July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
- Posts: 193
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:15 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Do you guys catch those "nuances" in all the essays, even when they're not emphasized in the lectures/conviser?
Just did a property essay, and the whole thing turned on how recording statutes will not protect a BFP from someone who acquires via adverse possession (or anyone/anything else that takes as an operation of law)
Is this a norm for essays, or does Barbri do this just to freak us out? Also got this on Sec Trans (with accessions) and a few other topics
Just did a property essay, and the whole thing turned on how recording statutes will not protect a BFP from someone who acquires via adverse possession (or anyone/anything else that takes as an operation of law)
Is this a norm for essays, or does Barbri do this just to freak us out? Also got this on Sec Trans (with accessions) and a few other topics
-
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:36 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Can you tell me which Property essay that is in the MEET? I want to take a look at it. Thanks.SowhatsNU wrote:Do you guys catch those "nuances" in all the essays, even when they're not emphasized in the lectures/conviser?
Just did a property essay, and the whole thing turned on how recording statutes will not protect a BFP from someone who acquires via adverse possession (or anyone/anything else that takes as an operation of law)
Is this a norm for essays, or does Barbri do this just to freak us out? Also got this on Sec Trans (with accessions) and a few other topics
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:48 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
I don't have my essay book handy. Mind telling me which essay so I can review that point later (thanks by the way).SowhatsNU wrote:Do you guys catch those "nuances" in all the essays, even when they're not emphasized in the lectures/conviser?
Just did a property essay, and the whole thing turned on how recording statutes will not protect a BFP from someone who acquires via adverse possession (or anyone/anything else that takes as an operation of law)
Is this a norm for essays, or does Barbri do this just to freak us out? Also got this on Sec Trans (with accessions) and a few other topics
To your question, I've heard it both ways. Most tend to assume Barbri's essays are intended for shock and exposure. There was someone on this thread or a different one referring to an official essay question about an obscure evidence rule. I just default to everything being fair game and being glad that I saw that issue before the exam. For what it's worth, if IT is an incredibly obscure point of law, you're going to be in the boat with most other people. I don't know if that matters, but it's something.
-
- Posts: 193
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:15 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
No problem! It was Q1 from the property sets- July 2007- i just looked back at it again, and I may have exaggerated in that the entire essay doesn't turn on AP being superior title, but I'd say its a pretty substantial component of the answer (imo at least- maybe im being paranoid)NB12017 wrote:I don't have my essay book handy. Mind telling me which essay so I can review that point later (thanks by the way).SowhatsNU wrote:Do you guys catch those "nuances" in all the essays, even when they're not emphasized in the lectures/conviser?
Just did a property essay, and the whole thing turned on how recording statutes will not protect a BFP from someone who acquires via adverse possession (or anyone/anything else that takes as an operation of law)
Is this a norm for essays, or does Barbri do this just to freak us out? Also got this on Sec Trans (with accessions) and a few other topics
To your question, I've heard it both ways. Most tend to assume Barbri's essays are intended for shock and exposure. There was someone on this thread or a different one referring to an official essay question about an obscure evidence rule. I just default to everything being fair game and being glad that I saw that issue before the exam. For what it's worth, if IT is an incredibly obscure point of law, you're going to be in the boat with most other people. I don't know if that matters, but it's something.
I guess I'll just skim thru all 8 essays for each topic (if i can make it thru) in the hopes that I catch any weird nuances they might throw at us on Tuesday
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:48 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Thanks! I think skimming through everything is a pretty safe bet at this point, on top of a general review with emphasis on trouble areas. I hear about folks grinding through last minute MBE questions. Not the worst idea if you're not dwelling on accuracy.SowhatsNU wrote:No problem! It was Q1 from the property sets- July 2007- i just looked back at it again, and I may have exaggerated in that the entire essay doesn't turn on AP being superior title, but I'd say its a pretty substantial component of the answer (imo at least- maybe im being paranoid)NB12017 wrote:I don't have my essay book handy. Mind telling me which essay so I can review that point later (thanks by the way).SowhatsNU wrote:Do you guys catch those "nuances" in all the essays, even when they're not emphasized in the lectures/conviser?
Just did a property essay, and the whole thing turned on how recording statutes will not protect a BFP from someone who acquires via adverse possession (or anyone/anything else that takes as an operation of law)
Is this a norm for essays, or does Barbri do this just to freak us out? Also got this on Sec Trans (with accessions) and a few other topics
To your question, I've heard it both ways. Most tend to assume Barbri's essays are intended for shock and exposure. There was someone on this thread or a different one referring to an official essay question about an obscure evidence rule. I just default to everything being fair game and being glad that I saw that issue before the exam. For what it's worth, if IT is an incredibly obscure point of law, you're going to be in the boat with most other people. I don't know if that matters, but it's something.
I guess I'll just skim thru all 8 essays for each topic (if i can make it thru) in the hopes that I catch any weird nuances they might throw at us on Tuesday
Thanks again. Good luck to you and to all.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:41 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Can anyone explain to me what the difference between (wills) Advancement and Ademption by Satisfaction is?
-
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:45 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Yeah I actually called the Barbra teacher on this yesterday. They are the same exact concept..satisfaction is just when there's a will involved and advancement is just when there is no will and there's only intestacy..
- runthetrap1990
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:38 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Last minute Contract question:
I know U.C.C. presumes partial integration for sales contracts as it pertains to application of parol evidence. So I have three questions related to that. First, is the common law presumption that the written agreement is a complete integration? Second, given the U.C.C. presumption of partial integration, is the parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements to the contract still inadmissible to change or contradict the terms where you are dealing with sale of goods? And finally, can you still admit oral evidence of a collateral provision that would not normally be contracted for in the current contract whether or not the contract is partially or completely integrated?
I know U.C.C. presumes partial integration for sales contracts as it pertains to application of parol evidence. So I have three questions related to that. First, is the common law presumption that the written agreement is a complete integration? Second, given the U.C.C. presumption of partial integration, is the parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements to the contract still inadmissible to change or contradict the terms where you are dealing with sale of goods? And finally, can you still admit oral evidence of a collateral provision that would not normally be contracted for in the current contract whether or not the contract is partially or completely integrated?
-
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:45 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
runthetrap1990 wrote:Last minute Contract question:
I know U.C.C. presumes partial integration for sales contracts as it pertains to application of parol evidence. So I have three questions related to that. First, is the common law presumption that the written agreement is a complete integration? Second, given the U.C.C. presumption of partial integration, is the parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements to the contract still inadmissible to change or contradict the terms where you are dealing with sale of goods? And finally, can you still admit oral evidence of a collateral provision that would not normally be contracted for in the current contract whether or not the contract is partially or completely integrated?
Not sure about the presumption but.. I know that even if it is partially integrated you can still only supplement or explain with parol evidence you cannot contradict...pretty sure the answer third question is yes you can as long as the K is silent on the issue and it is just supplementing...
-
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:45 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Adverse possession question..if you start adversely possessing and then the owner of the land dies or title is transferred to a new owner, your adverse possession is still good, correct? I think so because the disability must be apparent at the start of the adverse possession right.?
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:17 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
I remember seeing a question about this on Adaptibar/Barbri. It depends. If the disability existed at the start of adverse possession, then it tolls the date that AP began; otherwise, it's irrelevant.bballbb02 wrote:Adverse possession question..if you start adversely possessing and then the owner of the land dies or title is transferred to a new owner, your adverse possession is still good, correct? I think so because the disability must be apparent at the start of the adverse possession right.?
So if A adverse possesses Blackacre from B, and B's daughter C is the successor in interest, then A's AP will be tolled if C was disabled at the start of A's AP even though C did not have title to Blackacre when A's AP started. If C became disabled at some later date, then you just disregard it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...
- cnk1220
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Good luck tomorrow everyone!
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:32 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Did anybody watch Jennifer the Blond's MPQ set review video and her "Grid" strategy, where you keep track of questions you skipped on a separate piece of paper? That looks awesome and I'm gonna do it, but uhhhh....
We aren't allowed scrap paper right? How are people doing this?
We aren't allowed scrap paper right? How are people doing this?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- cricketlove00
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Jennifer is an idiot.
Also does anyone else feel like they've been run over by a truck? What was some of that shit.
Also does anyone else feel like they've been run over by a truck? What was some of that shit.
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:44 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Lol at those questions.
- RCinDNA
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:55 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Some of then were so weirdly worded that I thought for sure a BarBri rep was going to pop up and say "Surprise!"
- cricketlove00
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Defense of third person? Marital adversity?RCinDNA wrote:Some of then were so weirdly worded that I thought for sure a BarBri rep was going to pop up and say "Surprise!"
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:40 am
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Anyone else start writing snarky comments on the questions in their test booklet? Some of the questions were just so insane, there was nothing left to do but write "good god what the hell man" at the top of it.
- cricketlove00
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
I drew a lot of frowny faces.elcee1987 wrote:Anyone else start writing snarky comments on the questions in their test booklet? Some of the questions were just so insane, there was nothing left to do but write "good god what the hell man" at the top of it.
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:38 am
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Exactly. Lol at Barbri for not explaining this. And that "tip" came really late. Like way after you've already developed your whole strategy. I ended up just ticking the numbers on the bubble sheet.Scaramouche wrote:Did anybody watch Jennifer the Blond's MPQ set review video and her "Grid" strategy, where you keep track of questions you skipped on a separate piece of paper? That looks awesome and I'm gonna do it, but uhhhh....
We aren't allowed scrap paper right? How are people doing this?
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:48 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
I made a point of trying to avoid people after both days. Too many people seemed ready and willing to discuss things we agreed not to discuss. One of the downsides of not talking about something (or not being able to talk about specifics) is you do kind of lose out on the catharsis of commiserating over a shared experience. So I wanted to at least try to do that here, within the acceptable limits.
I took the Missouri bar. I walked out both days of the exam completely wrecked and distraught. As did everyone from my school. Nobody talked. Everyone shot each other looks, waved off any words of encouragement or discussion and headed straight for their room. The only people who seemed exceedingly confident were a big group from SLU and some guys from Carbondale.
I used two different services and parts of a third to prep for this. Felt like I had pretty good exposure to official and "less tested" material. Lots and lots of official material. And I have to say there were times during both days when I thought the exam felt a little malevolent. Like at some point it had ceased to be a minimum competency exam. Or maybe someone had been paying attention when those bar prep courses advised that a subject or area of law was "rarely tested." Maybe everyone feels that way after every exam?
Around social media (and here), there's a sentiment that Barbri somehow dropped the ball. Do you all think so? What could they have done differently (generally speaking)?
I took the Missouri bar. I walked out both days of the exam completely wrecked and distraught. As did everyone from my school. Nobody talked. Everyone shot each other looks, waved off any words of encouragement or discussion and headed straight for their room. The only people who seemed exceedingly confident were a big group from SLU and some guys from Carbondale.
I used two different services and parts of a third to prep for this. Felt like I had pretty good exposure to official and "less tested" material. Lots and lots of official material. And I have to say there were times during both days when I thought the exam felt a little malevolent. Like at some point it had ceased to be a minimum competency exam. Or maybe someone had been paying attention when those bar prep courses advised that a subject or area of law was "rarely tested." Maybe everyone feels that way after every exam?
Around social media (and here), there's a sentiment that Barbri somehow dropped the ball. Do you all think so? What could they have done differently (generally speaking)?
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
I think time will tell re: Barbri dropping the ball. Obviously if pass rates are significantly lower, particularly for the MBE, that reflects Barbri having an issue (since it's the largest prep company IIRC). I think it is generally common, on TLS and elsewhere, to feel like you failed the MBE though.
Just my two cents, but I think part of it is that some questions are experimental, part of it is that NCBE doesn't release many recent questions (so it's tough to prepare for exactly how they test topics), and part of it is that the anxiety festers after the actual exam-- versus when you take a practice exam, you are immediately able to score yourself, and I think that is generally a comfort for most people.
That being said, I felt wildly unprepared for the MBE.
Just my two cents, but I think part of it is that some questions are experimental, part of it is that NCBE doesn't release many recent questions (so it's tough to prepare for exactly how they test topics), and part of it is that the anxiety festers after the actual exam-- versus when you take a practice exam, you are immediately able to score yourself, and I think that is generally a comfort for most people.
That being said, I felt wildly unprepared for the MBE.
-
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:58 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
To some extent the bar exam is impossible to fully prepare for. There's so much material that a good portion of your success will come down to luck (e.g. the exam test on things you remember). It's a bit of a scam if you ask me.
- cricketlove00
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
I don't know if I would say that Barbri dropped the ball as there were things on the MBE that were tested on Barbri.
However, the test itself just felt different. It's hard to explain. The questions sounded different and often used weird language (maybe those were experimental). That being said, the things that seemed central to Barbri's program in various subjects (e.g., Miranda and fourth amendment searches for crim pro, equal protection and SDP for con law) were barely tested, while other parts of those subjects were heavily tested. I feel more misled than anything.
However, the test itself just felt different. It's hard to explain. The questions sounded different and often used weird language (maybe those were experimental). That being said, the things that seemed central to Barbri's program in various subjects (e.g., Miranda and fourth amendment searches for crim pro, equal protection and SDP for con law) were barely tested, while other parts of those subjects were heavily tested. I feel more misled than anything.
-
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:20 am
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Not to get into conspiracy theories, but the law business is like a private club. They only want a certain amount of people to become lawyers. The bar is deliberately designed to generate a bell curve. This is not a test of minimum competency- of course everyone knows the elements of adverse possession and negligence. It's basically a test to weed people out of the business. That's why they keep adding these esoteric topics to bar exams. If you look at the bar exams from the early-1990's, they were MUCH easier.bmmccb223 wrote:To some extent the bar exam is impossible to fully prepare for. There's so much material that a good portion of your success will come down to luck (e.g. the exam test on things you remember). It's a bit of a scam if you ask me.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login