Post
by injun » Tue May 17, 2016 9:32 pm
Congrats to those who passed and my condolences to those who did not. If you came up short, do not despair. I passed on my fourth attempt despite not being close to the 1440 mark (closest I was was 1340). Below are some suggestions that I hope will be of use to someone who may feel as though this test is impossible. I assure you it is definitely not. If you are a repeater, IMO, you will have a leg up over those who are taking the test for the first time in July (especially since this will be the first 2-day administration). The most important things I worked on were:
(1) making an issue checklist for each topic. You need to be able to reproduce a mini-outline as soon as you recognize which subject is being tested. (2) Analyze those pertinent issues that you have identified from your checklist using some form mechanical approach (Please my the post below for some tips.
(3) Use Adaptibar / BarMax to improve MBE scores. My MBE scores increased by quite a bit despite using Adaptibar on a previous attempt. I think I had a 137 scaled during my failed attempts. On my successful attempt , my scaled score was above 150 (this was confirmed by a Score Advisory Report I requested). Hard to describe, but I felt that I was able to accurately cross off which answers were definitely the wrong answers when doing the MBE.
Here is a reproduction of a post I made shortly after I passed last July:
As I mentioned earlier, this was my 4th attempt (i've taken both Feb and July administrations in '14 and '15). I made small improvements each time:
2/14 -> 1284
7/14-> 1315
2/15-> 1340
7/15-> pass
Here are just a few things I did differently this time around:
I. Essays
Just to preface all of this, I was a pretty average student at a lower tiered school, so apologies if the following is basic knowledge to many of you. IMO, bar examiners really do pay special attention to your analysis and want to see the inferences you made based on the facts provided in the question. For each administration, I would get a sense of optimism because I recognized and discussed many of the issues mentioned in the post-mortems that go on here. However, when I got my scores back, I would continually receive 55s and 60s.
After reviewing my answers, it was pretty clear that I was not doing a good job of making my inferences more explicit. In general, I'm sure most applicants will recognize how certain facts can trigger a specific issue. These same applicants then will write the same rules. However, IMO, I think what separates us from each other is how well we express our inferences to the examiner.
In my previous attempts, I would provide analysis using this general formula: "[ELEMENT 1] is satisfied because.." For some reason, I struggled to clearly express the inferences I made from the facts. Using this formula, I would always regurgitate express facts rather than providing examiner with anything more. I used two different tutors, and while both were helpful, LawJunky provided me with a very basic formula that I RIGIDLY applied every time. I truly felt that it made all the difference for me. As you analyze each element under the "A" of your IRAC, format your answer as follows:
[FACT FROM QUESTION] = [ELEMENT FROM RULE] because [why the FACT satisfies this ELEMENT].
Here is just a quick example from one of my practice essays:
CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy requires (1) an agreement between 2 or more people (2) to achieve an unlawful objective (3) intent to achieve the objective. Under Majority rules, (4) there must be an overt act in furtherance of the objective.
(1) an agreement between 2 or more people?
Here, D informed Eric of his plan to take V's computers while she was away. E said he wanted nothing to do with it but offered his pickup if D need to carry computers away. D then borrowed E's pickup while V was supposed to be on vacation. As such there was an agreement between E and D because both E and V agreed that D would use E's pickup truck which he ended up using to take the computers.
(2) achieve an unlawful objective?
Here, the theft of V's computers is an unlawful objective because the computers do not belong to either D or E as they have no right to possess them.
(3) intent to enter an agreement?
Here, D's borrowing of the pickup shows intent because E told D that he could use his pickup to take the computers away. Moreover, D actually used E's pickup to take the computers further demonstrating intent because E did not change his mind or prevent D from using the truck.
(4) intent to achieve the objective?
Here, D informed Eric of plan to take V's computers while she was away. E said he wanted nothing to do with it but offered his pickup if D need to carry computers away. D then borrowed e's pickup while V was supposed to be on vacation. These facts demonstrate intent to achieve the objective because both E and D knew that they did not have a legal right to posses the computers.
Therefore, D will be liable for conspiracy because, for reasons discussed above, all of the elements have been met.
In some instances, the facts give rise to the possibility of other potential issues (e.g., conspiracy and solicitation). IMO, I think it would be a good idea to raise them and dismiss them if not applicable. When one or more elements are NOT satisfied by the facts,my analysis would look something like this :
Solicitation
Solicitation requires (1) requesting another to commit a crime (2) intent for the person to commit the crime.
Here, D informed Eric of plan to take V's computers while she was away. E said he wanted nothing to do with it but offered his pickup if D need to carry computers away. As such, there is no solicitation because, although he did mention his plan to E, D did not explicitly ask E to take V's computers since D planned on doing it himself. Also, D did not explicitly ask E to participate in the crime itself as it appears that E voluntarily offered his truck.
Here, D telling E about his plan to steal the computers does not show intent because he did not intend on E stealing the computers for him or even have E participate in the crime.
Therefore, there was no solicitation because for reasons discussed above, the elements above were not met.
Also, for the essay portions of the exam, I made sure to take my time on the questions I felt I could get the most points from. For instance, I felt good about the Civ Pro and Property questions, so I spent a lot of time on those questions. I think this lead me to have less than an hour for the Crim Pro question (which, I admit, was one of my weaker subjects). I did the same with the CP question...I spent a great deal of time making sure my analysis was how I wanted it to be because I felt that I truly understood the question. IMO, it's better to do quality analysis rather than stick to a specific time allotment for each question and lose out on points.
II. Performance Tests
If you look at my posts, I obsessed over these. Lots of great advice on how to format, but I had real problems understanding how to write a truly responsive answer. Each PT is essentially a puzzle that we are asked to solve. For each prompt, I would create an outline that identified which cases (or sections of a case) or statues were applicable to that specific prompt. I would make this determination by ruling out which cases/statutes were completely in applicable to the prompt. I then would write out the rules and explain the rationale of the court’s decision in those cases. I then would delve into the facts of our case and then make distinctions or analogies based on what our client’s position was.
III. MBE
I felt that this was a major weakness of mine, which is why I focused much of my study on improving my writing. My be scores were 135, 136, and 137 respectively, so I would not be surprised if I did not improve much in this area. I used Adaptibar for the 2/15 exam and on this exam. For this past July, rather that review the blackletter law, I just jumped right in and started answer the Adaptibar questions cold to see what I remembered. I was actually surprised by how much I retained (I was answering questions with about a 70% accuracy). I found myself also being surprised at the answer choices I made previously (Adaptibar keeps a record of the previous answers you selected for a specific question). Based on this, I believe we repeaters have an advantage over first time takers since we likely have a solid knowledge base of the rule of law for each subject.
I hope to discourage repeaters from analyzing the statistics of this exam like I did. I sat there reading percentages and talking my self into believe that this exam requires a perfect performance. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I did not have much to write for questions 5 and 6 of this exam. Also, I was not completely sure of my PT responses, but I made sure to follow the plan I laid out and execute. It seems like A LOT of us missed or goofed hard on questions, yet somehow passed.
If I can be of any more help or if this post is confusing, shoot me a message. I’ve always wanted to give back to this forum because of the comradery here. I’m not sure I would have ever passed if it weren’t for you guys. Take care and best of luck studying!
