BarBri - NY Exam - July 2014 Forum

[TrustMeI'mAnActress]

if you liked past videos, you'll like these

if you disliked past videos, you'll dislike these

same stuff

Is it basically just a repeat of the info/ tips of the past videos? I watched those and really liked them, but don't want to waste time that could be better spent.

[lawyerwannabe]

If you guys want to feel more comfortable about essays I IMPLORE ALL of you to read Essay 78 in the Released Answer section of the NY Testing book. The first answer was written by some gunner who knows everything. The second answer (which they published since it was an acceptable answer, presumably over 5 points!) was about as bad as you could write an answer. Just read that second answer, and you will realize the bar to getting an acceptable essay score is very very low.

Are you guys focusing on the released essays in the front of the NYT book (with the model answers) or the essays in the back (with the student answers)?

I like student answers since Model answer is non attainable for me nor realistic. I want to know how students phrase the issues, how they format their answers, how they cite their rules, easier to try to apply what I see with student answers than with perfect model answers.

Ya. Question about this because I am freaking out about the essays. How perfect does the rule recitation need to be to get a passing score? I am starting to feel overwhelmed...

[Stringer6]

if you liked past videos, you'll like these

if you disliked past videos, you'll dislike these

same stuff

Is it basically just a repeat of the info/ tips of the past videos? I watched those and really liked them, but don't want to waste time that could be better spent.

c'mon bro

the questions are different, so the explanations are different. the law is the same. sometimes the questions are about law we've never heard of or may have forgotten.

[TrustMeI'mAnActress]

Strict scrutiny question - is least restrictive alternative always a requirement to pass strict scrutiny? The answer explanations seem to go back and forth on it.

[thetashster]

just curious...

am i the only one who's developed really weird habits over the last couple months?

ie emptying a can of whipped cream while studying? watching really weird reality shows to catch a break?

[pizzasodafries]

just curious...

am i the only one who's developed really weird habits over the last couple months?

ie emptying a can of whipped cream while studying? watching really weird reality shows to catch a break?

I've developed this really weird habit where the seat I have been sitting in for 15 hours straight has an indentation of my complete ass and it also smells of ass.

[HOV]

just curious...

am i the only one who's developed really weird habits over the last couple months?

ie emptying a can of whipped cream while studying? watching really weird reality shows to catch a break?

I've developed this really weird habit where the seat I have been sitting in for 15 hours straight has an indentation of my complete ass and it also smells of ass.

lmfao

[lawschoollll]

Is it just me or do the NYMC practice Qs assigned by BarBri test a lot of shit that wasn't covered in the lectures? Should we be outlining the NY distinctions or...? I've pretty much just been relying on the lectures with a little CMR help once a in a while for clarification. But not sure that'll get me through NYMC.

[Guchster]

LOL at Barbri's con law questions on the SFE. I also had a bad ass crim pro teacher and I rarely get crim pro wrong on any test--got served by questions where even if you know the law very well, you just had to read a random, inconsequential and lousy case (I'm thinking of that double jeopardy question).

For those of you who don't do Set 5/Set 6s Qs, this is exactly what it's like.

I thought it was tough but fair (besides con law) and got about the same score as on the simulated MBE. Not too bummed about it. I definitely know more now than I knew a month ago, but maybe it's diluted with all the NY crap I've crammed in me brain. I also wasn't as hyped as I got the morning of the simulated exam and was motivated because it felt more like the real thing so that might have made a difference.

But I have a suspicion that it was harder--but after doing the Set 5s this week, I think my perspective is insanely skewed on what a fair Q looks like.

I highly recommend doing non-barbri problems as well. They definitely are different than the real bar exam questions, although it's hard to articulate why. I guess they just seem more straight forward to me and a little more blunt. I agree that it takes some adjusting--you have to train your brain to analyze slightly differently.

[5ky]

Is it just me or do the NYMC practice Qs assigned by BarBri test a lot of shit that wasn't covered in the lectures? Should we be outlining the NY distinctions or...? I've pretty much just been relying on the lectures with a little CMR help once a in a while for clarification. But not sure that'll get me through NYMC.

Lecture will get you through, end of discussion

[Guchster]

Is it just me or do the NYMC practice Qs assigned by BarBri test a lot of shit that wasn't covered in the lectures? Should we be outlining the NY distinctions or...? I've pretty much just been relying on the lectures with a little CMR help once a in a while for clarification. But not sure that'll get me through NYMC.

Lecture will get you through, end of discussion

Poor 5ky. You should just make a sticky of your advice, or start supra citing yourself (5ky, supra 1,2,3, 4,5, 11,12,13,14,15,17,19, 20)

[PennBull]

LOL at Barbri's con law questions on the SFE. I also had a bad ass crim pro teacher and I rarely get crim pro wrong on any test--got served by questions where even if you know the law very well, you just had to read a random, inconsequential and lousy case (I'm thinking of that double jeopardy question).

For those of you who don't do Set 5/Set 6s Qs, this is exactly what it's like.

I thought it was tough but fair (besides con law) and got about the same score as on the simulated MBE. Not too bummed about it. I definitely know more now than I knew a month ago, but maybe it's diluted with all the NY crap I've crammed in me brain. I also wasn't as hyped as I got the morning of the simulated exam and was motivated because it felt more like the real thing so that might have made a difference.

But I have a suspicion that it was harder--but after doing the Set 5s this week, I think my perspective is insanely skewed on what a fair Q looks like.

I highly recommend doing non-barbri problems as well. They definitely are different than the real bar exam questions, although it's hard to articulate why. I guess they just seem more straight forward to me and a little more blunt. I agree that it takes some adjusting--you have to train your brain to analyze slightly differently.

Set 5s and 6s were hilarious

I prefer doing the 50Q mixed sets

Just long enough to make me need to focus for an extended amount of time

Just short enough that I feel like doing them

Just easy enough so that they don't make me throw myself in front of a bus

Just hard enough that I feel like I'm being challenged

[PennBull]

This week I am regretting not really studying more before/after lecture

I don't remember ANYTHING when I get to studying something to the extent of remembering rule statements and stuff haha

Just furiously making flash cards and reading essay answers

[Guchster]

LOL at Barbri's con law questions on the SFE. I also had a bad ass crim pro teacher and I rarely get crim pro wrong on any test--got served by questions where even if you know the law very well, you just had to read a random, inconsequential and lousy case (I'm thinking of that double jeopardy question).

For those of you who don't do Set 5/Set 6s Qs, this is exactly what it's like.

I thought it was tough but fair (besides con law) and got about the same score as on the simulated MBE. Not too bummed about it. I definitely know more now than I knew a month ago, but maybe it's diluted with all the NY crap I've crammed in me brain. I also wasn't as hyped as I got the morning of the simulated exam and was motivated because it felt more like the real thing so that might have made a difference.

But I have a suspicion that it was harder--but after doing the Set 5s this week, I think my perspective is insanely skewed on what a fair Q looks like.

I highly recommend doing non-barbri problems as well. They definitely are different than the real bar exam questions, although it's hard to articulate why. I guess they just seem more straight forward to me and a little more blunt. I agree that it takes some adjusting--you have to train your brain to analyze slightly differently.

Set 5s and 6s were hilarious

I prefer doing the 50Q mixed sets

Just long enough to make me need to focus for an extended amount of time

Just short enough that I feel like doing them

Just easy enough so that they don't make me throw myself in front of a bus

Just hard enough that I feel like I'm being challenged

Agree all over the place with this. This is what I've been sharing when solicited for my advice on how to prepare this home stretch (also Sets A/B are pretty good, and the drill questions are good if you're getting a little cocky)

[PennBull]

Also when am I supposed to look at MPTs again? I regrettably listened to that stupid fucking lecture but haven't touched a single one since

I guess Saturday I'll look over all of the example types

[Guchster]

Also when am I supposed to look at MPTs again? I regrettably listened to that stupid fucking lecture but haven't touched a single one since

I guess Saturday I'll look over all of the example types

I started to do the one barbri asked us to do yesterday, and it seemed like I was wasting my time--I get how to write one and I know my strategy for approaching them. Probably will do the same thing as you and look over some examples and types later this week when I'm done pointlessly making flash cards I hardly look over.

[PennBull]

Yeah at this point I definitely feel like I'm gonna pass because I know enough to be dangerous and that's all you need

We're definitely getting some shit that has to do with Wills, one with Dom. Relations, and one with Professional Responsibility on essays so if I know the shitty rules in those subjects I feel good

If they give us an essay that requires lengthy rule statements and analysis for like, conflicts of law they can fuck right off haha "uhhhh interest analysis, except maybe when a plaintiff is a New Yorker, maybe"

[thetashster]

Also when am I supposed to look at MPTs again? I regrettably listened to that stupid fucking lecture but haven't touched a single one since

I guess Saturday I'll look over all of the example types

I started to do the one barbri asked us to do yesterday, and it seemed like I was wasting my time--I get how to write one and I know my strategy for approaching them. Probably will do the same thing as you and look over some examples and types later this week when I'm done pointlessly making flash cards I hardly look over.

what is an MPT again??? yeah.

[Guchster]

Also just thought I'd share that everything is probably going to work out completely fine.

I'm in the library and a girl a few study carrels away studying for the bar started to quietly cry late this afternoon. I wanted to hug her and tell her to take the afternoon off, but realized I needed to not have dat ass burgers in public.

I only say this because an LLM friend taking the bar just gchatted me and asked me if I could help explain what "consideration" meant for contracts. He seemed confused because he thought consideration had to do with taking into account the other party's position along the unconscionability side.

[thetashster]

Also just thought I'd share that everything is probably going to work out completely fine.

I'm in the library and a girl a few study carrels away studying for the bar started to quietly cry late this afternoon. I wanted to hug her and tell her to take the afternoon off, but realized I needed to not have dat ass burgers in public.

I only say this because an LLM friend taking the bar just gchatted me and asked me if I could help explain what "consideration" meant for contracts. He seemed confused because he thought consideration had to do with taking into account the other party's position along the unconscionability side.

as a girl who's cried a few times over the bar, a hug would be totally appreciated. no worries about ass burgers. if we went to law school, we're all probably awkward/weird in some way.

[pizzasodafries]

Yeah at this point I definitely feel like I'm gonna pass because I know enough to be dangerous and that's all you need

We're definitely getting some shit that has to do with Wills, one with Dom. Relations, and one with Professional Responsibility on essays so if I know the shitty rules in those subjects I feel good

If they give us an essay that requires lengthy rule statements and analysis for like, conflicts of law they can fuck right off haha "uhhhh interest analysis, except maybe when a plaintiff is a New Yorker, maybe"

For Conflict of laws i'm gonna name drop like a mofo.

Uh, this accident occurred in Assville which under the orginal Babcock decision would have resulted in the Plaintiff having the case heard under Assvile law, but since then NY has modified the Babcock ruling and gone with NewMeyer test. Newmeyer test is the second cousin of the Blockberger test who says that state must be interested or else it doesn't give a shit in the litigation.

Also We will apply Putnam scrutiny to the defendant since he seems like a real dick

[peanut123]

Question on essay strategy. Is there a benefit to making issue statements particularly narrow and fact-specific if possible, and also avoiding anything that sounds like a conclusion?

Consider:
(1) "The issue is whether the defendant has a valid claim of self-defense when he was attacked with a knife, but then knocked his assailant to the ground and went to retrieve a handgun which he then used on the assailant"
vs.
(2) (model answer): "The issue is whether defendant may raise the defense of self-defense if he had the opportunity to retreat prior to using deadly force"

For context, I'm referring to Essay 33. Sure, the conclusion is obvious in this case, but would you get extra points for making the connection in the analysis rather than writing a conclusory issue statement? I had a LS prof who was really big on writing the narrowest possible issue statements, so that method is a little hard to escape.

EDIT: Not to be unkind, but the first candidate answer to this question is pretty mediocre. I just mean to say, it's another good reassuring example.

[thetashster]

Question on essay strategy. Is there a benefit to making issue statements particularly narrow and fact-specific if possible, and also avoiding anything that sounds like a conclusion?

Consider:
(1) "The issue is whether the defendant has a valid claim of self-defense when he was attacked with a knife, but then knocked his assailant to the ground and went to retrieve a handgun which he then used on the assailant"
vs.
(2) (model answer): "The issue is whether defendant may raise the defense of self-defense if he had the opportunity to retreat prior to using deadly force"

For context, I'm referring to Essay 33. Sure, the conclusion is obvious in this case, but would you get extra points for making the connection in the analysis rather than writing a conclusory issue statement? I had a LS prof who was really big on writing the narrowest possible issue statements, so that method is a little hard to escape.

i did some research on this yesterday. apparently the bar was all about CRAC before. and now they like issues to be separate from the conclusion. not sure if this helps. but you have until tomorrow i think to ask barbri.

[pizzasodafries]

Is it ever appropriate to use party names in the issue as opposed to Plaintiff or Defendant?

[thetashster]

Is it ever appropriate to use party names in the issue as opposed to Plaintiff or Defendant?

I think you just have to ID what you mean once. That's what all the lectures said.