BarBri - NY Exam - July 2014 Forum

[peanut123]

That post by the former Barbri grader seems like it encourages a brain dump of information that may not even be present in the fact pattern ("But if one of the parties to the contract was under 18, the result would be different!").

Obviously that post is from a Barbri grader, so maybe they sort of know what they're talking about... but that seems wrong to me. Almost none of the "above average" essays do that. They very much stick to the facts and if the issue is relatively clear, some of them are really really short and direct. I am absolutely not planning to brain dump like I did in law school.

That seemed like BS to me

Completely agree. Sorry, I'm going to completely ignore that piece of shitty advice. All it did was add panic and confusion and contradicts most of the sample answers I've read as well as Barbri's essay writing advice per the video we were asked to watch at the beginning of the course.

Barbri essay graders can go eat huge dicks. They need to spend less time playing weird and condescending mind games and more time just giving me objective facts. I wrote almost every single essay with the rules in front of me and basically under timeless conditions (I figured once I knew how to hammer out an essay I could work on speed and memorization). I'm a pretty good essay exam writer and I don't think I improved dramatically at all (looking over my first essay, I can happily say I would be satisfied to write something similar now). Yet my score "magically" jumped from a 55 to an 85. COMPLETE SHIT.

And why would Barbri be giving out 85s if they're really not attainable on the actual test? Especially given that they don't seem to do anything just for the sake of making people feel good about themselves, and the last grading was done at least a couple of weeks ago, so they'd definitely have an incentive to keep crushing us to improve.

[belowthelaw57]

According to the Separac matrix based on the July 2013 exam, if you get a raw score of 143 on the MBE (75% of 190), you can average a 44 on the essays/MPT and 10 NYMC correct and still pass with a 669. If you average a 50 on the essays/MPT, you can literally get zero NYMC correct. If you get a 130 on the MBE, you can pass with an average of a 47 on the essays/MPT and 10 NYMC correct. This gives me hope.

This would be reassuring given that my MBE has been consistently in that sort of range, however, it's still concerning to me that I have no idea what a "44" looks like. There are definitely still some essays I see where I have no idea what the rule is. Maybe I could make up for that with an above average performance on other essays but it's difficult to tell. Does anyone know how difficult it is to get a "44"?

Have you been reading all of the essays in NYT with the student "above average" answers? If you want, I can cite some of the ones with flat out wrong rule statements I've come across, or ones that are (comparatively) poorly written or reasoned. I've just been reading all of them. I mentioned early that example of the secured transaction one where there were TOTALLY opposite rule statements, and both were "above average."

I would be very curious to know what scores the "above average" examples actually got. Clearly above average is enough to pass, but by how much above are these? Some of them are good, but some of the essays are not great and if those are considered "above average" what do the average ones look like? Or even below average, because slightly below average is still passing!

I've noticed that often is the case on obscure topics. Secured transactions is one of those obscure topic people spend less time studying, and usually are small sub-parts of a larger essay, so it makes sense that above average answers aren't as well written.

I think most of the time though, especially for big topics they are pretty well written and pretty on point. One thing I've noticed though is a lot of times they combine rule and application in the same paragraph. Also, sometimes you'll see a really long-winded answer and a really short answer going into a lot less detail about the law and still pass.

[belowthelaw57]

According to the Separac matrix based on the July 2013 exam, if you get a raw score of 143 on the MBE (75% of 190), you can average a 44 on the essays/MPT and 10 NYMC correct and still pass with a 669. If you average a 50 on the essays/MPT, you can literally get zero NYMC correct. If you get a 130 on the MBE, you can pass with an average of a 47 on the essays/MPT and 10 NYMC correct. This gives me hope.

This would be reassuring given that my MBE has been consistently in that sort of range, however, it's still concerning to me that I have no idea what a "44" looks like. There are definitely still some essays I see where I have no idea what the rule is. Maybe I could make up for that with an above average performance on other essays but it's difficult to tell. Does anyone know how difficult it is to get a "44"?

There's absolutely no way to know this. Nobody knows how graders score New York Exams. Unless Barbri is paying off former New York Bar graders who are probably bound by non-disclosure agreements on how they grade exams, you'll never know precisely. However they allocate points, your scaled score depends on how everyone else does on that particular essay. The only thing to do I think is to just look at the above average passing answer from the past to get a general idea of how to write your answers and hope for the best.

[thetashster]

is general consensus about NYMC to not even bother? cuz I really haven't...and I would have no way to prepare anyway.

but from what I've heard/read it's mostly NY Practice and Torts. does that sound right?

[PennBull]

is general consensus about NYMC to not even bother? cuz I really haven't...and I would have no way to prepare anyway.

but from what I've heard/read it's mostly NY Practice and Torts. does that sound right?

I mean, when you're memorizing shit for essays, that + your MBE practice should be enough to get you by.

[legalbeagle56]

is general consensus about NYMC to not even bother? cuz I really haven't...and I would have no way to prepare anyway.

but from what I've heard/read it's mostly NY Practice and Torts. does that sound right?

I mean, when you're memorizing shit for essays, that + your MBE practice should be enough to get you by.

Yeah a friend who took the bar last summer (and passed) said studying for the essays is good practice for the NYMC. I'm not really thinking about them at all to be honest. If you do well enough on the MBE and the essays, it seems like you can do pretty poorly on the NYMC and still be fine.

[turquoiseturtle]

Obviously there are some differences in difficulty of MBE questions on the actual exam. Barbri has split them into intro/intermediate/advanced, is that based on some knowledge about the % of different difficulties on the exam?

Mostly asking because I've been focusing very specifically on MBE areas that I seem to be struggling with. I think now that I've done ~1200 questions theres probably a statistical significance to my 57% overall correct rate with impeachment versus my 100% overall correct rate with character evidence. (I just love me some character evidence I guess!) But I'm also rocking wildly different rates between intro/advanced questions. Obviously thats to be expected to some extent, but in many cases the difference is like high 90%s in the intros and like 30% in the advanced (which is basically the same as guessing).

[Guchster]

Rant {

Just did the homework for this morning. I know I've posted ad infinitum about how Set 5/6s are just Barbri's way of making you feel like shit about yourself, but they REALLY went out of their way for Torts Set 5. I'd say a good 4-5 were just straight up judgment calls that depended on whether or not you were persuaded by the facts. Scored the lowest on this than I have on anything for weeks.

Went from feeling somewhat in control this morning to feeling completely unprepared. I just need to remember it's just not an indicator of my mastery over the material and a mindgame. GET IT TOGETHER GOOCH.

}

[thetashster]

Rant {

Just did the homework for this morning. I know I've posted ad infinitum about how Set 5/6s are just Barbri's way of making you feel like shit about yourself, but they REALLY went out of their way for Torts Set 5. I'd say a good 4-5 were just straight up judgment calls that depended on whether or not you were persuaded by the facts. Scored the lowest on this than I have on anything for weeks.

Went from feeling somewhat in control this morning to feeling completely unprepared. I just need to remember it's just not an indicator of my mastery over the material and a mindgame. GET IT TOGETHER GOOCH.

}

Fucking barbri. This is what I'm talking about. I think at this point we just have to trust ourselves and do what works best for us. And especially now start building up the confidence rather than destroying it. Might sound preachy but I don't think any of us deserves to walk in there feeling like a failure

[5ky]

is general consensus about NYMC to not even bother? cuz I really haven't...and I would have no way to prepare anyway.

but from what I've heard/read it's mostly NY Practice and Torts. does that sound right?

I mean, when you're memorizing shit for essays, that + your MBE practice should be enough to get you by.

NYMC have no art to them. They are just knowledge questions. When you study for the MBE/essays you are studying for NYMC. There is nothing else to do for them other than learn NY law.

There was probably a plurality of Ny practice but it was spread over a lot of topics. I don't remember that much about it honestly. I did it first, in about 50 min and then moved on to essays.

[Stringer6]

is general consensus about NYMC to not even bother? cuz I really haven't...and I would have no way to prepare anyway.

but from what I've heard/read it's mostly NY Practice and Torts. does that sound right?

I mean, when you're memorizing shit for essays, that + your MBE practice should be enough to get you by.

NYMC have no art to them. They are just knowledge questions. When you study for the MBE/essays you are studying for NYMC. There is nothing else to do for them other than learn NY law.

There was probably a plurality of Ny practice but it was spread over a lot of topics. I don't remember that much about it honestly. I did it first, in about 50 min and then moved on to essays.

Were the NYMC mostly short and to the point?

[5ky]

Yes

[belowthelaw57]

Does anyone know what New York's rule is on comparative negligence w/ respect to strict liability? In torts we were told that it can apply as a defense. The CMR says "most" comparative negligence states apply their comparative negligence statute. Does NY fall into the category of "most"? There is nothing in the New York distinctions. As usual with barbri the lack of clarity is extremely frustrating.

[Guchster]

Does anyone know what New York's rule is on comparative negligence w/ respect to strict liability? In torts we were told that it can apply as a defense. The CMR says "most" comparative negligence states apply their comparative negligence statute. Does NY fall into the category of "most"? There is nothing in the New York distinctions. As usual with barbri the lack of clarity is extremely frustrating.

I think the torts dude briefly mentioned the rule but I didn't write it down.

Looking at NY CPLR § 1411, it looks like NY's comparative negligence statute doesn't limit its applicability to negligence cases only. It just reads:

"In any action to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property, or wrongful death, the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant or to the decedent, including contributory negligence or assumption of risk, shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages otherwise recoverable shall be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant or decedent bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages."

Unless anyone has NY CoA opinions saying otherwise or direct info from the Torts Guy lecture, that would be my guess.

[StillNDC]

Has anyone gotten to the mixed sets?

Does anyone else find these as difficult or more difficult than the sets 5/6, or is it just me?

Thanks.

[Guchster]

Has anyone gotten to the mixed sets?

Does anyone else find these as difficult or more difficult than the sets 5/6, or is it just me?

Thanks.

I've gotten to about 3 of them. I find them significantly easier. I wish I could score on Sets 5/6 what I score on the mixed sets

I score between 15-25% higher on the mixed sets than I do on most of the Set 5/6s.

Here are barbri's mean score for them:
Set 1 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 2 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 3 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 4 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 5 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 6 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 7 – 35 correct (70%)
Set 8 – 35 correct (70%)
Set 9 – 33 correct (66%)

[legalbeagle56]

Does anyone know what New York's rule is on comparative negligence w/ respect to strict liability? In torts we were told that it can apply as a defense. The CMR says "most" comparative negligence states apply their comparative negligence statute. Does NY fall into the category of "most"? There is nothing in the New York distinctions. As usual with barbri the lack of clarity is extremely frustrating.

I think the torts dude briefly mentioned the rule but I didn't write it down.

Looking at NY CPLR § 1411, it looks like NY's comparative negligence statute doesn't limit its applicability to negligence cases only. It just reads:

"In any action to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property, or wrongful death, the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant or to the decedent, including contributory negligence or assumption of risk, shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages otherwise recoverable shall be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant or decedent bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages."

Unless anyone has NY CoA opinions saying otherwise or direct info from the Torts Guy lecture, that would be my guess.

From my notes from the torts lecture under affirmative defenses to strict liability:

"Comparative responsibility (same as comparative negligence) - For all 3 categories of strict liability [wild animals, abnormally dangerous activities, and products liability], D can show that P did something stupid, careless, or irresponsible, which will result in a jury assignment of percentages and a reduction in P’s recovery (e.g., P buys toaster, uses it, it begins emitting sparks, but he continues to use it - jury will likely assign him about 90% of blame)."

[sarahh]

OMG, just got a 7 out of 18 on the NY domestic relations questions And now my cat is sitting on my book and I cannot review why I got everything wrong. Is it just me, or was most of this not actually covered in the lecture? Seems that was for a lot of the NY questions. I feel like I am blindly guessing.

[Helpful]

is general consensus about NYMC to not even bother? cuz I really haven't...and I would have no way to prepare anyway.

but from what I've heard/read it's mostly NY Practice and Torts. does that sound right?

I mean, when you're memorizing shit for essays, that + your MBE practice should be enough to get you by.

NYMC have no art to them. They are just knowledge questions. When you study for the MBE/essays you are studying for NYMC. There is nothing else to do for them other than learn NY law.

There was probably a plurality of Ny practice but it was spread over a lot of topics. I don't remember that much about it honestly. I did it first, in about 50 min and then moved on to essays.

I asked this on the last page but it got buried -- does Examsoft let you switch between essays within the same session, or do you submit it, and that's it? e.g., if I finish the MPT early, can I go back to essays 4 and 5?

[Guchster]

OMG, just got a 7 out of 18 on the NY domestic relations questions And now my cat is sitting on my book and I cannot review why I got everything wrong. Is it just me, or was most of this not actually covered in the lecture? Seems that was for a lot of the NY questions. I feel like I am blindly guessing.

It seems like for a lot of these NYMC, Barbri is just trying to get us to learn more crap that wasn't covered in lectures without making us read the NYCMR necessarily. I don't think it's indicative of what's likely to be tested at all.

[sarahh]

is general consensus about NYMC to not even bother? cuz I really haven't...and I would have no way to prepare anyway.

but from what I've heard/read it's mostly NY Practice and Torts. does that sound right?

I mean, when you're memorizing shit for essays, that + your MBE practice should be enough to get you by.

NYMC have no art to them. They are just knowledge questions. When you study for the MBE/essays you are studying for NYMC. There is nothing else to do for them other than learn NY law.

There was probably a plurality of Ny practice but it was spread over a lot of topics. I don't remember that much about it honestly. I did it first, in about 50 min and then moved on to essays.

I asked this on the last page but it got buried -- does Examsoft let you switch between essays within the same session, or do you submit it, and that's it? e.g., if I finish the MPT early, can I go back to essays 4 and 5?

Just did a practice test, and you can switch between the questions. I believe it is the same for the real thing.

[Helpful]

Ah, didn't realize we could use it again before test day. Thanks.

[turquoiseturtle]

Has anyone gotten to the mixed sets?

Does anyone else find these as difficult or more difficult than the sets 5/6, or is it just me?

Thanks.

I've gotten to about 3 of them. I find them significantly easier. I wish I could score on Sets 5/6 what I score on the mixed sets

I score between 15-25% higher on the mixed sets than I do on most of the Set 5/6s.

Here are barbri's mean score for them:
Set 1 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 2 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 3 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 4 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 5 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 6 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 7 – 35 correct (70%)
Set 8 – 35 correct (70%)
Set 9 – 33 correct (66%)

I've done six of them. (instead of sets 5/6) I've average right around to slightly above what barbri suggests is the mean score.

However, I think the question difficulty is hugely variable. Its like of the 50 questions 30 are pretty easy and I have no trouble with. 10 are intermediate difficulty and I go about 50/50 on them. Then the other 10 are just crazy random questions. I guess thats what I should expect the actual exam to be like though?

Also, has anyone else noticed that sometimes there will be two or three questions that are very similar? Like almost identical facts. Like questions 34, 35, and 36 on set 2? Or 35, 36, and 37 on set 3? It weirds me out when it happens. Surely they don't do that on the actual MBE.

[pizzasodafries]

Has anyone gotten to the mixed sets?

Does anyone else find these as difficult or more difficult than the sets 5/6, or is it just me?

Thanks.

I've gotten to about 3 of them. I find them significantly easier. I wish I could score on Sets 5/6 what I score on the mixed sets

I score between 15-25% higher on the mixed sets than I do on most of the Set 5/6s.

Here are barbri's mean score for them:
Set 1 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 2 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 3 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 4 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 5 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 6 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 7 – 35 correct (70%)
Set 8 – 35 correct (70%)
Set 9 – 33 correct (66%)

I've done six of them. (instead of sets 5/6) I've average right around to slightly above what barbri suggests is the mean score.

However, I think the question difficulty is hugely variable. Its like of the 50 questions 30 are pretty easy and I have no trouble with. 10 are intermediate difficulty and I go about 50/50 on them. Then the other 10 are just crazy random questions. I guess thats what I should expect the actual exam to be like though?

Also, has anyone else noticed that sometimes there will be two or three questions that are very similar? Like almost identical facts. Like questions 34, 35, and 36 on set 2? Or 35, 36, and 37 on set 3? It weirds me out when it happens. Surely they don't do that on the actual MBE.

same as you. Some really easy questions that basically resort to "define what a battery is" and some impossible oddball questions.

Also was a little annoyed at the same fact questions.

[turquoiseturtle]

Has anyone gotten to the mixed sets?

Does anyone else find these as difficult or more difficult than the sets 5/6, or is it just me?

Thanks.

I've gotten to about 3 of them. I find them significantly easier. I wish I could score on Sets 5/6 what I score on the mixed sets

I score between 15-25% higher on the mixed sets than I do on most of the Set 5/6s.

Here are barbri's mean score for them:
Set 1 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 2 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 3 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 4 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 5 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 6 – 36 correct (72%)
Set 7 – 35 correct (70%)
Set 8 – 35 correct (70%)
Set 9 – 33 correct (66%)

I've done six of them. (instead of sets 5/6) I've average right around to slightly above what barbri suggests is the mean score.

However, I think the question difficulty is hugely variable. Its like of the 50 questions 30 are pretty easy and I have no trouble with. 10 are intermediate difficulty and I go about 50/50 on them. Then the other 10 are just crazy random questions. I guess thats what I should expect the actual exam to be like though?

Also, has anyone else noticed that sometimes there will be two or three questions that are very similar? Like almost identical facts. Like questions 34, 35, and 36 on set 2? Or 35, 36, and 37 on set 3? It weirds me out when it happens. Surely they don't do that on the actual MBE.

same as you. Some really easy questions that basically resort to "define what a battery is" and some impossible oddball questions.

Also was a little annoyed at the same fact questions.

I'm embarrassed to admit the number of times I got the first question wrong, checked my answer and read the explanation, then got the second question wrong too, read the explanation, and still SOMEHOW got the third wrong.