"I'm Gunna Pass this Damn Thing" Thread - Part Deux
The comment count evidently got to be too much for Google's neglected Blogger to keep up.
Feel free to keep it flowin' here, as we all strive for minimal competence.
Feel free to keep it flowin' here, as we all strive for minimal competence.
Labels: Bar Exams
posted by tj at 8:50 PM
188 Comments:
We all deserve a 47 second break from bar study:
Intentional Infliction of Awesomeness.
You're welcome.
I told my mom NOT to post that!
Can any alums confirm or deny the rumors that the BarBri MBE questions are more difficult than the actual MBE questions?
Gracias.
I am obviously not the type of alum you want, but I have heard from several people that sets 5 and 6 are just ridiculously hard. Harder than the real thing. Also, the lecturer for the maximizer said several times that the full day practice test was much harder than the real thing as well.
I took the bar last summer (and passed). I thought that the actual MBE was harder than the barbri questions (I don't have a great recollection of sets 5 and 6 however). But a lot of people did not feel good after the MBE day (but of course, lots of people ended up passing). Who knows if it's the stress of the day, but be prepared to feel like the MBE was really hard (with some really random questions).
Who cares? It's graded on a curve. If you think it's really hard, so will everyone else.
Any pearls of wisdom from those who took PMBR this weekend?
I'm starting to freak out because I find I have forgotten many of things I knew before. Anyone else finding their grasp on some of these subjects to be ephemeral?
I found the PMBR questions to be rather different than the Barbri questions. At times they were closer to the released actual MBE questions located in the barbri MPQ2 book.
On average they seemed to be more difficult than both the standard barbri questions and the released MBE questions I have completed.
ephemeral memory? No, I just read the conviser book once through 5 weeks ago, and remember every word of it.
2:54, I feel ya. Hugest problem right now is remembering/retaining all the damn information. I'm on my second go-round alternating between outlining/notes in various documents and making random flashcards, in the hopes that repeatedly looking at or typing or handwriting the stuff will cause some of it to stick.
PMBR was tough.
Are people going over all the essays in the Barbri Essay Workshop? I can't decide if it's worth the time to go over all of them.
I personally find attempting (and often failing) to answer the essays, even if it's just a quick 15 minutes outline, if more helpful than just reading the outlines or doing notecards. But that is just me. If you don't know if by now . . .
i agree with you calilove. to me, writing essays (even if i don't always do it within the alloted time) are most helpful for learning the law and feeling productive
11:53, check out the released MBE questions in the MPQ2. I'm not sure if they're representative of the questions still be used, but to me they seem much easier than barbri's questions.
I sort-of agree about the MPQ2 released questions. I think they are a little clearer about what they are asking for.
Of course, when you don't know the law that doesn't help all that much . . .
I took the bar last summer and thought the MBE questions were harder than BarBri's. But I passed, so who knows. After talking about some of the more ridiculous questions with some other bar takers, we determined that some of the really poorly-constructed and bizarre questions were probably the experimental ones.
Don't try anything cute on the Performance Test. Be straightforward and organized.
The whole easier/harder debate had me a bit worried at the beginning of the summer so I got Adaptibar, because I read about how it only uses actual released NCBE questions. And I've also been using the Bar/Bri StudySmart software at mixed difficulties all summer. So now I can compare how my results differ with real bar questions versus the ones BarBri writes. And my percentages are very nearly the same--with the score for real MBE questions being a tiny bit higher. I think we should probably assume some of the feeling that "the real bar is harder than BarBri" comes from test-day nervousness and, as mentioned, experimental questions.
I started writing a lot of essays at the end of June, about 4-5 day. For a couple of weeks, I was getting better. But now, I feel like the quality of my essays has dipped considerably. Sometimes I can barely form a sentence. Is it stress or did I peak too early?
5 hours of essay writing per day, plus review? Seriously? JFC.
If you do nothing else with practice MBEs, DO THE ACTUAL RELEASED MBE QUESTIONS IN THE MPQ2! They have a completely different feel than than Bar Bri questions, which makes you feel like you are missing them all. But you will see that even though you feel like you are missing them all, you are doing about the same performance as on the Bar Bri questions, and thus you can avoid all kinds of crazy anxiety during Day 2 of the exam.
Just curious 1:37, are you an alum or just another one of us studying for the bar right now.
holy shit there's a lot to memorize.
PMBR practice test...very hard. Wow.
Re: PMBR, if you get 100/200 you're in good shape (they told us that last year and it turned out to be true). B/c it's ridiculously hard and random! Don't feel defeated.
Anyone have a good mnemonic for the privacy torts? I'm having a lot of trouble remembering them.
Appropriation
Intrusion
False Light
Public Disclosure
I read somewhere else, "Aim (camera) In Danny's Face." At first I thought it was dumb but it helped me!
The MBE preview lecturer suggested CLIP for the privacy torts.
CLIP? Where are you getting the C from?
Anyone know if con law was tested on the essay portion last feb and what the topic was?
Commercial Appropriation
Light (False)
Intrusion Upon Seclusion
Public Disclosure of Private Fact
CLIP
Some words of encouragement:
First-Time Taker Pass Rate
2008: 74.8%
2007: 68.9%
2006: 67.4%
2005: 63.7%
2004: 62.8%
(anyone know why the trend is up?)
Good luck everyone. In my darkest moments, I worry that I will fail and publicly embarrass myself and our lovely institution (I was a huge slacker prior to July 4). Thanks to my judge's secretary who said "don't worry, we've *never* had a clerk fail before." Um, thanks. What if I'm the first?
Fingers crossed and much love to all you Boalties out there taking the bar.
Caley: I'm an alum. -1:37
FYI: barbri has posted the results from the simulated MBE on their website. Looks like I need to revisit contracts.
@1:37, thanks for the info.
@10:18pm, I don't really have a mnemonic for the privacy torts, I just use this stupid, poorly spelled acronym that's actually been working well for me:
FAID (false light, appropriation, intrusion, disclosure)
As in, after the bar, I'm going to get FAIDed. I know it's not a correct spelling, but that actually makes it more memorable for me.
Oh, and to Slam Master A, thought you'd like this.
I cannot finish an evidence essay question in an hour for the life of me. I'm going to cry if I see one on the real test.
come on 12:09, don't psych yourself out! you don't need to be perfect, just hit the issues and move on. I've found that I don't need to outline evidence before writing. Each question is self-contained, and I can just read it through and jump in writing. Will save you some time, might try it.
a mnemonic for fundamental rights, anyone PLEASE?
So, is anyone staying in a hotel? Given that I live in Berkeley and am taking the exam in Oakland, it seems a little silly. Especially given the price of the nearby hotels.
Although... not dealing with BART worries on the day of the exam might be nice.
I believe it was CAMPER
Contraception
Abortion
Marriage
Procreation
Education (private)
Rights of Family
But there's also that right to private homosexual sex that the court isn't SURE is fundamental.
So HOMO-CAMPER.
BART is so rarely a worry. Leave early. And there's a cab stand right outside if you get into a real pickle. The ride is probably less than the hotel room. I can't sleep so well in hotel beds and I don't need to be around all that nervous energy.
If you're taking it nearby don't stay in a hotel.
Question for crim pro superstars:
Are we responsible for the Gant decision on the MBE/essays (I remember the lecturer mentioning it but my notes are a mess from that day)? If so, what is the effect of the decision on the law in the CMR?
Thanks in advance!
Does anyone else feel like they literally cannot study one more hour. My brain physically hurts, and I don't feel like anything else is going in! Someone give me permission to take the night off!
Take the night off. I firmly believe that if you hit the wall, the only way to get through it is to back up and breathe. Then push through once you can think straight.
Take the night off. I was fried this weekend. I took most of it off, although, I have to admit, I did feel pretty guilty about it.
I believe that we are responsible for Gant.
I'm not sure if this is all there is to the holding, but I am just remembering that we should treat a search incident to arrest the same whether the person was in a car or not -- only the area in his reach is searchable (unless some other exception to the warrant requirement applies). So if the person arrested is placed in the back of a police car, even if he was a recent occupant of the car, the officers now cannot go and search the car as a search incident to arrest.
At least I think that's what it's about.
Doesn't Gant still leave the door open if there's probable cause evidence exists in the vehicle to search the vehicle (even after the suspect is secured in the back of the car)? I didn't think it messed with the "Automobile Exception"...
yes, tj, that's right. but it's looking for evidence related to this specific arrest. you can't arrest the dude for speeding and then search his car because you claim to have probable cause to look for drugs.
(unless there's some ca twist... can't help you there)
No offense to all my classmates/fellow bar takers on this thread, but you all need to chill the fuck out. I know it's terrible and stressful and awful, but jesus christ people, read this thread. You're making it worse for everyone.
Yes, this is probably "the bar taking." But fuck. Everyone here needs to grow a pair.
by "grow a pair," do you mean ova?
I can't even figure out what you're upset about 8:21. Is it people saying they're nervous and feeling overworked? Is it people asking for advice on mnemonic devices? What exactly flew up your butt?
It's funny how the person who is freaking out the most in this thread is the same guy who is complaining about everybody else freaking out. Thanks 8:21 for that.
As for the rest of you: I feel safe saying, as a poster shrouded in anonymity, that I absolutely love Boalties. Between the '09 grads who are taking the time to answer questions and offer mnemonics, and the alums who are offering feedback about specific bar-taking venues, this is clearly a community that lives up to its talk. Cheers to all of you.
(On the note of Gant, Laura's summary is right on -- that's pretty much the actual fact pattern. Don't let Gant change ANYTHING in crim pro for you EXCEPT the search-incident-to-arrest in automobiles. It only limits the police to the rationale of the original theory -- you can only search a car incident to arrest if the person can feasibly seize a weapon or destroy drugs/evidence.
Though, tangentially, keep in mind that the police can always inventory-search the car [administrative procedure] if they end up towing it. The rationale for that is that they need to figure out what's in the car in case something goes missing while it's in the impound lot. That'll get them the drugs absent probable cause.)
Following up, here it is from the Court: "...[W]e hold that the [search-incident-to-arrest rule] rationale authorizes police to search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search"
And here it is: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf (page 10)
Thanks, everyone, for taking time out of your studying to help me!
-6:25
Note, the full day MBE had this question. It was wrong. I believe it was approx #174? A guy got pulled over, arrested, placed in the cop car. Cop then searches the car and finds booze.
Q: How is this best justified?
A: SITA.
WTF??!?!?! I got so mad. Why can't they take out Q's that have obsolete law?
I stayed in the hotel although I could have stayed in Berkeley (I took it in Oakland). A little pricey, but worth it, to me. Didn't have to worry about getting up extra early to avoid BART issues, and could just crash immediately after I was finished each day.
Plus, the room service guy made me smile. On the second day, he asked me how it was, I told him the MBE was awful, and he said, "Yeah, everybody's been saying that." Made me feel better. :)
I thought the Barbri lecturer on Crim Pro said not to worry about Gant because it was too recent to be considered by the Cal Bar testers, so I was just going to ignore it and apply the pre-Gant rule.
Also, in the long run, it probably doesn't matter that much right? At most it's one MBE question and if it comes up on an essay just argue both sides and you'll get more points for more analysis anyway. At least, that's my plan.
I think he said that we shouldn't worry about there even BEING a Gant question b/c the writers knew that a Supreme Court decision would be forthcoming and wouldn't want to worry about it. Although, McWho is right. BarBri's practice-MBE-writers didn't seem to give it a second thought. It's unlikley the NCBE will be as sloppy. But if they do throw it in, we should probably answer according to current law if such an option is available. Because even if they couldn't pull the question off the test in time. they could surely correct it on their answer sheet before running the scantron's through. And if there's no correct post-Gant answer option, I bet they just remove the question from the scaled scores to avoid counting it against anyone. The CivPro guy said it would be the same with Iqbal's new plausible standard for motions to dismiss. They're unlikley to go there and less likely to count it against us.
I've taken two nights off this week, and I think it has made me more productive.
McWho, they printed the books too early. They sent an email (to my class at least) saying that two answers to that question were fine. So give yourself an extra point and don't worry about it.
(and I'm on the east coast before someone freaks out about the post time and claims I'm stressing you out. it's early here, but not crazy).
Hey McWho, Isn't it ok to search the car for alcohol b/c the concern was the guy was drunk driving? Thus, there is a connection b/c the type of search performed and the arrest made. It's not like the dude was arrested for speeding and then they searched for a handgun. Thoughts?
Good luck everyone!
Yep, I think you are right. That would be an argument for the automobile exception. The argument has some merit, but would require full probable cause. The reason I was annoyed was because the book said that it was a Search Incident to Arrest, and NOT the automobile exception.
As I recall, it wasn't an option on that particular multiple choice problem.
Thanks Laura, I guess New York barbri is more on the ball...
just how minimal (as in "minimal competence") are we talking?
Didn't Chemerinsky say not to worry about any changes in the law - no matter how critical - if they happened within the last year? I would think the same goes for crim pro stuff. Honestly, the crim lecturer did not inspire much confidence...
mcwho, california barbri sent out the same email.
@10:00 -
It better be really minimal minimal competency. I'm still running into essays I can't really answer. Not encouraging.
Whoa whoa whoa, hold on, stop. There are essays on this thing?
He he he, thanks 11:21.
And what do you mean it's closed book???
Re: "minimal competence" (from the handouts they gave us in the fall)
70 = "unable to determine clear pass / fail
65 = "deficient answer"
60 = clear fail
55 = missed the boat
45 = got your name right
average required = 62.5
do better on MBE (i.e. 77%) = only need to average 60 between essays and PTs
get the highest recorded score in July 2007 on the MBE (96%) and you can phone in the rest by writing semi-related crap for 55's.
Re Gant: I called barbri and they said that if supreme court decisions from this term came up on the mbe they would likely give credit for answers correct under the old and new rules. On the essays they said it was ok to answer under the old rule and either (1) ignore Gant; (2) point out briefly that the case might come out differently under Gant; or (3) do a full analysis under both old and new rules. They pointed out that just doing an analsis under the old rule would be sufficient to pass and that your essay would totally blend in with the others if that is what you did.
Any mnemonics for hearsay exceptions (one for unavailability and one for availability doesn't matter), pretty pretty please?
Unavailability: DAFT
Dying Declaration
Against Interest
Family or Personal History
Testimony (Former)
Unavailability immaterial: PAPERS PBJ
Present sense impression
ancient docs
past physical condition
excited utterance
recorded recollection
state of mind (present)
public records
business records
judgments of prior convictions
Me personally, I like to tell little tiny stories that include all the exceptions because the bare acronyms sometimes leave me drawing a blank. You might think I'm crazy, but I used to be a teacher and my former students told me this trick helped them whenever they had to memorize things for a test. So for hearsay exceptions, I'm doing these:
I like to picture an angry divorcee shouting this at her lawyer. Maybe the chick from that show with the 8 kids.
"I'm UNAVAILABLE and I ALREADY TESTIFIED that talking about your PERSONAL or FAMILY HISTORY is always AGAINST YOUR INTERESTS unless you're DEAD or DYING."
Then this one is a devoted mother who's son keeps getting convicted for recklessly spreading chlamydia to women (nonsense, but you know, memorable). She's yelling at a reporter who wants to do a story about him:
"Whether I am available is IMMATERIAL. Yes, I've RECORDED MY RECOLLECTION of all of his PAST CONVICTIONS, but that's all ANCIENT history. And I'm EXCITED that the PRESENT SENSE is that his PAST and PRESENT PHYSICAL and MENTAL condition is nobody's BUSINESS and certainly not a matter for the PUBLIC RECORD."
Awesome. In fact, just write that as your answer on an evidence question.
Isn't a party-admission pretty much always going to also be a statement against interest? Or am I missing something here . . .
Scratch that last comment -- I just realized a statement against interest requires unavailability. Sorry!!!
Also, a statement against interest (penal, monetary, or property) can be made by *anyone* whereas an admission must be made by a party and offered by the party opponent. I also believe that a statement against interest can be used to impeach one's own witness, much in the same fashion as a prior inconsistent statement.
Question for NY bar takers (am on the East Coast, not writing at a crazy early time): In NY, can the landlord refuse to give interest on a security deposit? I know this is NOT true in CA.
Thanks!
Also re: admissions vs. statements against interest, an admission doesn't necessary need to be against interest. It can be a statement like "I sure love lima beans"- which wouldn't qualify as a declaration against interest because it doesnt subject you to any criminal liability (or social ridicule in CA).
Another question: anyone have a tip for remembering the 4 insanity tests? I can remember the names, but i can never remember what each test stands for. thanks.
M'Naughten - defendant did "naught" know the nature and quality of act (defendant did "naught" know right from wrong)
Irresistible impulse - pretty much self-explanatory: person could not control their impulse to commit crime
Durham/product - think of buying a "dur"able product: defendant's action was a product of mental disease or defect
MPC - best of both worlds: either M'Naughton or irresistible impulse test will get defendant off (either one evidences a lack of substantial capacity to control one's behavior)
This may be late in the game, but if you are still practicing essays and you're taking the Cal. bar, I recommend the real, graded answers in Sakai's Essay Workshop handout. I found them calming. Sadly, they aren't there for every subject (I've found property, crim, wills and evidence so far), but I forced myself to write out a whole answer and then compared. The answers range in points from 65-75, and just seeing that mine weren't far off and also seeing what gets, say, a 70 really helped my state of mind. We can do this, people!
Good luck everyone!
thanks stephen- very helpful!
Anyone ready to start a pool regarding the 6 essays? here are my 6 bets:
Con Law
Real Property
PR
CP/Wills cross-over
Civ Pro (specifically class action)
agency/partnership
My guesses:
1) Wills & Trusts
2) Professional Responsibility
3) Crimes
4) Community Property
5) 1/2 Remedies, 1/2 Contract/Property/Tort
6) Civ Pro - CA distinctions
For reasoning, see one of the last posts on the initial bar thread. I posted a link to a breakdown of subject frequencies over the last 10+ years.
Come on folks, don't be Max Powerses.
Does anyone else feel like these 8-part evidence questions are impossible to answer in hour? I mean, they have 8 parts, but then there are like 3 subparts for many of them. I got through half them in one hour. It took me 20 minutes to read the question and then copy all the statements down! Any tips?
5:44am ... yes, there's a duty for the landlord to pay interest, so long as it's a multi-unit rental.
One thing they suggested during BarBri was to use the "integrated" method on evidence questions because they are so often racehorse questions(i.e. ditch separate rule statements and mix in analysis with rule).
Quick Community Property question:
Is Quasi-CP treated as CP for purposes of attachment by a creditor? I have conflicting notes about this.
Does it matter if we're talking about tort liability or regular debts incurred?
QCP is treated as spouse's SP during marriage, EXCEPT FOR CREDITORS, who can treat QCP as CP. (Cite: CMR Community Property, bottom of p. 19) Also keep in mind that outside of creditor contexts, the fact that QCP is treated as a spouse's SP during marriage means that a spouse can unilaterally transfer that QCP during marriage (i.e. without the other's consent, unlike regular CP).
Upon divorce, QCP is treated as CP.
Upon death, the surviving spouse has a 1/2 interest in the dead spouse's QCP; but the dead spouse has NO interest in the surviving spouse's QCP. This means the surviving spouse can "claw back" 1/2 of any QCP the dead spouse devised by will, but the dead spouse CANNOT devise any of the surviving spouse's QCP.
Finally, tort liability to third parties is a subset of creditor liability. So a tort victim can treat QCP like CP for purposes of recovery.
Also remember the priority of payment for tort creditors. If the spouse was acting for the benefit of the community, the CP & QCP would be used first to satisfy the judgment. But if the spouse was acting for the benefit of him/herself, then his/her SP must first be exhausted before the judgment is paid out of CP/QCP.
That was more info than you asked for, but I figured it couldn't hurt to be comprehensive.
11:01:
1) thanks, that's very helpful.
2) you're scaring me.
well, i spent most of last day reviewing CP because i tried to do a CP essay and to my horror, realized i had forgotten EVERYTHING i learned 2 weeks ago. so don't sweat it. :)
last night I was thinking about QCP when I slipped in the shower. i barely and unsteadily caught myself. scarred the crap out of me. but kinda put things in perspective. top priority: make it to (and through) the exam in one piece. time to chill out
NYers... any way to make sense of the NY multiple choice torts question 5 (in the separate torts section, not in the 100 mixed topic questions)? I thought the NY distinction was that defamation actions *do* survive death.
Nope -- NY does not allow defamation suits for dead people unlike some places (e.g. Germany, thanks BJIL!)
Maybe the defamation distinction you are thinking of is the NY long arm statute? NY generally allows suits for torts committed in NY but it does not allow suits for defamation unless the cause of action can be hooked into the business transaction exception.
Hope that helps!
11:59... that's definitely what the multiple choice answer says. But are you taking barbri? What does the mini review mean (NY torts distinction section, page 6) when it says "actions involving harm to intangible interests, such as libel and slander, survive" if not that a defamation claim survives death?
Am I losing the ability to make sense of English?
Hmm that is a good point you make there. I think the difference is that these involve a survival action, which means the tort must have been committed as against the tort victim WHILE he or she was alive. If the claim is still good at the time of his/her death, then his/her family members can step in and pursue the claim under a survival theory (contrast this with wrongful death where claims are brought by family member's on their own behalf). However, if you look at the facts of the multiple choice question, the defamation occurred after the would-be victim had already died, and so no survival action can be brought. Thoughts?
oooh... brilliant! thank you!
here's some unsolicited anonymous advice, for what its worth. some of the above questions and clarifications are extremely narrow. personally, there's no way I'm remembering every little rule, and I really don't think the bar tests that. Looking over past exams, its the major concepts, definitions, and rules that you need to get and apply to pass. an essay might raise one or two narrow nit-picky rules. I'm fine with spotting it, and making up the rule. for me, trying to memorize the narrow rules blocks out the big important ones. so no disrespect to those asking for clarification, but don't freak yourself out. concentrate on the big stuff, and practice. not that i've taken, let alone passed the exam. -2 cents.
i'm all for seeing the big picture and i agree that getting too nitpicky can cause us to lose sight of the more important concepts.
that said, i actually think a good number of the multistate and ny multiple choice qs test fairly fine points. i hope to have a decently high MBE score b/c i may have to take another bar at some point and i want my score to transfer. i also know there are several people in our class who are taking two bars, and the key to passage for those folks is a kick ass MBE score.
TWO BARS???
i just puked in my mouth.
taking two bars is actually quite common. some states (ie NJ) offer their state bar on thursday, so that you can do NY+NJ or Penn+NJ. god knows NJ needs good lawyers- anyone see the 42 people busted this morning by the FBI?
Why is California full of lawyers and New Jersey full of pollution?
Because New Jersey got first choice.
I'm here all night folks. Be sure to tip your waiter.
. . . and what do you get without lawyers? Corruption?
Oh, wait. Many of the people indicted today ARE lawyers.
Armen, aren't you living in LA? CA got in the ugly line twice - full of lawyers and pollution.
But at least we have great state parks.
Oh, wait. They're all closing because we can't afford to pay someone to pick up trash once a week.
But at least we have the crown jewel of public universities . . .
LA's full of smog, not toxic waste from Phillie.
Phillie?? What rock do you live under? Get some cheese whiz, boo the next Santa you see and learn to spell it with its proper damn y.
he lives under the west coast rock.
It goes both ways, though: until I moved out here, I thought that LA and SF were about two hours apart by car.
Lets say you're taking the bar in Oakland and live relatively nearby. If your firm is paying for a hotel stay, why not take them up on it? Is it that you think you'll get extra brownie points for saving money or that you just like your own bed that much more?
I literally just spent 8 hours watching TV. I did not pee. I did not eat. I have never refrained from peeing or eating for 2 hours, let alone 8 hours. I watched horrible TV, to make matters worse. I am officially catatonic. I feel that I simply cannot study anymore. Even worse I feel I simply cannot take this test.
well, maybe you don't need to study anymore, for starters. maybe you've gotten the whole catatonic thing out of the way now, so you can relax on test day and just go with the flow. regardless of your 8-hour tv stretch, i can guarantee that you've already put in enough work this summer to pass this thing. we all have. we've busted ass, and now it's just time go to in there and make up some new law. with headings!
amen to that!!! i've been taking off lots of time in the past few weeks or so - entire days sometimes. i think we all know more than enough to pass this exam and when we feel like we can't study anymore (esp now) it's the body's way of telling us to take a break. so enjoy it!
meanwhile . . . I just finished rereading the entire Wills and Trusts minireview and couldn't for the life of me tell you what it said. Diminishing returns are now returning zilch.
Sounds like I'm in good company.
Woke up and figured I'd take the simulated exam we're supposed to do.
Got the headers, outlined the first one, felt proud I accomplished at least that, and have surfed FAILblog all morning. Figure I'll go to lunch now to reward myself for all my good deeds.
LUKE: (discouraged) You want the impossible.
[Yoda lifts the X-Wing out of the swamp with his mind.]
LUKE: I don't...I don't believe it.
YODA: That is why you fail.
My midichlorian count is way too low for this test.
Wait, I don't understand. Is Yoda liable for trespass to Luke's chattel? Or is it larceny? Does a high mitichlorian count raise a presumption of intent? Obi-wan never told me about this!
I am so going to Jedi mind-trick the examiners into letting me bring in my CMR.
Come on, 12:35. It's clearly a battery on R2D2.
C3PO: "We seem to be made to suffer. It's our lot in life."
(waves hand) this clock does not measure any larger than 4" x 4".
Speaking of 4" x 4" clocks, does anyone know what the wall clock situation will be in Oakland? If I don't run out and buy a tiny analog clock, will I not know how much time has passed?
If you're using a laptop, there is a clock / timer in Examsoft, so you'd be covered for 2/3 of the test at least.
Can anyone explain in simple terms a mortgage 'holder in due course' and why it's important (or not)? Thanx!
You take out a mortgage on your home.
You will have a loan contract with the bank, and also sign a promissory note (PN). The loan contract contains loan covenants and such. The PN is nothing more than the promise to pay a sum-certain to whoever is "the holder." This allows the Bank to "sell" your mortgage to other people (yes, this is the basis of the mechanism that has smoked so many of our job opportunities). Once the Bank has transferred the PN to someone else, you really owe your mortgage payments to whoever holds the PN (the "holder in due course"). Most of the time, you won't really care, because you'll send money to the Bank, and they'll send it onto the holder. Or, the Bank will instruct you to pay the holder.
HOWEVER, it is really incumbent on you as the mortgagor to ensure payment goes to the right person. This is most relevant in the following situation:
You pay the original mortgagee (the Bank) after it has transferred the note to the holder in due course. However, the Bank doesn't forward on the payment and just keeps it. The holder now comes to you and asks for the payment. YOU MUST PAY AGAIN! You do have a remedy though - you can sue the original mortgagee for fraud.
The other issue in which the holder in due course is really relevant is when speaking of defenses to the loan transaction. The HOLDER IS FREE OF ALL PERSONAL DEFENSES TO THE MORTGAGE LOAN K. This means that if the mortgage transaction was e.g. unconscionable, the mortgagor is still out of luck - he still owes the holder in due course the mortgage payments, and the holder in due course has the power to foreclose despite these defenses. On the other hand, the Holder is still subject to all "real" defenses: Material Alteration, Fraud in the Factum (e.g. the mortgage loan docs were falsified), Incapacity, Illegality, and Insolvency.
The real power of this becomes more apparent when you contrast this with ASSIGNMENT. Instead of using a Promissory Note and a Holder in Due Course arrangement, the Bank could simply Assign & Delegate the entire mortgage contract to a third party. The third party would be similar to a holder in due course, except you, as the mortgagor/obligor, can still assert ALL defenses against the assignee that you could've asserted against the assignor. In other words, any defense you had against the Bank, you have against the assignee. Whereas if the Bank transferred your mortgage using a PN, you can assert only real defenses against the Holder in Due Course.
I'm a bit worried about ExamSoft. I played around with it and it's not too hard to use, but my non-Boalt BarBri friends had stories about how buggy it was during their finals. And they had developed little tricks to avoid angering it or fixing it when it does weird stuff. Apparently the spell-check made it freeze during this one guy's test and then this girl was like, "Oh, yeah--never use the spellcheck." I kinda wish now that we'd practiced with it during law school like they did. But I guess I wouldn't have wanted the stress of potential crashes during law school finals either. I guess I will just hope for the best. And I do love that little reminder feature!
*Yawn*
Just be lucky you never used it during law school. On the bright side, it appropriately marginalized the mac-droids.
To 3:35 - you're awesome. Thanx!
Slightly more seriously, I think the comment to my post from 1L year by Phil Carter to "Embrace the suck" is right on. The Bar Exam is one of those really annoying aspects of life where even the slightest oversight can cost you big. (E.g., my own tales from BF Ontario, and Patrick, see footnote 3). Clearly people are getting to a saturation point, but if you're up for some sh*ts and giggles, you might think about handwriting some essays just to have a practice of it in case Examsoft or your laptop crap out.
And for those of you taking in Ontario, avoid the In n Out at lunch, it gets over crowded. And bring ear plugs. Those mile long trains can be awfully loud.
Finally, who DOESN'T have an analog watch? Are calculator casio watches making a comeback?
I had an analog watch. True to fate, it has been out on repair for approximately 3 months (don't ask how this is possible). Therefore, I will have a sparkly new $10 watch for the exam.
They came back and may have already left already:
http://www.degourget.com/?p=1657
Random CP question:
Let's say H and W are married. H inherits a house valued at $1M. It only has $2,000 left on a mortgage for it. H inherits subject to that mortgage.
H then uses CP to pay off the $2,000. Then H and W divorce, or H dies, etc.
What is the community interest in the house?
The rule is that the community should get an interest equal to the percentage of principal debt reduction made by community funds.
In this instance though, technically 100% of the debt reduction was made by the community but it seems wildly unfair for the community to take a 100% interest in it.
Thoughts, anyone? Does the fair market value of the property at the time it was inherited matter?
I think your instinct is correct that this cannot be the outcome, and the way to get there is to analyze this a bit differently. It is true that the community is entitled to a percentage of the house corresponding to how much of the debt was paid off with community funds. But it doesn't equate to paying off 100% debt = 100% ownership. Rather, you must also consider the debt in proportion to the TOTAL VALUE of the house. In other words, if the home is worth 10K, and the outstanding mortgage is 2K, and the community pays it off, then the community is entitled to the value of 100% of the debt, but this comes out to 20% of the value of the home, the other 80% of which is the Husband's SP (because it was gotten by devise originally).
Just a follow-up: you don't have to take my word for it. Coincidentally, I just outlined CP essay question #6, and it hits this fact pattern squarely. Check it out - it's on page 161-166 of the barbri practice essay book.
CP Question:
H and W are married.
W commits a tort while on an errand that was NOT for the benefit of the community.
The rule is that the judgment is to be satisfied with the tortfeasor's SP first, before tapping into CP.
My question is whether the judgment may be satisfied only by the tortfeasor spouse's 1/2 share of CP, or whether the non-tortfeasor spouse's share of CP may be seized too.
Also, would the answer change if the tort was committed during an errand for benefit of the community?
Thanks in advance.
1) All of the CP. Remember, a creditor can reach into ALL of the CP for debts incurred during marriage. A tort victim = creditor.
2) Yes. If the errand was for the benefit of the community, the CP is tapped first, then the SP of the tortfeasor spouse is tapped. But keep in mind, the innocent spouse's SP is NEVER accessed for tort liabilities. A creditor can reach into all of the CP, but can never reach into the non-creditor spouse's SP, unless it was a debt for necessaries (which a tort would not be, obviously).
In case you have doubts, this information is on page 19-20 of the CMR for community property.
answer: 100% CP, not just his 1/2 share. only exception is if the debt was incurred (before marriage) and the other spouse takes their earnings and puts them in a separate bank account, that debtor spouse cannot access.
if tort was for community, same rule- 100% CP, and then tortfeasor SP.
6:39 & 6:39:
thank you!!!!
I still have lots of gaps in my knowledge, but I'm so ready to just take this darn thing and get on with my life.
Six more days, and it will be behind us.
Will someone explain medical expenses? When exactly is the other spouse's SP one the line?
I think creditors for one spouse's pre-marriage medical expenses can go after the other spouse's SP? Is that right?
And one spouse's SP can be reached even after the marriage ends for the other spouse's medical expenses incurred during marriage?
Thanks!
All the answers to these CP questions are right in the long outline, people!
7:59 - yes, yes, yes
key term = "necessities" = medical care (others may also be included but not as clear cut so won't be as likely to show up on bar)
Hello everyone -- I am in desperate need of some clarification on Civ Pro Q 6. I have tried BarBri and my friends -- my calls are going unanswered.
(1) Why oh why oh why did the answer say that Trucker could intervene??? Wasn't he required to assert a (compulsory) counterclaim against Owner in their original suit, or risk waiver? The outline says very clearly that all compulsory counterclaims (which are claims arising from the tame T/O) must be asserted in the first suit. The outline and answer makes no mention of this, but goes on and on about diversity jurisdiction when we are in state court!
(2) Why oh why oh why did neither the answer or out discuss the fact that the fed court in Suit 1 had NO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (because the claim was only $20K and no federal Q), and thus was probably invalid, and thus might not have any preclusive effect (see pg. 74 of long outline). (obviously still talk about preclusion just in case, but I can't believe this wasn't mentioned -- this was like my big killer point.)
I thought I had finally answered a question correctly, dammit! If anyone can illuminate these issues for me I will be eternally grateful and I might buy you candy.
Sorry to bother you guys again but I have this gut feeling that preclusion is going to be on the exam, and I don't think barbri is going to call me back in time.
(1) I'm not really seeing how there could ever be res judicata -- if it has to be the claim and the same parties in the same configuration, then this conflicts with the modern approach to require the assertion of all claims arising out of the same T/O that is the subject matter of the original claim. So basically, to have res j you need the same claim and same parties, but you aren't allowed to assert the same claim against the same parties.
(2) Also, I'm getting confused about the diff is b/t an issue and a claim. Is something like "negligence" a claim or an issue? These civ pro answers really don't differentiate much between the two. I think of an issue as like an element -- like negligence is the claim, but breach or duty are the issues. ???
question: haven't studied ca evidence, skipped the lecture. am reasonably on top of everything else, scored like 132 on the barbri mbe practice: should I devote 3 hours tomorrow to it? am concerned I won't remember anything new at this point...
Hi calilove,
1) You're essentially right - the compulsory counterclaim rule does *result* in a failed intervention. But this is not exactly what the question is asking. If you notice, Part 2(c) deals with that directly when it talks about Trucker's claim itself. I think Part 1(b) is ONLY asking about whether Trucker can qualify for the intervention requirement (i.e. does he have an interest that will be impaired if he's not allowed into the suit or are common questions of fact/law involved).
Yes, this is INCREDIBLY LAME but it is what it is. Also, keep in mind the question is from 1986 - I've noticed that, like a lot of other things from the 80s, bar questions from that era are executed poorly.
2) Yes, I noticed this too. Keep in mind, the barbri model answers are adapted answers published by the CA bar. This means that they will not be comprehensively correct 100% of the time. I think here, the way you would make use of the lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the first case is to argue that it destroys RES JUDICATA claims that Owner can make against Trucker and vice versa. This is because one of the requirements of Res Judicata is that a final, valid judgment on the merits must exist on the same claim. Here, you'd argue that because the first case failed the amount in controversy requirement for diversity, and because no federal question was present, the court lacked SMJ and thus the prior judgment is invalid.
3) Here's a way to think about Res Judicata. There are really two different versions of it. I've boiled it down to this:
Res judicata applies if (1) there's a prior valid, final judgment on the merits and (2) either (i) same parties, same configuration, same claim OR (ii) same parties, same transaction/occurrence (claim that should've been made).
4) Claim = cause of action; Issue = element of the cause of action. This gets confusing when we talk about "negligence," because negligence is both a cause of action, and also something that has to be proved as part of that cause of action. So in Question #6, I'd break it down like this:
Owner made a negligence claim against Trucker. Trucker defended by asserting contributory negligence.
The claim is: Negligence
The issues are:
(1)Negligence by Trucker
(2)Contributory Negligence by Owner
The jury decides: no Negligence by Trucker (nothing said about Contributory Negligence by Owner).
Consequently:
(1) Owner's negligence claim against Trucker is claim-precluded
(2) Trucker's negligence toward Owner might be issue-precluded, depending on who wants to try and litigate that again
(3) Owner's contributory negligence is an issue, but it is not issue precluded because it doesn't appear to have been really decided in the first case - the jury just found for Trucker by finding him non-negligent. This means, for example, if someone else was in the car riding with Trucker, they cannot use "Offensive Collateral Estoppel" to conclusively establish that *Owner* was negligent.
Understandably, negligence complicates the hell out of this. A better example might be a case where X shoots at Y, misses, and hits Z.
Z sues X for battery and wins. An issue in the case of course will be X's intent.
Z is now claim precluded from (1) suing X for battery again (2) suing X for assault, because he could've raised that in the first case but didn't.
Y then sues X for assault. Y may be able to claim offensive collateral estoppel - i.e. claim that the question of X's intent is issue-precluded because it was conclusively proven in the first suit.
1036- I'm not really studying CA Evidence. I'm worried I'm going to get everything messed up in my head and screw up evidence on the MBEs. I'm just memorizing a few things to throw out there in case we get a CA evidence essay, and will otherwise just apply the FRE to everything.
A few biggies I will know that seem to show up in the practice essays:
*Mention CA Prop 8, and that it doesn't apply to hearsay
* Prior inconsistent statements admissible to impeach in both FRE and CEC; always admissible for truth of the matter under CEC, only admissible for truth of the matter if given under oath under FRE
*For vicarious admissions, admissible under FRE if matter within scope of employment; under CEC only admissible if principal would be vicariously liable for the employee's conduct
*CEC has no present sense impression hearsay exception unless statement was made when declarant actually engaged in the conduct
*CA has the OJ exception
*CA spousal testimony privilege applies in both civil and criminal cases; under FRE only applies in criminal cases
*Jury must accept as true judicially noticed facts in CA; jury not required to under FRE
There is lots I'm ignoring, but there is no way I'm going to know everything.
This is probably an overly obsessive question, but I'll ask anyways.
We've been told a bunch of times to use lots of headings in our essays. For the community property essays, a few of the same essays use the source/action/presumptions/disposition subheadings for each piece of property at issue, but most of the essays are just structured as a long blurb for each of piece of property.
Any thoughts about using the source/action/presumptions/disposition or not?
I would say be as organized as time permits. Graders spend like 5 minutes on each essay - it's easier for them to sleepwalk you to a 65-70 if they can just glance and see an outline of all the issues spotted. But if you're running low on time then this would be one of the first things I'd sacrifice.
i find the source/action/presumption business just sort of unhelpful. i think better to just do a blurb for each asset or whatever.
10:56,
thanks, that makes sense, good point about the confusion.
Q about corps (for NY bar takers):
I have here in my notes that an officer of the corporation is an agent of the corp and thus has the ability to bind the corporation if acting with actual OR apparent authority.
What if the officer acts ultra vires? If the corp refuses to ratify a K with a bizperson made by the corp's president acting outside scope of actual or apparent authority, the corp. is not bound?
What remedy does the bizperson have? Seems unfair to only let him/her go after President. Isn't the Board liable for ultra vires acts?
So the first place to start is that ultra vires is extremely limited in NY. Nothing is going to be per se unenforceable for ultra vires. A shareholder can sue after the fact for an injunction to stop the ultra vires activity. But before that, the corp is going to be liable for whatever it was doing.
Next, by nature of acting with actual or apparent authority, the contracts of the president need not be ratified by the board. They're effective immediately. (Ratification is more of an issue with pre-incorporation contracts... with those, the later-formed corporation is not bound unless it explicitly ratifies or implicitly ratifies by accepting the benefit with knowledge of the agreement terms).
The business person who made the contract with the present will be able to go after the corporation. Not the president personally unless the president was dealing in his individual capacity.
As for the corporation, either the directors or officers or shareholders derivatively could sue the president if his contract is a harmful one. The suits would be for breach of duty of care, breach of duty of loyalty, or waste of corporate assets.
Does that make sense?
Thank you so much 10:43!
Hey Laura == Thanks. I totally agree with you based on reviewing the lecture from our corps prof (who seemed on top of it). However, my confusion stems from Q4 of the multiple choice for corps in NY Testing. It seems to contradict this, suggesting that a Prez who acts outside scope of authority -- for example by signing a K for helicopter parts when the corp repairs lawnmowers -- will NOT bind the corp UNLESS the act is ratified by the Board b/c this act was outside the Prez' apparent authority. (The Prez has apparent authority to enter into Ks in the ordinary course of biz but the examiners seemed to think this K would be extraordinary.) Also, the guy at the mini review (who also seemed extremely competent) seemed to think the ultra vires doctrine had a little more life in NY...
So, I'm concerned about essay organization. BarBri's sample answers all seem to follow a certain organization and some are common senses (Like for Prof Resp, obviously it would be good to organize it by "Duty of ___ to ___") But then take Evidence for example. Their answers tends to take the form of Form/Purpose/Presentation/Privilege. Where does this come from? Are these skeletons listed for each topic in one of the books? Are you guys memorizing them or planning on making their own headings based on what the actual question asks for? Every essay BarBri would grade they'd say in the comments "these each need to be subheadings" or conversely "don't spend so much time on this" and my wires are all crossed. Surely they can't fail me for not following BarBri's format, but I'd like to be a good sheep if I can.
Spent the morning doing facebook quizzes. I might not know much about law, but I do know that I have a "northern" accent, I should live in North Dakota, I'm most like Harry, I should be a Baptist, and I should be in a marvel comic. I really need this whole bar thing to be over...
I think Evidence (form/purpose/presentation/hearsay/defenses) and Community Property (source/actions/presumptions/disposition) are they only two subjects for which Barbri has suggested using a set formula? And I guess contracts too. Are there others? I can't imagine it's essential, as long as you IRAC the heck out of everything.
I'm also trying to train myself to start every Con Law essay with a bit on standing and state action, because I always forget that.
And then Barbri also suggested we start off Community Property essays with an intro about CP and SP (it's in the practice essays) and for private express trusts start with the definition ("a fiduciary relationship with respect to property whereby one party, the trustee, holds legal title for the benefit of another, the beneficiary, and which arises out of a manifestation of an intent to create it for any legal purpose)
Hey 7:46/fellow NYer,
I didn't go to the mini review. So this is only based on the books/my understanding of the original lecture. (but if you have helpful tips from the mini review please pass them on!).
I'm not sure how much help I can be beyond rephrasing the answer to question 4. The question isn't focused on ultra vires. It's really about the breadth of apparent authority. In this small close corp with an exclusive business in lawmowers, the president lacks both actual and apparent authority to make a contract for helicopters. In apparent authority, the third party (so here H Corp selling helicopters) must reasonably rely on an agent having authority. I think the question considers it unreasonable for H Corp to have so relied in this instance (because the president corp was so small and dealt exclusively in lawnmowers).
Is that any clearer?
Lets talk about columns on the performance test. A few of the examples require a two column format, with disputed facts on one side and the reference on the other. Where in exam soft does it let me do that? I looked through the program and didn't find anything. Should I just hit tab a half-dozen times for each line? (Imagine how loud and annoying that room would be.)
Laura, 7:46 here. The mini review was incredibly helpful-- taught by a former NY essay grader and essentially told us exactly what to write on topics he thought were likely to appear. I highly suggest going into the BarBri office to see if you can watch it in person. That's what I did -- and they didn't charge me.
No apparently no tables or columns allowed. I was pissed about the columns too b/c it said in the directions on that one PT with the freaking "worksheet" to respond using "precisely this format." WTF?! It had like two lines where sentences would be required and there were more like 4 or 5 columns. And I'm not worried about the noise of tab so much as typing multiple sentences and having the formatting get all F'ed up. The PT guy said, "if it's too impossible just ask for paper and start writing." But then you have to write the columns and all of the rest of the test during that three-hour stretch. I'm just praying they won't do anything more than 2. Two I guess I'll just do horizontally. Like
Column 1 Label x, y, z, cont'd on next line.
Column 2 label etc.
re: columns...
Honisburg said it's acceptable to have column 1 follow column 2, so you're doing a vertical, rather than horizontal thing in examsoft. b/c it won't let you do columns and i agree completely about the tabbing and formatting getting messed up.
lots of scrolling if you go vertical but i still think it's better than writing it out.
i'm just hoping they don't do columns.
Can someone point me to a PT in our materials that requires column formatting? I'd just like to take a look at this. Thanks!
My approach to columns is to do it by row.
Row 1, Col 1: XX
Row 1, Col 2: YY
Row 2, Col 1: XX
Row 2, Col 2: YY
Row 3, Col 1: XX
Row 3, Col 2: YY
It'll avoid scrolling and be fairly easy to do with copy, paste and changing the row number.
Despite best intentions I have done no more than the practice PTs barbri assigned. Should I be worried? I had just assumed that as long as I keep my head on my shoulders, I'd be ok... Now that the bar is just days away, I'm getting second doubts...
I just browsed through a few years worth of CA performance test questions and it seems like they've tended to stick to memos and persuasive letters recently. One of the questions from last year was a client options memo that was about 80% factual analysis and had a little fact gathering stuff to it.
What I did for PTs was read through the BarBri book and see what all the PTs included asked me to do (a memo, a case plan, etc) so I would be as prepared for it as anyone--as in avoiding surprises. But I really can't imagine how actually doing more of them for practice will help me on test day.
Thanks for easing my mind. Don't know about the rest of you but I just want to take the thing already (gaps in knowledge and all). These last few days are stressing me out!
Does anyone know what the MBE and non-MBE subject checklists are? It's the assignment on the last two days of Pace Program (which, of course, wasn't followed as much as I had hoped). It says they are in the In-Class workbook but I can't find anything other than those simulated exams.
I'm guessing that it is the couple pages at the front of every section in the Essay Workshop. I've found them pretty helpful as a overview of the topics.
I have to say you guys are MUCH better at answering questions than the barbri attorneys! Yeah boalties! So I have another for you. The corps essay number 5 differentiates between selling assets and selling stock. The assets are worth $15 and the stock is worth $8, and so if controlling shareholder Buff sells his stock at $15 it looks like he is selling assets -- why in the lord's name does it matter what it looks like he is selling? Seriously 1/3 of the answer focuses on this. I can't find anywhere in the outline where it makes this distinction. Can anyone illuminate?
I think it's because the question indicated that the value of the company's assets was $15/share, while the stock was valued at only $8/share. Therefore, when the controlling shareholder went to sell his shares at $15 a share, it could be construed as a fundamental corporate change (one type of fundamental corporate change is the share of a substantial amount of company assets). A fundamental corporate change demands approval by board of directors and approval of shareholders.
I think that's it, but it's been awhile since I looked at that question. I definitely missed that point too.
(Possibly Stupid) Question: For the PT in Examsoft, are we supposed to write everything out in one document, or do we split it up and do the different tasks in different documents? (and my different documents, I mean by using the arrows to move over to a fresh page).
Thanks!
Quoting John Pieper (and stolen, embarrassingly, from ATL):
"Don't get crazy with shit you know you don't know and will never know.
Take a nap if you have to. Wash the drool off your face and keep going. Don't mind the stares of the potential NYU undergrads who will laugh at you.
Your house is a mess. Don't clean it. Go somewhere else.
Get up early.
The dumbest lawyer you ever met passed the bar exam.
Get angry at the bar examiners. Who the hell do they think they are, standing in the way of your dreams?
Think of the people that love you. Dedicate the exam to them even if they have passed on.
Keep a nice steady pace, just like a marathon. I run marathons. No sprints.
Accept that fact that you don't know everything. Make a list of things that you hope are not on the bar exam. Put the list on your wall. Later, laugh at the list when you realize that none of that esoteric shit was on the bar exam.
The next few weeks are gravy. Even if you hit your head on the curb and are in a coma for the next few weeks, you will still pass the bar. I will be there when you wake up. So will your mother.
Monday night, go see a good movie.
Ignore the asshole shrieking about this term's Court of Appeals rulings in the test center immediately before the exam.
Bring a sandwich to the exam. Peanut butter sandwiches are very easy to digest.
Eat the sandwich alone because the assholes shrieking about this term's Court of Appeals rulings have now multiplied.
The assholes will all be eating SPARERIBS, BACHSPIES, and asking for JSTRAWS at the McDonalds next door. Avoid them even if you have to take a cab 10 blocks south.
Don't talk to anyone about the test Tuesday night. If you call me Tuesday night, I will enthusiastically agree with everything you say no matter how stupid you sound.
I promise that I will interrupt whatever I am doing at 9:00 AM sharp on both days of the bar exam and say a prayer for (all capitals) YOU."
Based on the posted answers, I am almost 100% certain that you'll do the PT answer on one page. Then again, i think the examiners can set how many pages are available, so it's possible there may only be one page on the PT exam file anyway.
You should write the PT in one document. I don't remember what I did last year (you can look up the second one if you want--I think 90% of us almost ran out of time doing all 8 factors). I don't even think exam soft would let you write a second document from what I recall.
Stay cool. I saw the model PT answers in some bar summary and it said that I -- and basically everyone I know-- did the second PT from last summer wrong. But we all passed!
I like how that piece said "both" days. Do most states only have two days of testing? Oh California, you always have to be so special don't you.
So, can we start talking about Day-Of considerations?
- what's going in your plastic bag?
- two pillows? no pillows?
- secret food strategies?
- what are you going to do with a 90-120 minute lunch?
- apres-test drinks on Tuesday?
Drinks on Tuesday! Are you crazy?!
Personally I am bringing a book holder -- I am very excited that they are allowed. I also can't understand what all the fuss is about bringing snacks in. Can't people go 3 hours without eating? (I'm more worried about the water than eating.)
I feel like every time I look another essay, it addresses something I feel like I have never seen! I keep thinking I understand everything until I get to another one. Grrr.
Can't wait to get this over with.
But I'm a bit worried b/c I haven't done any MBE questions since the simulated exam :-(
I haven't done any MBE questions since they stopped assigning them like a month ago.
We're about to hit our comment max again, so I'm starting a new thread regarding bar day / reaction stuff. Continue the party there.
Post a Comment
<< Home