Top Law Schools

How many rules/issues would you say you guys botched?

I don't really feel too great about how I did on the MEE. Nailed the first two questions, completely whiffed third (still wrote something), nailed the evidence question, and wrong rule statements & conclusions for half the trusts and corps questions.

stop obsessing. join the #walkaway movement

dabigchina wrote:stop obsessing. join the #walkaway movement

I'm gonna obsess regardless, so my thinking is that it's better to get as much closure as possible. If missing issues like this is normal, I'd want to know now so I can obsess less going forward

rustyburger2 wrote:How many rules/issues would you say you guys botched?

I don't really feel too great about how I did on the MEE. Nailed the first two questions, completely whiffed third (still wrote something), nailed the evidence question, and wrong rule statements & conclusions for half the trusts and corps questions.

Joe Seperac in a post I can’t find (but I remember seeing it a while back) said you can miss half the issues and still pass. Basically,
1. If you spot all the issues and give a brief rule and conclude correctly on 100% of the exam, you can pass without doing a single analysis.
2. Get 75% of the issues, conclude correctly on 75% of the exam, get the rules for those 75% and a 2 sentence analysis and you pass.
3. Get half the issues, half the rules, conclude correctly on half and well written analysis on half and you pass...

Maybe someone can dig up the thread...but basically any combo of the above and you’re fine.

Passing as in getting 133 out of the 266?

gasfard wrote:Passing as in getting 133 out of the 266?

Yes. Those are New York numbers. California will be higher.

Cop2lawyerNYC wrote:

rustyburger2 wrote:How many rules/issues would you say you guys botched?

I don't really feel too great about how I did on the MEE. Nailed the first two questions, completely whiffed third (still wrote something), nailed the evidence question, and wrong rule statements & conclusions for half the trusts and corps questions.

Joe Seperac in a post I can’t find (but I remember seeing it a while back) said you can miss half the issues and still pass. Basically,
1. If you spot all the issues and give a brief rule and conclude correctly on 100% of the exam, you can pass without doing a single analysis.
2. Get 75% of the issues, conclude correctly on 75% of the exam, get the rules for those 75% and a 2 sentence analysis and you pass.
3. Get half the issues, half the rules, conclude correctly on half and well written analysis on half and you pass...

Maybe someone can dig up the thread...but basically any combo of the above and you’re fine.

Thanks that's super helpful - if anyones able to find the original post that'd be awesome

dabigchina wrote:stop obsessing. join the #walkaway movement

let the people that want to talk about it talk about it--shouldnt the #walkaway advocates not even be on TLS right now?

I spent an extra $500 on the JD Advising seminar that predicts the topics in the subjects and they did not really help. Luckily, I knew about 5/6, but somehow I drew a blank on the Con law essay. I started from the back and worked my way forward, so I must have had brain fatigued when I got to that question... I total wrote a bs answer for it.

I wrote a BS answer for the property question. Like not even close. I also relied on the JD Advising predictions. I think they were 2 for 6. Not great.

rustyburger2 wrote:

Cop2lawyerNYC wrote:

rustyburger2 wrote:How many rules/issues would you say you guys botched?

I don't really feel too great about how I did on the MEE. Nailed the first two questions, completely whiffed third (still wrote something), nailed the evidence question, and wrong rule statements & conclusions for half the trusts and corps questions.

Joe Seperac in a post I can’t find (but I remember seeing it a while back) said you can miss half the issues and still pass. Basically,
1. If you spot all the issues and give a brief rule and conclude correctly on 100% of the exam, you can pass without doing a single analysis.
2. Get 75% of the issues, conclude correctly on 75% of the exam, get the rules for those 75% and a 2 sentence analysis and you pass.
3. Get half the issues, half the rules, conclude correctly on half and well written analysis on half and you pass...

Maybe someone can dig up the thread...but basically any combo of the above and you’re fine.

Thanks that's super helpful - if anyones able to find the original post that'd be awesome

This makes me feel better. I feel like I did OK on the last three MEEs, screwed up half the first one, misstated part of the law in the second one (which drives me crazy because it was not a hard one), and then I completely made up everything on the third. For my state (IL), I think I got the basic gist of everything, but I for sure left stuff out or misstated law, and I concluded wrong on one... my guesstimate was that I got about 65% of what I needed in there. Hoping misstatements of law and wrong conclusions don't completely kill me. It's really hard to not stress about all of it (thoughts of failing float through my head constantly)...

max_p wrote:I also relied on the JD Advising predictions. I think they were 2 for 6. Not great.

3/6 by my count.

Accurate: Con Law, Corporations, Trusts/Wills
Wrong: Civ Pro, Secured Transactions, Torts/Agency

They're claiming Secured Transactions was correct right now, but I think that was just a misdirection in the question that confused people. I did use their data to rule-out Family Law, Conflict of Laws, and Crim/Crim Pro, so they saved me some time.

Yeah they saved me time too because I did not study at all for family law and partnership. The biggest surprise was contracts instead of torts (considering contracts was just tested in February). Luckily contracts was my strongest subject in law school and it was a relatively straightforward question. Can't really blame them on the incorrect prediction though. The test definitely strayed from the typical pattern.

White Dwarf wrote:

max_p wrote:I also relied on the JD Advising predictions. I think they were 2 for 6. Not great.

3/6 by my count.

Accurate: Con Law, Corporations, Trusts/Wills
Wrong: Civ Pro, Secured Transactions, Torts/Agency

They're claiming Secured Transactions was correct right now, but I think that was just a misdirection in the question that confused people. I did use their data to rule-out Family Law, Conflict of Laws, and Crim/Crim Pro, so they saved me some time.

So now they’re counting red herrings as well? Lol.

White Dwarf wrote:

max_p wrote:I also relied on the JD Advising predictions. I think they were 2 for 6. Not great.

3/6 by my count.

Accurate: Con Law, Corporations, Trusts/Wills
Wrong: Civ Pro, Secured Transactions, Torts/Agency

They're claiming Secured Transactions was correct right now, but I think that was just a misdirection in the question that confused people. I did use their data to rule-out Family Law, Conflict of Laws, and Crim/Crim Pro, so they saved me some time.

There is no way that question was Secured Transactions- a secured transaction is one that is consensual and not involving real property.

Just to let everyone know... JD Advising has not even come out with their correct recap yet.

1. Con Law:
Police Power, Commerce Clause, and Commandeering

2. Contracts
Fairly straight forward with UCC v Common law and firm offer v option contract and the nitty gritty of what makes a contract.

3. Real Prop.
Zoning and differences between construction mortgage or a PMM and who is superior to a mechanics lien.

4. Evidence:
Possible notice: didn’t apply, business doc, statement for medical treatment, character v habit, and hearsay and relevance.

5. Trusts.

Duties of a Trustee: Duty of Loyalty, Duty of Care, UPOA came into play but didn’t really apply, and anti-lapse

6. Corporations/ Agency:
Promoter, liability, agency was in there for the officer, and possibly piercing corporate veil against the shareholder.

JD Advising didn’t really look into all of this. Their course isn’t really worth it in my opinion. Granted everyone needs to be prepared, but they aren’t doing anything special anymore.

I screwed up the property question, the notice portion for evidence, maybe the anti-lapse for trusts, and I forgot the word “option contract” but talked about consideration for the contract. I feel like I still failed because Illinois was very Illinois specific for the IEE. JD advising says don’t worry, you can pass without knowing the state law, that’s a load of crap. JD advising is a supplement to a normal bar prep if you have time for both.

Try talking to someone at JD advising and it’s very “pitchy”. They don’t really pay attention. It’s a sale for the most money.