Top Law Schools

On the MEE, how close to word for word do your rule statements need to be? Obviously we all aren't going to go in and type the exact answer perfectly, so is there any consensus on what's close enough to score points and what wouldn't be. If you're in the ballpark obviously it's fair to be docked down for not perfectly stating the rules, but if you have the general idea of how the rule should sound, and what is being tested, and you analyze it well, is that still a passing response?

The MEE tests less nuances than the MBE does so the general rules typically suffice. You will get points for stating the general rule and applying those to the facts. Obviously, if you remember nuances that you can apply, you have the opportunity to get more points, but stating the general rules should be enough for passing.

ndp1234 wrote:The MEE tests less nuances than the MBE does so the general rules typically suffice. You will get points for stating the general rule and applying those to the facts. Obviously, if you remember nuances that you can apply, you have the opportunity to get more points, but stating the general rules should be enough for passing.

What do you consider to be the "general rules"?

For example, listing the elements of a tort or criminal offense, without stating the legal standard for determining how those elements are met. As long as you coherently apply those elements to the facts, you should be fine.

I'm saying this with the perspective that I left an entire question blank and bullshitted most of my MEE questions and passed. So I would worry more about practicing the MBE because it's the part of the test that you have the most control over and can master where the MEE is a crapshoot.