BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[musicfor18]

Just looking over my percentiles from the Simulated Exam.

I don't get it, on one of the subtopics I got 4/4 qs right, and it says my percentile is 43%. Wth! Is Barbri just arbitrarily assigning percentiles?

I think they assign the lowest percentile of the range of people who got that number correct. So, 57% got 4/4, and 43% got fewer than that correct. The percentiles just tell you the percentage of people who did worse than you.

[victortsoi]

Just looking over my percentiles from the Simulated Exam.

I don't get it, on one of the subtopics I got 4/4 qs right, and it says my percentile is 43%. Wth! Is Barbri just arbitrarily assigning percentiles?

I think they assign the lowest percentile of the range of people who got that number correct. So, 57% got 4/4, and 43% got fewer than that correct. The percentiles just tell you the percentage of people who did worse than you.

i wonder how many people DONT take a prep course(including adaptibar). I've never seen the numbers.

[cdelgado]

I am terrible at criminal law. I have an accomplice liability question.

Let's say this is the situation: I encourage X to murder Y and I also provide Y the gun to do so. We then travel together to Y's house to murder him. When we get to Y's house, Y isn't there. Instead, Z is there, who also lives with Y. X decides to kill Z instead, because he was enraged that Y wasn't at the house. I was waiting in the car this entire time, but when X returns to the car, I drive away.

X is found guilty of murder in the first degree against Z. Can I be found guilty as an accomplice to that aggravated murder against Z, even though my only intent was for Y to be killed?

[jwe-houston]

Taking TX Bar. MBE 40%/Essay 40%/MPT 10% and P-E/10% (5 line short answer).

Did a solid sim - 135, but refresher was a bit off at 62. Not entirely worried, just doing a maintenance set every couple of days now.

Essays are OK, but Fam/Wills killing me on substance. Consumer I'm all over, but is always a time crunch to get the full monty out. Mostly self-score between 17-22/25 on good topics. 11-15/25 on the weak ones (depending on what topic asked).

P-E getting 12-15/20 each, w/ Civ the stronger one. I'm doing OK, but could do a few more.

MPT....honestly haven't done any but 2. Timing was a bit of a problem (feeling squeezed), but read anther thread about typing out the rules as read and pulling facts to match w/o "outlining" the answer first. Plan on doing 2 more before Sunday.

I'm in Texas too. I have similar stats, but a little lower on the MBE (125 on sim, 62 on refresher). I'm pretty sure I can pull off 15/20 on each P&E. I only did 1 MPT, the graded one for Barbri- and got a 5.
How are you self-grading essays? I look at the selected answers on BLE and they really are not impressive, but I have no idea how to guage what "score" they received. I assume since they were selected answers they were at least graded a 16, right?

Barbri answers will usually be right b/c they work from BLE's published "best" answer for that Q each exam. Barbri will also be more comprehensive. I take mine, and check off against the answer (highlight in Onenote in light green). Where I'm just wrong, mark w/ strike through. Where I miss a point [I bracket a summary of correct answer, if badly missed, font = red]. Where I add relevant additional info, I high light in light blue. Based on points in model answer that I have, split points per Q and sub-Q, and total up. I try to correct for bias (I like mine better). So on a 4 part question, that's 6.25/each, or 6 each w/ 1 bonus point up for grabs. Correct conclusion = 1, issue = 1, rule = 2, facts = 2. For a 2 question essay, split would be 12 and 13, w/ conclusion = 2-3, issue = 2, rule = 2-3 (depending on depth of nuance), facts = 3, related rule/issue +1-2.

If I can get most everything from the model, that will be 22-24 point range. You can also go to BLE sight and get past exams w/ their "best" from that round. It won't even be necessarily "good" but that's what they had.

[Andrews989]

Almost all of these old BarBri New York domestic relations essays have one of the main issues being grounds for divorce. These questions are mostly pre-2010 before NY adopted no-fault divorce. Barbecue there is now no-fault divorce, there doesn't seem like there is much of a point in them testing the grounds for divorce. Anyone have any idea what sort of domestic relations issues have come up in recent exams (or where to find this information)?

[RaleighStClair]

I am terrible at criminal law. I have an accomplice liability question.

Let's say this is the situation: I encourage X to murder Y and I also provide Y the gun to do so. We then travel together to Y's house to murder him. When we get to Y's house, Y isn't there. Instead, Z is there, who also lives with Y. X decides to kill Z instead, because he was enraged that Y wasn't at the house. I was waiting in the car this entire time, but when X returns to the car, I drive away.

X is found guilty of murder in the first degree against Z. Can I be found guilty as an accomplice to that aggravated murder against Z, even though my only intent was for Y to be killed?

That's tough. It would depend on whether killing Z was a foreseeable result of the original crime, which was to kill Y. If it was an essay, you could BS pretty extensively about how well the accomplice knew the principal, whether it would be foreseeable for him to freak out and kill a rando, etc. But on a multiple choice, I would probably on impulse say that he is liable (a killing is a foreseeable result of a murder plan). But he could also be liable on a felony murder theory. A burglary being the underlying crime. Interested to hear others' opinions on that though.

[BVest]

Just looking over my percentiles from the Simulated Exam.

I don't get it, on one of the subtopics I got 4/4 qs right, and it says my percentile is 43%. Wth! Is Barbri just arbitrarily assigning percentiles?

I think they assign the lowest percentile of the range of people who got that number correct. So, 57% got 4/4, and 43% got fewer than that correct. The percentiles just tell you the percentage of people who did worse than you.

i wonder how many people DONT take a prep course(including adaptibar). I've never seen the numbers.

From an analysis of the 2004 Texas July bar:

4) Were some bar exam preparation activities associated with higher scores?

Yes. Almost all the applicants in our analysis sample reported having participated in one or more commercial bar review courses in the six months prior to taking the exam. To investigate whether some of these activities were more helpful than others, we constructed a regression equation that contained the applicant’s LSAT score, LGPA, and their response to each of the questions in the student survey (see attached copy of this questionnaire).

This analysis found that applicants tended to receive 4 to 10 more total scale score points if they did one or more of the following during the six months prior to taking the exam: attend lecture and discussion sessions, use Internet lessons, and use hard copy study guides and books. The percentage of candidates using these methods were: 85 [lectures], 28 [internet -- and back then I can tell you for a fact that Barbri was not streaming lectures], and 95 [hard-copy written materials], respectively (many applicants used more than one strategy).

We were surprised that the use of hard copy study materials had a statistically significant effect because almost all the candidates used them. It is evident that those who did not use them were not well served. The effect of using Internet lessons was not as strong as the effects of using the other two methods.

[charlesxavier]

I am terrible at criminal law. I have an accomplice liability question.

Let's say this is the situation: I encourage X to murder Y and I also provide Y the gun to do so. We then travel together to Y's house to murder him. When we get to Y's house, Y isn't there. Instead, Z is there, who also lives with Y. X decides to kill Z instead, because he was enraged that Y wasn't at the house. I was waiting in the car this entire time, but when X returns to the car, I drive away.

X is found guilty of murder in the first degree against Z. Can I be found guilty as an accomplice to that aggravated murder against Z, even though my only intent was for Y to be killed?

I think for accomplice liability it's foreseeability. I think you could argue that it's foreseeable that someone else would be murdered other than Y?

[ArmyOfficer]

I am terrible at criminal law. I have an accomplice liability question.

Let's say this is the situation: I encourage X to murder Y and I also provide Y the gun to do so. We then travel together to Y's house to murder him. When we get to Y's house, Y isn't there. Instead, Z is there, who also lives with Y. X decides to kill Z instead, because he was enraged that Y wasn't at the house. I was waiting in the car this entire time, but when X returns to the car, I drive away.

X is found guilty of murder in the first degree against Z. Can I be found guilty as an accomplice to that aggravated murder against Z, even though my only intent was for Y to be killed?

I think for accomplice liability it's foreseeability. I think you could argue that it's foreseeable that someone else would be murdered other than Y?

Wouldn't it be intent to commit the crime rather than foreseeability of the result?

[Andrews989]

I am terrible at criminal law. I have an accomplice liability question.

Let's say this is the situation: I encourage X to murder Y and I also provide Y the gun to do so. We then travel together to Y's house to murder him. When we get to Y's house, Y isn't there. Instead, Z is there, who also lives with Y. X decides to kill Z instead, because he was enraged that Y wasn't at the house. I was waiting in the car this entire time, but when X returns to the car, I drive away.

X is found guilty of murder in the first degree against Z. Can I be found guilty as an accomplice to that aggravated murder against Z, even though my only intent was for Y to be killed?

I think for accomplice liability it's foreseeability. I think you could argue that it's foreseeable that someone else would be murdered other than Y?

Wouldn't it be intent to commit the crime rather than foreseeability of the result?

Wouldn't transferred intent apply?

[Lacepiece23]

I am terrible at criminal law. I have an accomplice liability question.

Let's say this is the situation: I encourage X to murder Y and I also provide Y the gun to do so. We then travel together to Y's house to murder him. When we get to Y's house, Y isn't there. Instead, Z is there, who also lives with Y. X decides to kill Z instead, because he was enraged that Y wasn't at the house. I was waiting in the car this entire time, but when X returns to the car, I drive away.

X is found guilty of murder in the first degree against Z. Can I be found guilty as an accomplice to that aggravated murder against Z, even though my only intent was for Y to be killed?

I think for accomplice liability it's foreseeability. I think you could argue that it's foreseeable that someone else would be murdered other than Y?

Wouldn't it be intent to commit the crime rather than foreseeability of the result?

Yeah, I think it would be intent to commit the ultimate crime. So you encouraged X to murder Y, but you didn't encourage him to murder Z, so I would say that there is not accomplice liability. Unless transferred intent makes it so that you have the intent to kill one person, but X kills another person so you are still on the hook. I've enver seen transferred intent come up with accomplice liability tho.

[ArmyOfficer]

I am terrible at criminal law. I have an accomplice liability question.

Let's say this is the situation: I encourage X to murder Y and I also provide Y the gun to do so. We then travel together to Y's house to murder him. When we get to Y's house, Y isn't there. Instead, Z is there, who also lives with Y. X decides to kill Z instead, because he was enraged that Y wasn't at the house. I was waiting in the car this entire time, but when X returns to the car, I drive away.

X is found guilty of murder in the first degree against Z. Can I be found guilty as an accomplice to that aggravated murder against Z, even though my only intent was for Y to be killed?

I think for accomplice liability it's foreseeability. I think you could argue that it's foreseeable that someone else would be murdered other than Y?

Wouldn't it be intent to commit the crime rather than foreseeability of the result?

Wouldn't transferred intent apply?

I would think so. But I don't think transferred intent requires foreseeability though.

[Kage3212]

Pretty sure Army poster above if right. You encouraged a crime with the specific intent that the unlawful act be done (ie killing someone) so it doesnt matter if the individual killed was the same individual you planned on killing. You encouraged an act with the intent that the end result be death. Thus you had the specific intent to kill plus aiding.

Think about the attempted murder situation. You want to kill A. You drive to A's house, you see B who is A's twin brother in the yard. You shoot at B thinking it was A, with the specific intent to kill, but end up missing and hit C. You will be found guilty on attempted murder on B. This is so despite that fact that you had originally only planned to kill A.

Intent seems to follow the unlawfulness of the conduct, and not the person to whom that unlawfulness ultimately hurts.

[brotherdarkness]

Has anyone done / looked at Contracts Essay Question 7?

I tried it out, thought I did fine, and then read the model answer. Blown out of the water. I missed half the issues raised in the model. The essay didn't seem hard, but the model answer is far above and beyond anything I'm capable of shitting out on game day...

[franklyscarlet]

I'm behind and did the refresher this morning... That's supposed to make us feel like shit, right?

[Good Guy Gaud]

I'm behind and did the refresher this morning... That's supposed to make us feel like shit, right?

Yea, don't stress on it. Tests on crazy nuanced bullshit.

[murray18]

Just did Emanuel's A.M. and got 68/100. Honestly was expecting better. 128/200 on simulated. Not really sure what else to do to improve - I feel like on the real one performance will be worse due to anxiety.

What do you guys think?

I did the Emanuel's A.M. today too and got almost exactly the same number (69/100). I'm at a bit of a loss, because I expected a bit better too. Seemed like the questions had a different feel than Barbri's, so my hope is that I just needed to adjust, and that I'll do better on the P.M. later this week.

Best I can tell, the best thing to do is just review the ones you got wrong and move on. Realistically, 68% is going to pass in most (if not all) states.

[charlesxavier]

Pretty sure Army poster above if right. You encouraged a crime with the specific intent that the unlawful act be done (ie killing someone) so it doesnt matter if the individual killed was the same individual you planned on killing. You encouraged an act with the intent that the end result be death. Thus you had the specific intent to kill plus aiding.

Think about the attempted murder situation. You want to kill A. You drive to A's house, you see B who is A's twin brother in the yard. You shoot at B thinking it was A, with the specific intent to kill, but end up missing and hit C. You will be found guilty on attempted murder on B. This is so despite that fact that you had originally only planned to kill A.

Intent seems to follow the unlawfulness of the conduct, and not the person to whom that unlawfulness ultimately hurts.

I could see transferred intent applying if I hired a hitman to kill my wife but he killed the maid thinking it was my wife. I don't see how it applies if I hired a hitman to kill my wife but he sees the pool boy, realizes it was some guy he hates, and kills him instead.

I always thought that transferred intent involved trying to carry out the crime you intended but causing a different result. In my mind once the principal decides to intentionally kill someone else then he's no longer attempting to carry out your intent.

[RaleighStClair]

I am terrible at criminal law. I have an accomplice liability question.

Let's say this is the situation: I encourage X to murder Y and I also provide Y the gun to do so. We then travel together to Y's house to murder him. When we get to Y's house, Y isn't there. Instead, Z is there, who also lives with Y. X decides to kill Z instead, because he was enraged that Y wasn't at the house. I was waiting in the car this entire time, but when X returns to the car, I drive away.

X is found guilty of murder in the first degree against Z. Can I be found guilty as an accomplice to that aggravated murder against Z, even though my only intent was for Y to be killed?

I think for accomplice liability it's foreseeability. I think you could argue that it's foreseeable that someone else would be murdered other than Y?

Wouldn't it be intent to commit the crime rather than foreseeability of the result?

Wouldn't transferred intent apply?

I would think so. But I don't think transferred intent requires foreseeability though.

Really don't want to beat a dead horse, I think it's just felony murder (with the burglary being the underlying felony) with an accomplice. I've never heard of a situation like this with transferred intent being used when another person is the one doing the act. Was this an MPQ or essay question, or just a hypo you thought of?

[bluewin888]

During day 1 and day 2 of NY bar, there are scratch paper you can get during exam?

or how much blank space you can write on test booklet?

[xChiTowNx]

apologies if asked before: just wondering how some of you are keeping state specific stuff not mixed up with regular MBE stuff? I can myself mixing up state crim/evidence stuff for the essays with mbe stuff.

[Kage3212]

With regard to the above discussion about accomplice liability, this comes from critical pass flashcard:

"Accomplice Liability - accomplice is liable for the original crime and other foreseeable crimes committed by the principles in its furtherance."

So there is is at least a colorable argument that if you helped someone obtain a gun to kill someone, and that person goes on a tangent and kills another person while killing the intended target, you could be held liable for both murders. At least in my mind, its foreseeable that giving someone a gun with the intent to kill another might result in multiple deaths. This would be the classic law school approach of argue it both ways.

[charlesxavier]

apologies if asked before: just wondering how some of you are keeping state specific stuff not mixed up with regular MBE stuff? I can myself mixing up state crim/evidence stuff for the essays with mbe stuff.

After I do a few essays I try to remember which rule I wrote down and which I answered on a multiple choice. Seems stupid but it helps me. Obviously that only helps for often tested distinctions.

[kyle010723]

apologies if asked before: just wondering how some of you are keeping state specific stuff not mixed up with regular MBE stuff? I can myself mixing up state crim/evidence stuff for the essays with mbe stuff.

After I do a few essays I try to remember which rule I wrote down and which I answered on a multiple choice. Seems stupid but it helps me. Obviously that only helps for often tested distinctions.

My plan is to just write all my essays as non-state specific. Sprinkle in state rules if I happen to remember them. If not, oh well.

[victortsoi]

I have a confession- I've done about 3-400 adaptibar questions in the last week or so, but have been too burned out to read note (besides wills) or anything stateside. I started may 20 and feel completely burned out. I would want to take the mbe tommorow. Then take a break and study for state stuff. please tell me im not alone. 69-70% completion.