE questions, it seems like it's a close call, but you're supposed to pick the strongest conclusion -- yet, many of us haven't really been trained to do that in law school. We've been expected to spot the issues and apply law to the facts. Doesn't always translate well to some of this reasonableness stuff, especially in Torts.

[anjmissy]

One feature I really wished Kaplan had is where we could know which essay questions were which topic.

For example, I'm studying for Penn..regular topics r always coupled with a state specific topic..so torts is usually with employment discrimination..I wish I could simply do the questions for the topics that I know and have Kaplan grade me just for those questions

[robinhoodOO]

Kaplan's Q's ... subjected to an edit/proofreader.

A proofreader who doesn't understand comma rules or verb tenses.

I second that