perplixityparanoia wrote:That's exactly where I am. I feel like MBE is improving but my essay answers differ vastly from the model answers. Also the length of my answers are short.
Should a passing answer be as long and dense as the model answers?
Short answer: no, those model answers are not written under timed conditions and they are written by experts and/or examiners who know what is being tested. Annoying answer: it depends - if there is a lot of substantive law and judicial considerations, then yes, it actually should be longer and more dense but if you are hitting the relevant subtopics and discussing the same thig as the model answer in a more clear and concise manner, then you are on the right path.
What I find is that listing out the rules and their elements first should set you up to find the issues. There will generally be facts indicating one of the elements are not satisfied but for an exception or requiring a very specific legal rule (i.e. in contracts, release of a legal claim can qualify as consideration if IIRC the releasor believes it was valid & there was no preexisting legal duty - so in a fact pattern, the issue might be “Did Party A believe there was a valid legal claim?). Seems counter-intuitive but your brain naturally doee this when you know a subject cold. It can be helpful to outline for a few minutes first so by the time you start drafting, you’ve reverse engineered a strong intro and are just throwing in the conclusion/decision and analyzing.
Also, it may help to outline a “successul” answer open book to see why achieving those are possible but not realistic. If you look at BarBri’s format for model essays or the NCBE’s models, you will see that there is no “right” way but definitely “wrong” ways to write. I use two different formats for essays and I received 5s on two of my essays this summer and I found my weaker scores were in subjects I hated and was simply not prepared enough for:
1). Pyramid Method - because it results in a weighty intro via a large Rule and then narrows since the application and conclusion are so short
Conclusion (Yes/No). Short statement summing up decision (basically answering the question presented).
Issue
Rule (this is where the pyramid starts)
-state which law applies “Under the laws of...” or “Under the xxx...”
-state general principles
-go through every sub issue’s rule of law
-state exceptions/defenses/applicability
Analysis (go in the same order as how you addressed the above
Conclusion (make sure it matches the above)
2). The I care about Flow But I really should not because the examiners don’t care but please give me points thx method
Conclusion (Yes/No). Short statement summing up decision (basically answering the question presented).
Issue
Rule 1 (same as above but key difference is that I go from general to specific)
Analysis of Rule 1 and Facts
Conclusion As to Rule 1
Exception 1/Defense 1/etc. (typically intro this with “However,...” (e.g. “However, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure/whatever, such and such...”)
Analysis of Exception 1
Conclusion as to Exception 1/Ultimate Conclusion
I find that approach 1 is what I see actual responses look like while Approach 2 results in what you see for the model answers, which is why they look so intimidating. I am not a bar examiner and am obviously re-taking but just looking at my essays with the strongest scores did show something interesting in terms of flow. Student answers tend to follow Approach 1/CIRAC but I think my knowledge of the law and format of Approach 2 highlighted more issues whereas they may get buried in Approach 1. You end up doing the multiple CIRAC method with Approach 2 which just seems so much more lawyerly and presentable. But you can only get there after mastering and practicing Approach 1. If your Issue statements are off, for example, Approach 2 is going to highlight that weaker area so much more because they stand alone.
If you are taking BarBri, it may be helpful to compare the answers to FedCivPro Question 2 and Question 3...then compare them to the travesty that is the answer to Question 8. The former two approaches are just so much cleaner but all of them are “correct” under BarBri’s rules. Ultimately, what happens if you know a rule cold is that if it is a narrow question, you can write a succint answer, but if it is longer or requires more analysis, being able to flag that up front helps because if your practice answer is skimpy in comparison, it means you can outline straight from the model or open book to see what you missed and then that law gets “stuck” in your head. I like to think of each topic as an opportunity to mini-outline so there are general topic-specific phrases I am so used to typing that my stronger topic essay responses just have more meat - remembering crap like FRE 403 is the code provision that touches on the probative vs prejudicial analysis in Evidence or the different ways a corporation can be validly served just adds more to your topic and makes it easier to throw those in while your brain is working overdrive to structure the rest of the answer. You want to be relevant but you also want to use the terms and concepts that build meat around whatever elements apply to show general familiarity of the topic (which is probably why no single applicant that i know of has ever gotten straight 5s or 6s).
I am definitely over-caffeinated today hence the long answer but hopefully this helps you break down why the model answers can seem so long. Not every answer needs to be that verbose and I think you would be in trouble if an answer that just required you to say Yes/No and then list out the elements resulted in you trying to write a longer response when it was not needed.