Top Law Schools

Anyone have experience vomiting on their shoes during the MEE and still passing? I think I could've drawn a courthouse with a crayon and done better. I spent most of my time preparing for the MBE and felt pretty good about it. Thoughts?

THIS THIS THIS so much this. Somebody. Please. Enlighten us. (Also think the MPT has no chance of saving me.)

ellewoods123 wrote:THIS THIS THIS so much this. Somebody. Please. Enlighten us. (Also think the MPT has no chance of saving me.)

The entire written part of the exam was a mess. The good news is I am hearing many people say the same thing.

Moderators, I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss, so apologies in advance.

For the 1st MPT, I did not analyze the issue with the dog/damages. I just wrote a conclusion because I ran out of time. I completed everything else but not sure the analysis made sense. I think each issue had two discussion points: (1) liability and (2) remedies. I combined them into one analysis under each issue.

For the second MPT, I was able to finish, but the second major issue (home office deduction) was literally 5-7 sentences max. I ran out of time. It was in IRAC form but each part had 1 or 2 sentences.

can some pass with average MEE/MPT and a bit below average MBE?


considering 70% pass rate.

udonisandtrinity wrote:Moderators, I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss, so apologies in advance.

For the 1st MPT, I did not analyze the issue with the dog/damages. I just wrote a conclusion because I ran out of time. I completed everything else but not sure the analysis made sense. I think each issue had two discussion points: (1) liability and (2) remedies. I combined them into one analysis under each issue.

For the second MPT, I was able to finish, but the second major issue (home office deduction) was literally 5-7 sentences max. I ran out of time. It was in IRAC form but each part had 1 or 2 sentences.

You wiill be fine. But there was a few things that could have been discussed with the dog (the specific reference in the lease and one of the statutes was directly on point).

I feel like I did pretty well on both MPTs but completely messed up on the essays... made up the law on like 2-3 questions and had the law completely wrong on another 2-3 questions.

So I just did not utilize my time well at all. I answered the first MPT (both parts) but thought my analysis was horrible because I barely used case law and facts. For the second MPT, I had barely any time so I did headings for both parts. Completed half of part one but had to bullet point second half. Part 2 had a heading and about a 6 sentence IRAC.

The essays were a train wreck. Bombed secured transactions. Felt ok about LLP evidence and civ pro. Bombed torts bc I didn't realize analyze. Issue spotted correctly on contracts but didn't really have an analysis.

If Barbri didn't lie to me and my simulated MBE goes up 20 points, I'd have a 160 MBE. But that seems unlikely.

ellewoods123 wrote:So I just did not utilize my time well at all. I answered the first MPT (both parts) but thought my analysis was horrible because I barely used case law and facts. For the second MPT, I had barely any time so I did headings for both parts. Completed half of part one but had to bullet point second half. Part 2 had a heading and about a 6 sentence IRAC.

The essays were a train wreck. Bombed secured transactions. Felt ok about LLP evidence and civ pro. Bombed torts bc I didn't realize analyze. Issue spotted correctly on contracts but didn't really have an analysis.

If Barbri didn't lie to me and my simulated MBE goes up 20 points, I'd have a 160 MBE. But that seems unlikely.

I really didn't notice this exam being any easier than the simulated which was promised. I thought they were pretty much the same. Maybe we'll be surprised who knows.

ellewoods123 wrote:So I just did not utilize my time well at all. I answered the first MPT (both parts) but thought my analysis was horrible because I barely used case law and facts. For the second MPT, I had barely any time so I did headings for both parts. Completed half of part one but had to bullet point second half. Part 2 had a heading and about a 6 sentence IRAC.

The essays were a train wreck. Bombed secured transactions. Felt ok about LLP evidence and civ pro. Bombed torts bc I didn't realize analyze. Issue spotted correctly on contracts but didn't really have an analysis.

If Barbri didn't lie to me and my simulated MBE goes up 20 points, I'd have a 160 MBE. But that seems unlikely.

If you get a 160 you're gold. Like you, I read the torts questions and just stared at the paper.

I did most of my MEE essays in CIRAC, or at least CRAC for all. I probably made up some rules for the first and fourth essays, and then I applied those. I totally forgot about IRAC for most of the second MPT, as I was running out of time, but I was at least able to go through all the factors. I at least mentioned every single case and statute either by name or number for both MPTs and tried to apply it as much as applicable. Because I saw no eviction issue raised in the first one, I just noted that we did not need to address eviction at this time.

I feel strangely confident in my MPT, given that my practice MPTs ranged from solid to borderline, mostly borderline. I assume my MEE analysis was sufficient as long as I spotted the issues and applied the right rules. I hope I at least get partial credit for solid analysis and conclusions on a bogus rule.

If barbri didn't lie to me after my simulated MBE, I should be in the range of 141-156, and was hoping for even better. After yesterday's CF, I'll be glad for a 133, so I hope my written part was at least halfway decent for a showing of minimal competence.

LionelHutzJD wrote:

udonisandtrinity wrote:Moderators, I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss, so apologies in advance.

For the 1st MPT, I did not analyze the issue with the dog/damages. I just wrote a conclusion because I ran out of time. I completed everything else but not sure the analysis made sense. I think each issue had two discussion points: (1) liability and (2) remedies. I combined them into one analysis under each issue.

For the second MPT, I was able to finish, but the second major issue (home office deduction) was literally 5-7 sentences max. I ran out of time. It was in IRAC form but each part had 1 or 2 sentences.

You wiill be fine. But there was a few things that could have been discussed with the dog (the specific reference in the lease and one of the statutes was directly on point).

Didn't something in the first MPT say that there was separate doc saying that the dog was allowed? Also, don't think it mattered because the statute said if animals or guests cause damage, you're responsible. So seemed to be irrelevant if she had permission for the dog.

BillCooper wrote:

ellewoods123 wrote:So I just did not utilize my time well at all. I answered the first MPT (both parts) but thought my analysis was horrible because I barely used case law and facts. For the second MPT, I had barely any time so I did headings for both parts. Completed half of part one but had to bullet point second half. Part 2 had a heading and about a 6 sentence IRAC.

The essays were a train wreck. Bombed secured transactions. Felt ok about LLP evidence and civ pro. Bombed torts bc I didn't realize analyze. Issue spotted correctly on contracts but didn't really have an analysis.

If Barbri didn't lie to me and my simulated MBE goes up 20 points, I'd have a 160 MBE. But that seems unlikely.

If you get a 160 you're gold. Like you, I read the torts questions and just stared at the paper.

Is it normal that I'm more stressed out about the MBE? And to think I thought I was way more prepared for the MBE.

whitecollar23 wrote:Didn't something in the first MPT say that there was separate doc saying that the dog was allowed? Also, don't think it mattered because the statute said if animals or guests cause damage, you're responsible. So seemed to be irrelevant if she had permission for the dog.

IIRC, the partner's assigning memo indicated that the client would bring that document at a later client meeting, so it was not supposed to be in the file. I remember writing that some options/outcomes will depend on what was agreed to in that addendum, which we do not currently have, so then I quickly analyzed both sides of that and just moved on. I doubt it counted for a lot of points.

whitecollar23 wrote:Is it normal that I'm more stressed out about the MBE? And to think I thought I was way more prepared for the MBE.

Because I did UBE, I focused most of my study on MBE, because that is so much more important than the writing. The writing also seems relatively intuitive, as long as your law school grades weren't at the bottom of the class and as long as you can regurgitate enough rules to apply. The MPT should be a gimme with basic writing skills and enough time (now watch me F it all up).

I probably split my study time as a percentage about 80/15/5 for MBE/MEE/MPT, and I was really confident about the MBE going in, based on my many practice questions and practice tests with strong scores. When I first did the MBE diagnostic tests at the very beginning, my tests got slaughtered, because I didn't know most of the strategies or most of the substantive law. By my last several practice tests, I felt like I had seen it all, and got consistently solid/passing scores. With the real MBE, I felt like I did back in May, getting slaughtered on a diagnostic test that I had run across for the very first time.

whitecollar23 wrote:

BillCooper wrote:

ellewoods123 wrote:So I just did not utilize my time well at all. I answered the first MPT (both parts) but thought my analysis was horrible because I barely used case law and facts. For the second MPT, I had barely any time so I did headings for both parts. Completed half of part one but had to bullet point second half. Part 2 had a heading and about a 6 sentence IRAC.

The essays were a train wreck. Bombed secured transactions. Felt ok about LLP evidence and civ pro. Bombed torts bc I didn't realize analyze. Issue spotted correctly on contracts but didn't really have an analysis.

If Barbri didn't lie to me and my simulated MBE goes up 20 points, I'd have a 160 MBE. But that seems unlikely.

If you get a 160 you're gold. Like you, I read the torts questions and just stared at the paper.

Is it normal that I'm more stressed out about the MBE? And to think I thought I was way more prepared for the MBE.

It's normal. I am in the same boat. If I passed, it was only because I blew the doors off of the MBE, because I wrote my essays like a third grader.

I am still speechless how difficult the MEE was. I've been doing so well on the practice ones. Am I the only one who didn't know about crim pro mixed in with the evidence question until after? ... I just know it's going to hurt my score. Do you guys think the essays this year will be graded with more leniency? I mean under the circumstance with this unexpected questions, how much of the curve will be set to help us. Oh man...

whitecollar23 wrote:

LionelHutzJD wrote:

udonisandtrinity wrote:Moderators, I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss, so apologies in advance.

For the 1st MPT, I did not analyze the issue with the dog/damages. I just wrote a conclusion because I ran out of time. I completed everything else but not sure the analysis made sense. I think each issue had two discussion points: (1) liability and (2) remedies. I combined them into one analysis under each issue.

For the second MPT, I was able to finish, but the second major issue (home office deduction) was literally 5-7 sentences max. I ran out of time. It was in IRAC form but each part had 1 or 2 sentences.

You wiill be fine. But there was a few things that could have been discussed with the dog (the specific reference in the lease and one of the statutes was directly on point).

Didn't something in the first MPT say that there was separate doc saying that the dog was allowed? Also, don't think it mattered because the statute said if animals or guests cause damage, you're responsible. So seemed to be irrelevant if she had permission for the dog.

There was an addendum that allowed the dog, but there was a statute that said affirmative waste would be tenant's responsibility.

My analysis for it was really short, just pointed to the statute and said tenant's actions were affirmative waste.

Sam0406 wrote:I am still speechless how difficult the MEE was. I've been doing so well on the practice ones. Am I the only one who didn't know about crim pro mixed in with the evidence question until after? ... I just know it's going to hurt my score. Do you guys think the essays this year will be graded with more leniency? I mean under the circumstance with this unexpected questions, how much of the curve will be set to help us. Oh man...

One sub question was crim pro. I think everything else was evidence. I think I got the issues but got slaughtered on market share liability in torts and SecTrans.

udonisandtrinity wrote:

Sam0406 wrote:I am still speechless how difficult the MEE was. I've been doing so well on the practice ones. Am I the only one who didn't know about crim pro mixed in with the evidence question until after? ... I just know it's going to hurt my score. Do you guys think the essays this year will be graded with more leniency? I mean under the circumstance with this unexpected questions, how much of the curve will be set to help us. Oh man...

One sub question was crim pro. I think everything else was evidence. I think I got the issues but got slaughtered on market share liability in torts and SecTrans.

Themis doesn't even talk about market share liability

Rahviveh wrote:

udonisandtrinity wrote:

Sam0406 wrote:I am still speechless how difficult the MEE was. I've been doing so well on the practice ones. Am I the only one who didn't know about crim pro mixed in with the evidence question until after? ... I just know it's going to hurt my score. Do you guys think the essays this year will be graded with more leniency? I mean under the circumstance with this unexpected questions, how much of the curve will be set to help us. Oh man...

One sub question was crim pro. I think everything else was evidence. I think I got the issues but got slaughtered on market share liability in torts and SecTrans.

Themis doesn't even talk about market share liability

UGH! This is just ridiculous. It's like almost every MEE question had something that was unfamiliar or difficult. I mean I wonder how many people got the full answers? I thought you have to get at least a 4 to pass. Does that mean if it's not the correct answer, it's automatically not a 4? (UBE)

Sam0406 wrote:

Rahviveh wrote:

udonisandtrinity wrote:

Sam0406 wrote:I am still speechless how difficult the MEE was. I've been doing so well on the practice ones. Am I the only one who didn't know about crim pro mixed in with the evidence question until after? ... I just know it's going to hurt my score. Do you guys think the essays this year will be graded with more leniency? I mean under the circumstance with this unexpected questions, how much of the curve will be set to help us. Oh man...

One sub question was crim pro. I think everything else was evidence. I think I got the issues but got slaughtered on market share liability in torts and SecTrans.

Themis doesn't even talk about market share liability

UGH! This is just ridiculous. It's like almost every MEE question had something that was unfamiliar or difficult. I mean I wonder how many people got the full answers? I thought you have to get at least a 4 to pass. Does that mean if it's not the correct answer, it's automatically not a 4? (UBE)

I legitimately have never heard the term market share liability. Barbri told me if I studied my secured transaction lecture notes I'd be more than ok.
Where were those rules in the lecture?

Sam0406 wrote:

Rahviveh wrote: Themis doesn't even talk about market share liability

I thought you have to get at least a 4 to pass. Does that mean if it's not the correct answer, it's automatically not a 4? (UBE)

Barbri also didn't talk about market share liability, from what I can remember. Maybe it was in the monstrous comprehensive outline, but I don't think it was in any lecture. I totally skipped that anyway, because I did that problem last and ran out of time.

To get a passing score, I'm not sure if you need the right conclusion as long as the analysis is good, but I would think that they want at least the right rule for the issues. I have no idea really.

We sure as heck did not study how real property liens conflict with collateral security interests.

ellewoods123 wrote:

Sam0406 wrote:

Rahviveh wrote:

udonisandtrinity wrote:

Sam0406 wrote:I am still speechless how difficult the MEE was. I've been doing so well on the practice ones. Am I the only one who didn't know about crim pro mixed in with the evidence question until after? ... I just know it's going to hurt my score. Do you guys think the essays this year will be graded with more leniency? I mean under the circumstance with this unexpected questions, how much of the curve will be set to help us. Oh man...

One sub question was crim pro. I think everything else was evidence. I think I got the issues but got slaughtered on market share liability in torts and SecTrans.

Themis doesn't even talk about market share liability

UGH! This is just ridiculous. It's like almost every MEE question had something that was unfamiliar or difficult. I mean I wonder how many people got the full answers? I thought you have to get at least a 4 to pass. Does that mean if it's not the correct answer, it's automatically not a 4? (UBE)

I legitimately have never heard the term market share liability. Barbri told me if I studied my secured transaction lecture notes I'd be more than ok.
Where were those rules in the lecture?

We learned market share liability during 1L but I didn't think of it during the exam.

Kind of an outrageous thing to leave out tbh. Not really a small concept.

Then again, I don't think the MBE has ever tested on it before

udonisandtrinity wrote:Moderators, I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss, so apologies in advance.

For the 1st MPT, I did not analyze the issue with the dog/damages. I just wrote a conclusion because I ran out of time. I completed everything else but not sure the analysis made sense. I think each issue had two discussion points: (1) liability and (2) remedies. I combined them into one analysis under each issue.

For the second MPT, I was able to finish, but the second major issue (home office deduction) was literally 5-7 sentences max. I ran out of time. It was in IRAC form but each part had 1 or 2 sentences.

In my opinion, if you did well on your MBE, what you have here is more than enough for a passing grade.