. Forum

[Dr. Review]

You mean my grader's name? I think its Cameron.

Oh, I have Robert. He writes almost as much as I do in response to my graded essays.

[locusdelicti]

For those taking PA... the Corporations guy, Skeel, is alright (good at explaining concepts), but he makes an announcement before EVERY SINGLE blank you're supposed to fill in.

"blah blah blah dividends! And here's another blank for you to fill in. Blah blah."

Seriously, every single blank. I guess that's good if you drift off, but it's starting to annoy me.

[GARLICKNOTS]

Hey quick question/favor:

I didn't realize that handouts were outlines until an email a week or two in so I have a 100 pages of blanks for con law. Recognizing that it would probably be good review to fill those in on my own, I'd prefer, in this instance, to take the easy way out and just ask if anyone wants to send a copy of the Jeffries outline to me?

f/R

[Bikeflip]

Are they using different profs for different programs? I have Guzman for MBE Contracts.

Yep. You're missing out on this action:

I am SO excited for contracts now!

I mean, it's still contracts.

[locusdelicti]

I am SO excited for contracts now!

I mean, it's still contracts.

Caterpillars and his drunk mother-in-law don't change that, unfortunately.

[dsclaw]

On average how much time do you guys spend on " Review Lectures, outlines, and handouts" assignments?
Is anyone actually re watching the lectures or re-reading the entire outlines?

I have been just reading over the questions I missed and the outlines...Seems it would be impossible to review all that material, especially when you have to review three subjects today. Ugh shoot me now. Woof.

[kalvano]

Hey quick question/favor:

I didn't realize that handouts were outlines until an email a week or two in so I have a 100 pages of blanks for con law. Recognizing that it would probably be good review to fill those in on my own, I'd prefer, in this instance, to take the easy way out and just ask if anyone wants to send a copy of the Jeffries outline to me?

f/R

Send me an email and I will help you cheat.

[TaipeiMort]

So, I wanted to see what you guys think of my plan. I jettisoned directed study and have been basically plowing through all of the material and working on memorization before I start essay writing.

Basically after finishing all MBE lectures, readings, and handouts, I now just read the outlines and study for a topic, take one practice MBE question set, and move to the next topic. This is allowing me to go through each of the topics 5 or 6 times and to focus on memorization. But, I haven't even started essay writing. Is this approach dumb?

[kalvano]

I personally think it's better to try and read and do all the lectures first, then reinforce that through practice, instead of mixing in new material while still trying to learn the old material.

[Bikeflip]

I personally think it's better to try and read and do all the lectures first, then reinforce that through practice, instead of mixing in new material while still trying to learn the old material.

Same. I wish I had started that way. As it stands, I'm thinking about plowing through all the video lectures and finish them by Friday. that'll give me over a month to review. I only have a few contracts videos, trusts, estates, secured transactions and "not UCC 2" left. We'll see how I feel after knocking out the final contracts videos.

[Catleesi]

On average how much time do you guys spend on " Review Lectures, outlines, and handouts" assignments?
Is anyone actually re watching the lectures or re-reading the entire outlines?

I have been just reading over the questions I missed and the outlines...Seems it would be impossible to review all that material, especially when you have to review three subjects today. Ugh shoot me now. Woof.

I am actually going back through the whole things because I SUCK at outline reading. I can't focus on it. But it takes me FOREVER to do one, and today they've assigned me five!!!!! Plus four other tasks!!!

I will be at this until midnight.

But I am trying to focus now by making Anki flash cards of rules as I go-- think I will start skimming outlines/spending some time with Anki when I get back around to these topics again.

So, I wanted to see what you guys think of my plan. I jettisoned directed study and have been basically plowing through all of the material and working on memorization before I start essay writing.

Basically after finishing all MBE lectures, readings, and handouts, I now just read the outlines and study for a topic, take one practice MBE question set, and move to the next topic. This is allowing me to go through each of the topics 5 or 6 times and to focus on memorization. But, I haven't even started essay writing. Is this approach dumb?

I personally think it's better to try and read and do all the lectures first, then reinforce that through practice, instead of mixing in new material while still trying to learn the old material.

Personally, I disagree. You can't cram for the bar, and I feel like that approach would force you to a) refine your essay technique when you're beginning to panic (are you doing the graded essays at least?) b) reinforce the law school idea of separated subjects.

My understanding is you could have an essay that involves criminal law, criminal procedure, and civil procedure-- but then you've taught yourself to take everything separately instead of letting it all mix in your mind at once.

I guess it's a personal choice. Everybody learns differently. But I wouldn't be comfortable doing that-- I like that I'm being forced to learn everything mixed together because I'm going to have to remember it mixed together on test day. And I like working on essays now because I'm teaching myself out to write them before I *need* to know. Panic-reviewing doesn't work for me.

[geekrocker37]

I personally think it's better to try and read and do all the lectures first, then reinforce that through practice, instead of mixing in new material while still trying to learn the old material.

Same. I wish I had started that way. As it stands, I'm thinking about plowing through all the video lectures and finish them by Friday. that'll give me over a month to review. I only have a few contracts videos, trusts, estates, secured transactions and "not UCC 2" left. We'll see how I feel after knocking out the final contracts videos.

i'm doing this. I'm afraid I'll still be learning the state specific stuff mid way through July instead of only working on essays and MBE questions. Also, I can do more essays and questions each day when i'm not watching lectures - such a time suck.

[Bikeflip]

Utopia beer? Geis, you're such a classy breh.

[forza]

FUCK I do not understand assignment of contract rights/duties MBE questions.

Edit: also, so glad I learned this from the Contracts lecture: "The parol evidence rule prevents a party to a written contract from presenting prior extrinsic evidence of negotiations between the parties, so long as the contract is a total integration of the parties’ agreement. However, this rule does not apply to extrinsic evidence of a condition precedent to the existence of the contract."

[Bikeflip]

OMG.The Trusts and Wills guy from Loyola....

This dude, Tiersma, doesn't really follow the hand out of the outline in a predictable manner. He'll sorta follow the outline, but he won't use the exact phrasing you need for the blanks, and he'll jump ahead two examples. Do not 2x speed on this dude.

Fuck that dude. Bar prep should be about making it easier, not harder.

[elysiansmiles]

I am SO excited for contracts now!

I mean, it's still contracts.

Caterpillars and his drunk mother-in-law don't change that, unfortunately.

Anything is better than Corporations.

[dsclaw]

Anyone notice that there are significant errors in the outlines and handouts? For example, in the NY CPLR Handout it states that motion practice for overnight delivery, extends the motion date requirements by 2 days when its only a day. In addition, the Service of Outside of NY is incorrect. I have noticed similar errors in other sections also.

They could really use an editor

[kalvano]

Hey professors, stop leaving 50 blanks per page. I'm too busy trying to fill them in to pay attention to you.

[antonious13]

This dude, Tiersma, doesn't really follow the hand out of the outline in a predictable manner. He'll sorta follow the outline, but he won't use the exact phrasing you need for the blanks, and he'll jump ahead two examples. Do not 2x speed on this dude.

Guzman (Contracts) does exactly this. It pisses me off. I have blanks still on my handout because he never addresses that blank. Fucking Guzman.

[lsatlsat]

I figured I'd ask you guys because Themis takes wayy too long to answer my substantive questions, 5-6 days in some cases.

This question is about character evidence.

1) The lecture/handout also says that specific acts of the defendant's bad behavior can never be mentioned, including on cross examination. But rule 405 specifically states that "On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct." What's the deal?

Thanks guys.

[Dr. Review]

I figured I'd ask you guys because Themis takes wayy too long to answer my substantive questions, 5-6 days in some cases.

This question is about character evidence.

1) The lecture/handout also says that specific acts of the defendant's bad behavior can never be mentioned, including on cross examination. But rule 405 specifically states that "On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct." What's the deal?

Thanks guys.

It is helpful to cross-reference the MBE outline against the handouts. Check out page 14 of the MBE book:

Criminal cases
Generally, when character evidence is admissible as evidence in a criminal case (e.g., evidence of good character introduced by the defendant), specific instances of a person's conduct are not admissible. Character must be proved by either reputation or opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 405(a).

Non-propensity use: When a defendant's bad act is not used to show the defendant's criminal propensity but for another purpose (e.g., motive, identity), such instance of conduct may be admissible for that purpose.

[missinglink]

I figured I'd ask you guys because Themis takes wayy too long to answer my substantive questions, 5-6 days in some cases.

This question is about character evidence.

1) The lecture/handout also says that specific acts of the defendant's bad behavior can never be mentioned, including on cross examination. But rule 405 specifically states that "On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct." What's the deal?

Thanks guys.

It is helpful to cross-reference the MBE outline against the handouts. Check out page 14 of the MBE book:

Criminal cases
Generally, when character evidence is admissible as evidence in a criminal case (e.g., evidence of good character introduced by the defendant), specific instances of a person's conduct are not admissible. Character must be proved by either reputation or opinion testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 405(a).

Non-propensity use: When a defendant's bad act is not used to show the defendant's criminal propensity but for another purpose (e.g., motive, identity), such instance of conduct may be admissible for that purpose.

Indeed. Sometimes the handouts are insufficiently detailed. For the MBE questions, there's really no substitute to looking at the outline once or twice.

Unrelatedly, did anyone doing the CA program get a message today about essays 1-4 being due by the 26th? Seems strange considering essay #4, for Ks, hasn't even been released yet.

[Dr. Review]

Indeed. Sometimes the handouts are insufficiently detailed. For the MBE questions, there's really no substitute to looking at the outline once or twice.

Unrelatedly, did anyone doing the CA program get a message today about essays 1-4 being due by the 26th? Seems strange considering essay #4, for Ks, hasn't even been released yet.

I got that. I was wondering about essay #4 as well.

[locusdelicti]

I figured I'd ask you guys because Themis takes wayy too long to answer my substantive questions, 5-6 days in some cases.

This question is about character evidence.

1) The lecture/handout also says that specific acts of the defendant's bad behavior can never be mentioned, including on cross examination. But rule 405 specifically states that "On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct." What's the deal?

Thanks guys.

It's MIMIC.

It's on my worksheet for Sherman Clark. Chapter 5, A. 2. e. Page 15 of the worksheet.

[Reinhardt]

Sooo, essay 4 is released on the 28th, and we have until the 28th to complete it. So much for Flex Study.