Barbri paced program question? Forum

[jd20132013]

it's crazy how complicated answers to the contracts questions are. i think it's the hardest mbe subject by far with only property close.

with evidence, crim pro, torts and con law, the answer is either obvious or its not, and you can see why it was wrong in about 10 seconds (usually you forgot some little exception)

the contracts explanations are all paragraphs long

EDIT: Like what the hell is this question from Contracts Set 4? (Question 5)

Apparently, even if an agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration, it can still be construed as an offer to sell, which can be accepted? What are you accepting if the agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration?

[encore1101]

it's crazy how complicated answers to the contracts questions are. i think it's the hardest mbe subject by far with only property close.

with evidence, crim pro, torts and con law, the answer is either obvious or its not, and you can see why it was wrong in about 10 seconds (usually you forgot some little exception)

the contracts explanations are all paragraphs long

It's okay, property makes up for it in the problem itself :\

stupid landowner that mortgages his property from a bank that doesn't record and then goes and gets another mortgage loan from another lender who records but then the bank is all like omg i forgot to record so the bank goes and records but then the landowner decides to go and sell his property to a buyer who agrees to assume all payments on the land but then enters into an agreement with the bank to modify their existing mortgage to double what it was before then the buyer's like lolol can't pay ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and so the lender decides to foreclose on the property but then the buyer suddenly remembers that he can pay the mortgage price after all but the state does not have a statutory right to redemption.

[Flips88]

EDIT: Like what the hell is this question from Contracts Set 4? (Question 5)

Apparently, even if an agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration, it can still be construed as an offer to sell, which can be accepted? What are you accepting if the agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration?

Yeah that's a crazy question. I don't really understand the explanation of how the first contract becomes a revocable standing offer for 3 years.

[ATXBiglaw]

Just took the SFE and currently reviewing the answers. I'm finding that a large amount (like 10 out of the first 25) are all weird exceptions to the rules. Should we be ready for these exception-type questions on the actual MBE, or is this Barbri suffocating us with large amounts of bullshit to know?

I found that the simulated MBE we took earlier was more straight forward, but some of these questions are pretty ridiculous.

[arizonairish]

For "PAYMENT IN FULL" to constitute payment for a bona fide dispute does it need to be conspicuously marked on the check, or can it accompany a writing with the check?

[pkt63]

it's crazy how complicated answers to the contracts questions are. i think it's the hardest mbe subject by far with only property close.

with evidence, crim pro, torts and con law, the answer is either obvious or its not, and you can see why it was wrong in about 10 seconds (usually you forgot some little exception)

the contracts explanations are all paragraphs long

EDIT: Like what the hell is this question from Contracts Set 4? (Question 5)

Apparently, even if an agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration, it can still be construed as an offer to sell, which can be accepted? What are you accepting if the agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration?

Aggh, I would take a million contracts questions to get out of torts (and sometimes evidence, crim, etc) where the answer depends on whether or not something is "reasonable" or "substantial" or "significant". I KNOW the rule, and I have the two answers narrowed down - for whether it is or is not that mushy, subjective word. And I sit there and try to compare it to other situations that are obvious or that are in famous cases and try to guess whether the bar examiners would think that thing was substantial or reasonable or whatever. And then I guess wrong 50% of the time. Granted, a very few questions make this the critical distinction in the answer, and the law is usually easier to apply….but that's a weakness I don't know how to correct.

Maybe I've just hit the upper limit on my improvement for MBE. I should get over it and focus on PTs, which scare the shit out of me and which I've only partially practiced like 3 times.

[bigstumpdriver]

it's crazy how complicated answers to the contracts questions are. i think it's the hardest mbe subject by far with only property close.

with evidence, crim pro, torts and con law, the answer is either obvious or its not, and you can see why it was wrong in about 10 seconds (usually you forgot some little exception)

the contracts explanations are all paragraphs long

EDIT: Like what the hell is this question from Contracts Set 4? (Question 5)

Apparently, even if an agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration, it can still be construed as an offer to sell, which can be accepted? What are you accepting if the agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration?

Aggh, I would take a million contracts questions to get out of torts (and sometimes evidence, crim, etc) where the answer depends on whether or not something is "reasonable" or "substantial" or "significant". I KNOW the rule, and I have the two answers narrowed down - for whether it is or is not that mushy, subjective word. And I sit there and try to compare it to other situations that are obvious or that are in famous cases and try to guess whether the bar examiners would think that thing was substantial or reasonable or whatever. And then I guess wrong 50% of the time. Granted, a very few questions make this the critical distinction in the answer, and the law is usually easier to apply….but that's a weakness I don't know how to correct.

Maybe I've just hit the upper limit on my improvement for MBE. I should get over it and focus on PTs, which scare the shit out of me and which I've only partially practiced like 3 times.

your post was me too! I maxed out I think. Doing 50-100 a day and hitting 75% like CLOCKwork. I figure that is okie for now. HOPEFULLY!

[lawschoollll]

Are people still doing StudySmarts? These later sets seem to be testing minute rules and obscure exceptions. I assume it's BarBri trying to scare us, but at this point I'd rather just be practicing applying rules that I'll actually need for the MBE.

[jd20132013]

i am only doing up to studysmart 5. they were relatively useful. I thiknk if I do the 6s it will only be for subjects like con law/ crim pro where it's a matter of just having seen the rules. Not going to do real property or contracts 5/6

[pkt63]

Are people still doing StudySmarts? These later sets seem to be testing minute rules and obscure exceptions. I assume it's BarBri trying to scare us, but at this point I'd rather just be practicing applying rules that I'll actually need for the MBE.

No I'm only doing Mixed Sets. I like that they are mixed and I am learning some nuances each time but also just helps to drill the rule statements more firmly in my head. I think I know enough to pass, and don't want to clutter my brain with more, when what I really need to be doing is knowing when and how to pull up the knowledge I already have in the best possible way.

[pkt63]

it's crazy how complicated answers to the contracts questions are. i think it's the hardest mbe subject by far with only property close.

with evidence, crim pro, torts and con law, the answer is either obvious or its not, and you can see why it was wrong in about 10 seconds (usually you forgot some little exception)

the contracts explanations are all paragraphs long

EDIT: Like what the hell is this question from Contracts Set 4? (Question 5)

Apparently, even if an agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration, it can still be construed as an offer to sell, which can be accepted? What are you accepting if the agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration?

Aggh, I would take a million contracts questions to get out of torts (and sometimes evidence, crim, etc) where the answer depends on whether or not something is "reasonable" or "substantial" or "significant". I KNOW the rule, and I have the two answers narrowed down - for whether it is or is not that mushy, subjective word. And I sit there and try to compare it to other situations that are obvious or that are in famous cases and try to guess whether the bar examiners would think that thing was substantial or reasonable or whatever. And then I guess wrong 50% of the time. Granted, a very few questions make this the critical distinction in the answer, and the law is usually easier to apply….but that's a weakness I don't know how to correct.

Maybe I've just hit the upper limit on my improvement for MBE. I should get over it and focus on PTs, which scare the shit out of me and which I've only partially practiced like 3 times.

your post was me too! I maxed out I think. Doing 50-100 a day and hitting 75% like CLOCKwork. I figure that is okie for now. HOPEFULLY!

Yep! The one I fear the most is in crim - the difference between depraved heart/reckless disregard for human life and criminal negligence/involuntary manslaughter. I know the main examples the bar lecturers and what-not give by heart, but can't ever analogize them to a completely new situation. And then the answer explanation is just like, "Obviously, this is more than criminal negligence" without more detail.

[Flips88]

i am only doing up to studysmart 5. they were relatively useful. I thiknk if I do the 6s it will only be for subjects like con law/ crim pro where it's a matter of just having seen the rules. Not going to do real property or contracts 5/6

Studysmart sets 5 and 6 are the same as the MPQ sets 5 and 6.

Also Property, set 5, question 12 is just absurd.

[Xferr]

I can't be the only one WTFing over the Fair Housing Act being in the sample set. Since when is that testable? You'd think Barbri would have mentioned it.

[jd20132013]

I don't know how Barbri has yall's states set up re: essays, but of course they don't assign them all. Anyone getting the feeling that they deliberately assigned the hardest essays as part of the program? I'm "doing" (meaning, outlining for five minutes then reading the model answers) some of the unassigned essays and they're much easier. cautiously optimistic

[turquoiseturtle]

I can't be the only one WTFing over the Fair Housing Act being in the sample set. Since when is that testable? You'd think Barbri would have mentioned it.

Serious wtf for me too. I will be super stressed if the questions on MBE day are that hard. I did okay on the set (13/18) but felt very uneasy, and many of the ones I got right, I'm not sure I got right for the right reasons.

Are people still doing StudySmarts? These later sets seem to be testing minute rules and obscure exceptions. I assume it's BarBri trying to scare us, but at this point I'd rather just be practicing applying rules that I'll actually need for the MBE.

No I'm only doing Mixed Sets. I like that they are mixed and I am learning some nuances each time but also just helps to drill the rule statements more firmly in my head. I think I know enough to pass, and don't want to clutter my brain with more, when what I really need to be doing is knowing when and how to pull up the knowledge I already have in the best possible way.

Also only doing the Mixed sets from now on. I like doing mixed questions much better. Especially since sometimes there is overlap and you have to figure out is this torts or property? Is this torts or crim? There are still some weird questions in the mixed sets though. I've done 1-4 and I'm pretty consistently scoring about the same %, but will randomly get questions that I have just no idea what the answer is. I guess that is similar to the real MBE though.

[aquasalad]

Torts Set 5 9/18 REALLY??? you gotta be kidding me

[Stringer6]

Torts Set 5 9/18 REALLY??? you gotta be kidding me

10/18 for me and I'm pretty good at torts

Don't let these later sets affect your confidence

Also, LOL at the mental institution question

[bigstumpdriver]

Are my peeps just doing adaptibar or the mixed sets ATP?

[bigstumpdriver]

Torts Set 5 9/18 REALLY??? you gotta be kidding me

I got same

[aquasalad]

Mental institution question was awesome, mental image of some crazy guy "brutally beating" a local resident is funny after studying wills all day.

[bigstumpdriver]

Is 75% good on all barbri across the board at this point? trying to not have my essays matter so much. mbe is 40%. ESL so I had to get into the rhytm for these.

[jd20132013]

Is 75% good on all barbri across the board at this point? trying to not have my essays matter so much. mbe is 40%. ESL so I had to get into the rhytm for these.

in what world would 75% be not good?

[bigstumpdriver]

Is 75% good on all barbri across the board at this point? trying to not have my essays matter so much. mbe is 40%. ESL so I had to get into the rhytm for these.

in what world would 75% be not good?

Good enough for the essays to be pretty bad. I'm ESL so I prefer doing better on MBE.

[greenjuice]

fuck fuck fuck fuck. I just got 9/18 on this ncbe thing and have been working the half day exam in sets of 25 and have gotten 29/50 right so far. What the actual fuck am I supposed to do now?

You got 9 right. Make sure you got them right for the proper reasons. The 9 you got wrong - why? Appreciate the 8 days you have to connect the dots in your knowledge and get it right. Stay calm, if you panic your brain will shut down and won't be useful to you. You know this, you can do it.
(I'm kind of speaking to both of us here, the MBE set had a touch of dafuq for me)

Where is that test?

Linked to earlier. --LinkRemoved--

Late to this party but can someone explain #8? I know (think? know is a strong word) there's no conspiracy because there aren't two guilty minds but what about larceny?

[Flips88]

I think the point is knowing that conspiracy is knocked out so that answer is knocked out. As to larceny, i think it's because he didn't have the specific intent for the guy to permanently deprive the neighbor of the property, which is what you'd need to get him on the hook for accomplice liability