The Last Post

I got my MBE score: 154.9 scaled.

I honestly have no clue how it was that high...but I'll take it. :)

Good luck to all future test takers who may stumble upon this page!

I passed :)

I'm really surprised about it, but I did pass somehow. As you can see, I wasn't terribly optimistic about it going into the exam or after I took the exam.

I haven't gotten the score breakdown yet, so I don't know whether the MBE helped me pass or dragged me down.

Either way, though, I'm so glad I don't have to take this test again. Good luck to anyone who reads this in the future and is taking the NY Bar!

(This will likely be my last post, but I might put up one more after I get the MBE breakdown.)

Bar Time

Alright, time for me to leave for NY.  After another week of studying, I'd say there's a chance I pass.  Maybe 50/50.  I would still love another week or two.

Good luck to all the rest of you crazy bar takers as well!

Dear Board of Bar Examiners:

While I realize you have likely thought about the questions for the exam on Tuesday already, if you have not, please allow me to help.

1. Do not include a Wills question.  I know, I know.  It's almost heresy to say this because Wills has been on almost every bar exam.  Now is the time to keep everyone on their toes though! 
2. Do not include obscure subjects like Commercial Paper or No Fault Insurance.  I know what I said about keeping people on their toes, but there's only so much craziness we bar takers need.  Not including Wills is enough, so there's no need to include minor topics like these.
3. Include most of the rest of the biggies, like Contracts, Torts, Criminal Law, and Property.  These are already on the MBE, so people should know them reasonable well.  A fair challenge if you will.
4. For the last essay, Domestic Relations or Corporations will work fine.  If you want to get really crazy, throw some Conflict of Laws or Partnership questions in. 

Thanks for your consideration,

A concerned bar taker

Panic...

...or justified concern?

For a long time on the schedule posts there was a (5-6 days behind) at the end.  For some reason, I just could not seem to get caught up.  There is so much material that it overwhelms you.

Anyway, the reason for this post is because I'm pretty sure I'm not going to pass.  Since the lectures ended, I've been going over everything again and I really just don't know that much.  As I've done some of these practice questions (that's the reason why I was still 4.5 days behind...lots of practice questions), I've realized that I'm missing way too many.

I understand that everyone sort of panics and worries that they don't know enough.  I also understand that 80% of NY's test takers who are JD graduates of ABA approved law schools pass.

That being said, those 4.5 days seem really crucial right about now. 

Now back to studying Torts.  And praying.

Ranking of Lecturers

This list is my subjective ranking of the lecturers for the NY BarBri course.  You can feel free to agree or disagree and I'll try to update the ranking periodically.

1. Roger E. Schechter (George Washington) -- Torts
   This man is in a league of his own.  I could honestly listen to his lectures as entertainment.  He is funnier than most sitcoms and he is really straightforward.  If all BarBri lecturers were this good, it might be worth the money!
2. Roger E. Schechter (George Washington) -- Domestic Relations
   I liked the Torts lecture slightly better, but this should really be ranked 1A because it's almost as good.
3. Paula A. Franzese (Seton Hall) -- Property
   Franzese is amazing.  She is entertaining, clear, concise, and funny.  Prior to having Schechter, I liked her lecture the best, but the gulf between them is much bigger than the gulf between her and Simons.
4. Michael A. Simons (St. John's) -- Criminal Law
   Simons is engaging, clear, and, dare I say, almost entertaining.
5. Michael A. Simons (St. John's) -- Evidence
   Yes, he gets ranked slightly below himself.  A bit less entertaining here, but just as clear.
6. Richard D. Freer (Emory) -- Corporations
   Freer is just a tiny bit below Simons.  He is funny, irreverent, and engaging.  He does kind of sound like he's on a huge caffeine high the entire time though, but not necessarily in a bad way.  He is the Frankie Hejduk of BarBri lecturers.
7. Richard D. Freer (Emory) -- Federal Jurisdiction
   All of Civ Pro I and II in 3 hours.  Yet, he's just as crazy (in a good way) as for corporations.  He realizes that the subjects he teaches are boring and self-awareness helps keep him more engaging as a lecturer.
8. Paula A. Franzese (Seton Hall) -- Secured Transactions / Commercial Paper
   Franzese is not nearly as good here, but that might be a result of the material.  This is some of the most dry and boring material on the bar.
9. J. Kip Cornwell (SHU) -- Criminal Procedure
   Cornwell is somewhat boring, but explains the material fairly clearly.  He is about what I expected out of these lectures.
10. Paul M. Lisnek -- Professional Responsibility
    Lisnek was actually much better for his MPRE lecture.  This New York specific version seemed less focused and poorly organized. 
11. David S. Sokolow (Texas) -- Contracts
    Sokolow is solidly in the middle tier of lecturers.  He knows he's not entertaining, but tries to teach clearly and avoid ridiculous jokes.  In short, he does his job with little fanfare.
12. Joe Tom Easley -- Conflict of Laws
    Similar to Sokolow, he's very clear, very straightforward and just goes over the material.  Can't complain, but certainly won't remember him in 5 years.
13. Tanya K. Hernandez (George Washington) -- Trusts
    She has a good energy level about a boring subject, but has a verbal tic of saying "humh" after a rhetorical question that gets annoying after a few hours.
14. Erwin Chemerinsky (Duke) -- Constitutional Law
    Every lecturer tells bad jokes riddled with puns.  Chemerinsky takes the cake though.  His style is similar to Cornwell's: straightforward and pretty boring.
15. Michael J. Kaufman (Loyola) -- Agency and Partnership
    I've heard that many people really like him, but he seemed genuinely crazy to me. 
16. Vincent C. Alexander (St. John's) -- NY Practice and Procedure
    Alexander uses ridiculous voice inflections and repeats himself much too often.  Many times it feels like he is lecturing to 4th graders rather than law school graduates.  He gets a few points for trying I guess.
17. Erica Fine (BarBri) -- Wills
    I said at the top that this is just one person's subjective ranking.  I'm not trying to be mean about this.  That being said, Fine is dreadful.  She struggles to read from the handout she prepared, she fails to provide clear statements of the rules, and her hypos are the least clear of any BarBri lecturer.  About the only reason I can figure that she is allowed to continue to lecture for BarBri is because she is the Eastern Regional Associate Director of BarBri.  Others seem to share my assessment.

Day 30: Domestic Relations (4.5 days behind)

• Scheduled: July 15
• Actual: July 16
• Subject: Domestic Relations

This was the last lecture, so no more iPod for me.  :)

Perhaps the most interesting fact from the lecture: New York is the only state in the country that does NOT have "no-fault divorce."  Even Mississippi is more progressive than New York!

Schechter is still hilarious though.  I want to go drinking with that guy and just listen to him tell stories. 

Day 29: Federal Jurisdiction (4.5 days behind)

• Scheduled: July 14
• Actual: July 14
• Subject: Federal Jurisdiction

So this was basically like all of Civ Pro I and II in a 3 hour lecture.  Kind of odd, but I do feel like I've heard it all before.

In less exciting news and the reason this post is delayed, my computer died.  Yes, the one that I'm supposed to be taking the New York Bar Exam on in 2 weeks.  I've rush-ordered a new one and I hope it gets here before I have to leave.  If not, I guess I'll cancel the order and go buy a cheap one at Best Buy.  Or rent one from somewhere.  Or something.

Unfortunately, finding a new computer and contacting the exam software people ate up a huge chunk of yesterday.  Not exactly a perfect way to begin the last 2 weeks. 

Day 28: Secured Transactions / Commercial Paper

• Scheduled: July 11
• Actual: July 12
• Subject: Secured Transactions and Commercial Paper

The bright side: these two subjects rarely appear on the bar. 

The not-so-bright side: I just got through with the lecture and I'm not much more clear about them than I was before I started.  And I didn't take either one in law school.  I understand that New York is the financial capital of the world, but do these really need to be on the bar? 

Day 27: Conflict of Laws (5 days behind)

• Scheduled: July 10
• Actual: July 10
• Subject: Conflict of Laws

While I did actual complete this on the scheduled day, I'm still approximately 5 days behind because of things other than lectures that I haven't done yet (like practice questions and reviewing).  At least I'm caught up on lectures though!

Conflicts wasn't bad at all...perhaps because I took the class in my last semester of law school that finished a little over 2 months ago.  I guess I really haven't forgotten much of it yet.  It also rarely appears on the NY bar, so there's a bit less pressure to memorize everything.