Seperac UBE MASTER Outline Analysis page
Much like how I use statistical analysis to estimate examinee scores and outcomes, I also use statistical analysis to prioritize exam topics. For more information on how the MASTER priorities are determined and how they should be utilized, click on the below link:
As far as I am aware, I am the only bar review that documents the accuracy of their "predictions" in detail and publicly reports this information. However, I am loathe to call them predictions because in my analysis of bar exam essay topics over the past ten years, I have concluded that you cannot predict the essay topics for an upcoming exam – you can only assess topic priorities. These MEE essay priorities use statistical analysis to determine which topics are not likely to appear on the upcoming exam. Basically, once I have all the data (including the most recent exam), I run scenarios on how the priorities would have worked on past exams. Put simply, once I assess what topics are not expected to appear, I am left with the topics expected to appear.
If you look at the NCBE MEE Subject Matter Outline, there are 365 ABC level categories (as designated by the outline level A., B., C. etc) that are testable on the MEE. Every major bar review will give you content to study for each of these 365 categories. My UBE MASTER outline will likewise give you content to study for these 365 ABC categories. However, I take an approach that no one else does. I examine each and every ABC category and how it has been tested over the past 48 MEE exams. I determine how much each ABC category contributes to an examinee’s total score per exam. I then assess the likelihood of each ABC category appearing on the upcoming exam. For example, once a particular ABC category appears, it is statistically not expected to appear for a certain number of exams. I factor in 12 different statistical determinations pertaining to the category to establish these priorities. Accurate priorities enable examinees to significantly reduce their MEE study without significantly affecting their MEE scoring potential. Since these UBE Course subscribers are able to study less for the MEE without hurting their essay scores, they shift that time to the MBE to increase their odds of passing.
Every essay topic priority designation in my UBE MASTER outline is based on a logical set of criteria to establish its priority. The priorities may sometimes seem illogical (i.e. a frequently appearing topic has a low priority or a rarely appearing topic has a high priority). This is because one cannot simply look at the frequency of a topic to determine its priority. Put simply, a high frequency topic cannot appear on each and every exam and the MASTER priorities account for that. The determination of MASTER priorities is strictly formula based – I do not make any subjective assessments. Accordingly, the priorities are reactive – if the examiners modify how they select previously tested topics, the MASTER priorities change accordingly. Often, I am not even aware of the current priority of a specific topic since my opinion plays no role in the determination of the priorities.
I regard my UBE MASTER as the optimal size in regards to content. A more condensed outline is ineffective if it doesn't appropriately cover the material being tested. The Seperac UBE MASTER outline breaks down how every single MEE issue has been tested (organized by NCBE ABC category) going back to 1995. This will teach you a lot of the ways that an MEE issue can be tested. A good deal of the law tested on the MEE circles back to my UBE MASTER outline beccause this outline contains every issue tested on released MEE and MBE questions from the 1990s to present. For example, a subscriber who recently passed explained how he utilized MASTER effectively while taking a full bar review: “As for learning the material, after watching the Barbri lectures (taking notes, and reviewing my notes,) I would use your subject outlines again, which I did obsessively. I used the MASTER primarily to direct my Essay studying. More important than your sample answers, was that I was able to use it to determine which very hard subjects NOT to spend too much time on. If there was a topic that was giving me a very hard time, but you had it on LOW priority, it saved me a lot of time. That was incredibly valuable. The only way in which I varied from your exam day recommendations, is that I did the MPT first since it seemed scary to me. In the end, I felt good about my performance on the essays, and it must have been good, since I passed with a 134.0 MBE (which is, as I understand it, on the lower end of the "passable" MBE score range.) If you have any more questions or any follow up questions, please feel free to ask. My law school GPA indicated that I should have trouble passing, but your website and just having you as a resource was extremely important in helping me make sure that I passed the first time."
Even though the bar examiners may "shake things up" occasionally, there still needs to be an overall consistency to essay topic selection. Put simply, the more inconsistent the examiners are with essay topic selection, the less likely the exam will determine an applicant’s proficiency. For example, if a large number of obscure topics were tested, most examinees would do poorly on them, making it harder to distinguish applicants sufficiently to determine who is qualified versus unqualified. After I develop the statistical methodologies for the priorities, I test how these conditions would have worked on past exams (e.g. if I made a F17 MEE MASTER, how well would it have predicted J17 MEE topics, etc.). This “scenario testing” serves as a confirmation that the priorities are on point. If this was not the case, I would never release a prioritized list and tell examinees to rely on it. I regard it as bar review malpractice to give advice to someone that requires them to take significant calculated risks in their studying unless it is strongly supported by the data.
In my analysis, whether a subject is expected on an upcoming MEE exam to appear is only 1 factor out of 12 that I use in determining priorities. For example, about 35% of the priorities changed between the J17 UBE MASTER outline and the F18 UBE MASTER outline. The problem with "guessing" on subjects is that there will always be a curve-ball where NCBE seems to pick a random subject or two (perhaps by throwing darts). Often it seems they deliberately choose a subject not expected to repeat specifically for that reason. Thus, while subject predictions may warrant some additional focus, if you heavily rely on subject predictions, you run the risk of being unprepared for more than 1/3 of the MEE. This is why I opt to prioritize subject topics rather than gamble on an entire subject. I believe if you study based on topic priority, you will have a better “feel” for the exam as a whole than if you study based on subject. A perfect example of this is the Secured Transaction essay on the J16 MEE. Many examinees ignored Secured Transactions because it had appeared on the F16 MEE, and so many examinees ended up doing poorly on this essay (out of 150+ examinees who sent me their scores, 7 examinees didn't even write a word for this question). However, if you followed the J16 MASTER priorities, three of the Secured Transaction categories tested (worth 57% of your essay score) were designated as HIGH priority in the July 2016 MASTER outline while three of the Secured Transaction categories tested (worth 33% of your score) were marked as LOW priority.
Put simply, predictions are harmful if they are not reasonably accurate. For example, there are a number of other bar reviews that offer condensed/prioritized topics or predictions, so let's think about this logically. For every bar review that offers condensed/prioritized topics or predictions, they can either (1) not examine whether their condensed/prioritized topics or predictions were accurate/on point after each exam; or (2) examine the accuracy of their condensed/prioritized topics/predictions after each exam. Let's suppose a bar review does NOT examine whether their condensed/prioritized topics or predictions were accurate/on point after each exam. This is bad. A bar review that does not examine the effectiveness of their condensed/prioritized topics or predictions is doing a huge disservice to its customers. Basically, they are telling their customers to take significant risk by trusting them, but then they have no idea whether or not their condensed/prioritized topics or predictions are helpful or hurtful to their customers. Accordingly, I will presume that all bar reviews that offer condensed/prioritized topics or predictions actually examine the accuracy of their condensed/prioritized topics/predictions after each exam. If we presume that bar reviews that offer condensed/prioritized topics/predictions also analyze their effectiveness, these bar reviews can either: (1) publish their results in detail (so they can be investigated) or (2) not publish their results (or be very vague and provide no details). Since it is presumed that the bar reviews have compiled the information and done the research, it is not difficult to publish these results. Again, I regard it as a disservice to their customers to not publish results that have already been compiled. The only reason I can see to not publish already compiled results is because they are not advantageous or embarrassing to the bar review.
The main purpose of the UBE MASTER outline and relying on these priorities is to allow for abbreviated studying so that examinees can divert that extra time to MBE studying/practice. For example, following are follow-ups from recent examinees who successfully utilized the UBE MASTER outline to pass the exam using my methodology:
The main purpose of the UBE MASTER outline and relying on the priorities is to efficiently abbreviate your MBE/MEE study so that examinees can divert that extra time to MBE study/practice. This can be a cause for both anxiety and relief. For example, one examinee recently told me "Just focusing on MBE, through a bit scary psychologically, at the same time I feel eased because have a direction." However, this strategy is very effective if examinees can score high enough on the MBE (and sometimes even if you don't). Since examinees learn by example, following are other examples of how examinees successfully utilized the UBE MASTER outline and subscription site materials/advice (just click on the link to expand the examinee's comments - if the comments don't appear, try a different browser such as Chrome):
I think there are a few factors that contributed to my success.
First, I succeeded because I adopted your approach. I essentially put my complete trust in your advice.
In particular, After attending BARBRI's two-day online MBE intensive (basically a two day introduction to the MBE), I quickly realised that BARBRI's approach was inefficient for strong students. This led me to research a better approach. As soon as I read your site, it was obvious that the reasoning behind your approach was rigorous. I don't think anyone understands more about this exam than you. Once I followed your approach, I was able to separate the important from the unimportant and make rapid progress.
Second, I focused on the MBE. I knew I would struggle to study for more than 200-250 hours with my schedule. I accordingly focused almost entirely on the MBE, where I knew my efforts would be rewarded. Simply put, the MBE is reliable. The MEE and MPT are not. Moreover, the MBE subjects appear on the MEE. The maths is quite simple from there. Your analysis of the MEE and MPT gave me confidence to focus on the MBE. This also had the encouraging psychological effect of making the task seem much more manageable. When the task seems manageable, the urge to procrastinate is diminished. This allows greater progress, and, in turn, greater progress results provides further motivation to study, in a self-reinforcing cycle. I distinctly remember this phenomenon.
In focusing on the MBE, I tried to do as many practice questions as time permitted once I felt that I had a basic grasp of the materials. Practice questions are definitely helpful. I almost exclusively used the Adaptibar questions. I noticed my score increase by about 2 or 3% per day. I only started doing the questions around 10 July, which I do not recommend. I found the bar exam questions to be very similar in format and structure to the Adaptibar questions.
I did not even read several MEE subjects, such as Partnerships and Conflict of Laws. I spent about 4 hours in total between Agency, Corporations Law and Trusts. This is because the principles are similar to Australian law so there were some synergies.
Family Law and Wills are more distant from Australian law (though I don't know much abot Australian Family/Wills Law!), so I spent more time on them - probably 8 hours between both.
Third, I'm a relatively strong student and went to a competitive law school. I also worked at the most competitive law firm in Australia. The high level of competition forced me to develop the ability to work in a focused manner. This is an important advantage.
I think the third element is less helpful for your students, but certainly the first two should be applied by your students.
Please feel free to refer any students to me if you think they would benefit from my advice.
Dear Joe,
Just wanted to let you know that I passed the NY bar! I have only you and your materials to thank.
I went into studying with quite a bit of self-doubt, considering that I did not particularly shine in law school (second lower) and the ny bar statistics were against me (foreign-educated first-time asian taker). Since I was in NY for a year (while my husband was doing an LLM) and had some time on my hands, I took the bar exam purely as a personal challenge (yes I know I'm crazy and yes i did not know what i was getting myself into!!). I really struggled at the start (especially with constitutional law), and at many points did consider giving up. But the quote that I read on your blog (see below) spurred me on when I was at my lowest, and I continued pressing on, while wholeheartedly trusting your notes and strategy.
At the end of 2 gruelling exam days (taken while still jet-lagged), I was fairly confident that I had passed. My mbe score turned out to be 162.7, and I received a total score of 327.
If I had to give advice to future takers, it would be to not give in to negative self-talk or get too disheartened based on early test scores, and instead understand why you got an mbe question wrong, and to quickly find a system for collating and organizing the mbe rules. You recommended creating an MBE rules list on excel/word, but I quickly realised that reviewing the list on the laptop didn't work for me as I wasn't used to studying off the laptop. Instead, I wrote MBE rules on post-it notes and stuck each rule on the relevant portions of your hard-copy Master notes.
On hindsight, I would not have paid for Themis as I didn't watch a single lecture, did not use any of their MEE or MPT materials, and never submitted any essays for grading. Your materials alone (together with the barbri long outlines as reference for points that require more elaboration), and mbe test books from the various companies (Kaplan, Barbri, S&T) would've more than sufficed. For the MEE, on hindsight, doing and re-doing your top 50 essays document alone would also have sufficed as they were extremely spot-on.
Thank you once again for helping me pass this beast of an exam, and more importantly, for teaching me never to give up! It is a lesson that I will take with me into my professional life and well beyond this exam. Cheers and I wish you every blessing!
I wanted to drop you a line to say thank you - your outlines were superb and I relied on your past questions analysis and model answers a great deal when I took the New York Bar (for the first time) in July.
I work full time as a capital markets lawyer in London, so I was extremely busy, and being able to rely on your outlines and other materials made a huge difference. I also used Themis (I think I managed to complete 50% of the course), which I found helpful, but your materials were better!
My UBE mark was 307 and I got 162.7 on the MBE.
I started studying for the bar at the beginning of April. I downloaded Barmax onto my iPhone and went through all the outlines and did the practice questions. I was getting around 60-70%. I felt in May that it would be sensible to use one of the more comprehensive bar course providers, given that my legal education was in the UK, and chose Themis (I felt Barbri was too expensive). I didn’t hear about your materials until around the end of May, when I met a fellow English lawyer who studied for the February exam and is a lawyer at White & Case. He recommended your outlines and I thought the outlines looked excellent, so thought I would use both your master outlines and the Themis materials.
Here is a broad outline of my approach to studying:
Unfortunately, during May, June and July, I had a very busy few months at work, so I was working on some tough transactions (bank restructuring and secondary offerings and the like), from 8.30am to 10pm most days and working a few weekends. I was quite unlucky being so busy at work at that time and was therefore forced to work on prep for the bar exam late at night during the week and at weekends when I could. It was a very stressful and tiring time, but as I had never studied US law before, I found it interesting (particularly US constitutional law, which I think is significantly more sophisticated than UK constitutional law) and so this helped motivate me as I worked through. This probably sounds crazy, but I also watched the Ken Burns documentary on the Civil War, which I think was on PBS during the 90’s, over April and May which helped contextualized some of the constitutional law I was studying and brought some of the material alive, in a way.
In terms of total hours spent studying, I tried to do 2-3 hours a night and probably studied 10-15 hours a day at weekends with a couple of hours as a break. I did take one or two afternoons at weekends off during this period. I also took the weekend off 1.5 weeks before the exam to try to recharge and relax and forget about the exam. On the Mon to Fri before the exam, I took the week as annual leave from work and crammed for the MEE-only subjects by reading the Themis outlines and your outlines. I crammed the MEE subjects quite desperately fin Albany just before the exam. I also did a couple of practice MBE exams using the Barmax app when I flew to NYC and on the way to Albany.
I therefore did around 30-40 hours a week from mid-April to mid-July, then 75 hours the week before and a further 45 hours in Albany. In total, I probably studied around 500-600 hours.
Re my studying pattern, from May I generally read outlines for a subject from cover to cover, both Themis and your master outlines, and then did Themis practice MBE questions. I also tried to make a list of key questions to answer for each sub-area (e.g. offer/acceptance, consideration, defenses against formation, etc. for contract) almost as in flashcard questions, but found this was too time-consuming, so did this for about 6 MBE subjects and then didn’t bother for the rest of them. I found that having the Themis outlines and your master outlines, and making sense of them both, forced me to rationalize the structure of the subjects and reading about the subject-matter from two perspectives helped my understanding. I truly found your outlines superb - the condensing of information and format of the outlines was flawless and invaluable. It meant I didn’t have to make my own outlines in the end, which saved heaps of time to allow me to focus on understanding and learning the subject-matter, rather than processing the Themis outlines into useable outlines myself, which I suspect a lot of people end up spending huge amounts of time doing.
I did some practice essays with Themis and started reading through your materials containing past papers together with model answers and your own analysis, which I found extremely helpful. I did about 3-4 practice essays with Themis. I received a ridiculous grade from my grader like 4/30 or something for the first two, so I complained to Themis and was assigned a different grader. The new grader was better: I got better feedback and more sensible grades. The first 3 practice essays were MBE subject essays and the last one was, I think, a company law essay.
My best guess is that the MBE subjects took up 80% of my study time, perhaps more. That I spent this proportion of time was, perhaps, in retrospect, a mistake, as I was very worried about the MEE in the end. The MPT seemed to me to be something you cannot sensibly prepare for and, as I did not have the luxury of time, all I did was look through half a dozen past papers and answers and I memorized your notes and tips on the MPT in your last minute notes for the exam.
Looking back, I think a key thing for passing was taking a week off work before the exams to cram as much as I could for the MEE. I had generally neglected the MEE subjects and had to learn all of them in a week! Luckily I had tried to learn secured transactions back in April, as this felt very unfamiliar, so I tried to understand this area as an initial priority using Barmax. I also have studied or practiced company, agency, partnership, conflicts, wills and trusts in the UK, which are very similar to the rules in the US, so that made things easier. Family law was totally new, so this took some time to work through, but I focussed on reading through your model answers to learn the law here. I am very glad I did all the subjects, including the ones I felt unlikely to come up, such as conflicts and wills.
In total, I did nearly all of the 1500 or so MBE questions on Barmax and I did about another 1000 on Themis, so about 2500 in total. I went from achieving around 60-70% after having read the outlines to getting around 80-85% in the mock exams nearer the exam day. During my flight to JFK from London and my train journey to Albany, I did 2x mock MBE exams using the past questions on Barmax. I achieved around 85% on these, which I found very motivational and gave me the confidence to spend the 3 days I had in Albany before the exam in my hotel room cramming for the MEE subjects. I found the actual MBE questions on the day much tougher than the Barmax questions, by the way.
I watched/listened to very few of the Barmax or Themis lectures as I have never found lectures a particularly efficient or effectual way of learning or assimilating knowledge. I found a few Themis lectures helpful where my understanding was a bit hazy, and found the constitutional law lectures helpful.
If I had to attribute my passing to just one thing, it was practicing as many exam questions as possible and looking at model answers for the MEE and constantly thinking about what I would need to know when I am sitting down in the exam room. The fear of sitting in a room with no notes and having to face an exam paper alone with recourse to only one’s brain really focuses the mind while revising! I have found visualizing this whenever I have had to do exams helpful in the past.
Please do let me know if you have any further questions - very happy to answer them.
I've finally gotten around to answering! Sorry for the delay. Long email below but I've also written it to save in my own notes for the future (in case I take another bar exam in 5 years or a friend takes it for example), so there might be more detail than is useful to you. I ended up with a total score of 317 and a scaled MBE score of 159.5.
Your materials are incredibly well written and were invaluable in my preparation, as were your recommendations, structured approach and quick responses whenever I emailed you, so thank you very much!!
MBE subjects
I quickly decided my approach was to score 140+ on the MBE and just 'do enough' on the written parts to pass.
I spent around 80-85% of my time on the MBE subjects, starting 85 days before the exam by reading notes and doing around 10 questions a day (and making rules) but really accelerating with 2 months left. I followed one of your subscriber’s tips by condensing your MASTER topic notes into my own semi-condensed notes (10-12 pages), and then once more into a 1-2 page condensed summary, and I then recorded myself reading the semi-condensed notes which I listened to on the way to work. This was a fun way to study, I also recorded it with a ‘goofy’ voice in parts, i.e. it wasn’t a monotone reading of 12 pages of law, which helped my brain associate the way I spoke with the rules after listening to the recordings multiple times. I also memorized the 1-2 page summary which was a brainstorm-style “map”, including the placement of the words on the page, so when thinking about impeachment for example, I could “see” the different ways to impeach and my flow diagrams coming from that. This took a lot of effort to learn but I think it was invaluable in getting the framework of each subject in my head. Then when doing practice questions I could add (or ‘hang’) more complex information onto the map. Doing this plus all the MBE practice questions took up easily 80% of my study time.
As for practice questions, I religiously made my own rules (I didn’t read yours, sorry!) and from 85 days before to 13 days before the exam I did a combination of Emanuel, BarBri and PMBR questions, making rules for both the questions I got right and wrong (but highlighting the ones I got wrong for additional reviewing). With 10 days to go I did the Emanuel book mock exam (76% correct) and made rules for only the questions I got wrong. This took me to 1368 questions total and 69% correct, all timed, and all in 1.8 minutes / question or less. I also did a few more questions in the final 10 days but fewer than normal as I was concentrating on essays and MPT, and I didn’t make rules or add statistics to my spreadsheet in these last 10 days so I don’t know how many I did.
The one thing I would attribute to my score above all else is, you’ll be unsurprised to hear, doing practice questions and making my own rules. This was such a great way to reinforce the information I was reading in the outlines.
On the exam I used the underdog strategy (perhaps a little too aggressively but overall I think it worked out advantageously). I believe you recommended answering the full 100 questions before going over answers you weren’t sure about or didn’t answer and putting the least represented answer choice for those questions. I actually started thinking about this after around 60 questions in both the morning and afternoon sessions, which I realize isn’t as accurate over a rather small sample size. What I did was put a dot by a question which I had narrowed down to 2 answers that was a toss-up but I entered the answer I thought was correct at that time, and two dots by a question where I had only eliminated 1 or 0 incorrect answers and I left that question blank. In the morning session I think I had answer choice A) very underrepresented after 60 or so questions, so over the remaining 40 when I was in a “final 2” situation I leaned towards A), and then after 100 questions I reviewed my 1 dot and 2 dot questions and put the least represented answer after 100 questions if it was suitable (or the second least represented answer after 100 questions if the least represented answer was one of the possibilities I was sure was incorrect). I knew I was going to finish on time because I’d done so much timed practice, so I was able to implement this plan without problems. I’d also add that I think it made sense for me to take this approach because I was scoring fairly highly in practice questions so there was a good chance the questions I did answer first time around were correct.
MEE and MPT
I learnt the MBE subjects exhaustively, but for the MEE subjects I didn’t really bother with the low priority subjects, and I just glossed over the medium priority subjects. I started with the MEE subjects about 60-50 days before the exam.
I was disappointed that 4 of the 6 essays in the Feb 17 exam were on the non-MBE subjects, which I thought really damaged my chances of passing. If you’re interested, at the end of this email I’ve copied the notes I made for myself the day after the exam with my impressions of the essay questions. I also gave myself estimated scores which I now know to be too low. On reflection, I imagine my contracts and property questions (essays 1 and 6) and the MPT must have been good marks in order to give me my final written score.
I started with question 6 (property, nailed it) and planned to work backwards but ended up doing 6, 3, 1, 2, 4, 5. I panicked a bit when I saw questions 5, 4 and 3 because I had no idea as they were non-MBE subjects but figured I had to get on with it. Doing 1 next (contracts) calmed me down and then I did my best with 2, 4 and 5. I wouldn’t recommend skipping around like this as I think I just wasted time.
In the 20 or so days before the exam I wrote maybe 10-15 practice essays, I honestly can’t remember now and I didn’t keep detailed notes. I also liked your essay summary document for the high priority subjects which I skimmed through for all the MEE subjects. There was loads I didn’t know but my approach was to get 140+ on the MBE and just waffle through the essays. I didn't read or do any essays for the MBE subjects.
I didn’t look at the MPT at all until a week before and I did 4 timed practice questions, including 2 the day before the exam. I think I write concisely and clearly and I followed all your advice on citations and formatting. Your MPT strategy document was the only resource I used.
Fundamentally my approach was in line with your thinking, that you should identify areas where there is high upside potential in relation to time spent studying (I didn’t spend much time on 3rd party beneficiaries or the RAP for example). One example of this (which didn’t pay off) is that I actually learned secured transactions pretty well, even though it had appeared on the previous 2 exams. I thought that if it did show up, so many other examinees would have ignored it that I would have made a killing in comparison (and it’s a fairly uncomplex, mechanical subject that doesn’t take long to learn).
Overall I probably spent 4 hours a day studying, really starting 2 months before the exam. I was working during this time but took 6 days off before the first exam to study full time.
A foreign examinee repeater who subscribed in July 2017 passed the DC bar exam with an MBE of 147.1 and a written score of 141.2 (written of 288.3) after failing F17 with an MBE of 113.1 and written of 128.9 (UBE of 242). The examinee told me: “I am writing to let you know that, after two failed attempts, I have finally passed the bar exam in D.C. Thank you so much, Joe!!! I am extremely grateful for your support. I am aware that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other students who subscribed to your site and tremendously benefited from it -- but I must, too, testify that I have found your material extremely helpful. Unfortunately, D.C. does not release its scores. But I can tell you that, with my previous UBE scores of 248 and 242, my July 2017 score has increased by at least 24 points since the past attempts (since the passing threshold is 266 in D.C.). I believe I already sent in my UBE post-exam information form, but if you need anything else from me, please let me know (I like data, too). To re-cap, two most helpful tips I found are: (1) focusing on MBE, (2) using multiple sources (OPE a MUST) + at least one of Barbri/Kaplan/Themis. (1) is especially more relevant in Feb 2018 -- I think -- because I predict that there will only be 2-3 MBE subjects on the MEE portion (like you said). … Subscribing to your site was indispensable in passing this exam -- couldn't have done without you. Perhaps I am not the first one to mention this, but I found your statistical analyses on your subscription page to be very thorough. I enjoyed reading through them!”
When I asked the examinee to explain how the examinee studied for the MBE:
How I studied for the MBE
In short, I don't think there is a shortcut in studying for the MBE. While I don't have rigorous research to support this, I am convinced that MBE is a statistically robust estimator of examinees' performance (*).
I answered about 2,900 questions total. I am attaching my Study Sheet!
How long: about 2 months, 10 hours every day
% of my overall study time: I'd say I spent about 80% because I didn't really start studying for MEE/MPT until two weeks before the bar exam.
Questions I used: Many sources! Barbri (MPQ, Simulated Exam, Half Day Exam, Refresher), Kaplan/PMBR, OPE (1-4), 1991 Exam, 1992 Exam
% correct: 63.2%; please see the graph below for week-by-week comparison.
Here, the horizontal axis represents "weeks", and the vertical axis represents "% correct". For the first 4 weeks, I worked on relatively easier questions (old NCBE questions, Barbri MPQ 1-3, etc, OPE 1). The dip in weeks 5-7 can be explained by the increasing level of difficulty of questions that I was working on (I used the following sources: Barbri MPQ 4-5, Simulated Exam, Half Day Exam, etc).
From weeks 8-9, I used your NCBE MBE 1992 question generating software, did OPE 3 and 4 and re-did some of the questions I got wrong. Starting a week before the bar exam (corresponding to "week 9" in the x-axis), I did not do any MBE questions other than OPE 4 and NCBE MBE 1992.
In my study sheet, the questions that I re-did the second time are indicated in the format "100x" in Columns J and K of the MCQ sheet. For example, say I re-did 100-question Barbri Diagnostic Exam for the second time; I would record my 2nd round of Diagnostic Exam scores as "1001 to 1100".
Attributing passing the exam to one thing
Taking time off from other commitments.
Not all the examinees might be able to do this. However, I highly recommend doing so if the examinees can. If investing more time, money, and energy can help the examinees pass the bar exam faster -- then doing so would help so much more in the long-run. Taking off commitments don't feel comfortable, but doing so is a sound investment.
Please keep in mind that my responses that I send to you now might be different from what I wrote back in July (immediately after I took the bar exam). Or, even better, maybe you can juxtapose my responses side to side and compare my thought processes!
In regards to the essays, the examinee told me:
“In the previous exams, I, too, have received 1's (on a scale of 6) on essays. On the other hand, I have also received 6 out of 6 on essays. Now that I think about, in fact, I have actually received every single integer score possible on essays (meaning I received 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6), so I have some gut feeling about how the graders grade the essay. After three attempts (including the J17 attempt), I have become a firm believer in the following Keynesian thought:
"It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong"
In relating this economic thought to essays, I have realized that issue spotting is critical in tackling essays. Spotting roughly right issues with opaque knowledge of black letter law will surely earn more points than spotting precisely wrong issues with precisely right knowledge of black letter law. I owe this insight to you giving me feedback on the F17 Contracts essay that I received a "1" on. Thank you, Joe!”
In regards to using the UBE MASTER outline, the examinee explained (in response to another subscriber’s question):
(1) MASTER Outline, in general:
Yes, there is indeed a lot to memorize! However, as Joe mentioned on his website, Joe's outline does try to strike a balance between (a) thoroughness and (b) brevity. His outline does this by condensing the information you would have to learn for each Black Letter Law in one page. In fact, I cannot think of other outlines offered by commercial bar prep companies that accomplish both (a) and (b). That said, although I was intimidated at first (just like you) by the sheer volume of the MASTER + Essay Outline, I was eventually able to keep up with the MASTER review schedule (which I will describe in details below in (2)) after 2 weeks or so. Every time you revisit the outline, you will notice that your review speed will gradually increase.
One way to getting familiar with Joe's outline quickly and efficiently is -- for the next two weeks -- to do MBE questions open-book and hand-in-hand with Joe's MASTER outlines. This will help you map out the bigger, broader picture of Joe's outline in a shorter period of time.
(2) Prioritization of topics:
You have correctly pointed out that prioritization of the topics in HIGH, MED and LOW is one of the greatest strengths of Joe's outline. Truth be told, I didn't have enough time (and memorization capacity) to catch up with Joe's recommended study load (i.e., Joe recommends studying the HIGH material 3x a week, MED 2x a week and LOW 1x a week). However, his 3x/2x/1x structure still gives you a good sense of how you should allocate your studying time. For me personally, I reviewed Joe's outline 2x a week for HIGH topics, 1x a week for MED topics and 0.5x a week for LOW topics. THEN, (this is important) I calibrated my reading load with my practice MBE results. More specifically, I assigned myself extra MASTER review loads for the topics that I struggled with in doing multiple-choice questions.
(3) 200+ page essay outline:
Full disclosure: I mainly studied HIGH and MED essay outlines. While there is a lot of materials in this outline as well, once you review HIGH and MED topics thoroughly enough, you will be able to "pour out" the rules that you memorized through the MEE outline during the real game.
This examinee approached the exam very methodically after recognizing the importance of the MBE. Following is the examinee’s Excel MBE Study sheet that tracks the examinee's progress so you can see for yourself how the examinee did in MBE practice.
I was going to write testimony direct on website and saw my crazy comments sent at midnight when I just learned that I passed and I couldn't help to tell it to you because YOU was the only person in my mind I wanted to tell it as soon as possible. My real testimony is here.
There is not enough words in my head to express how thankful I'm for all you have done. I will always remember how you helped me and I'm sure to many others foreign students. Studying less time for my third try between my full time job, family responsibilities and two kids out of school in summer time I was almost certain I won't get it done this time again and even continued answering questions of the day and re-wrote my trusts outlines for next time.
You are the only one who helped to keep my mind cold and to do only the most important things during studying.
I do not know any other person who knows about bar exam more than you do and I do not know anyone who contacts directly by email answering all emails almost write away with maximum explanations. Your materials were the only ones I used my third time, you advises the only I followed. When I saw you site for first time I was amazed how much useful information you analyzed, compared and summarized. I was amazed for second time when I downloaded UBE master outlines - it's a lot of your personal work that takes a lot of time, from the bottom of my heart thank you for doing it, and if you need any help tell me!
I agree-old OPE's most important thing ever, same is Adaptibar questions mixed with one of commercial courses questions (Kaplan in my case).
MPT section on your site MUST be read by international students who's native language is much different from English.
I have never saw before any outlines I could navigate through MEE real bar patterns compelled with sample answers and rules that must be wrote in essays. It was important for me to see in one place what rule should be put for particular issue is essay, and to see the way the issues should be expressed. Your MEE outlines saved a lot of my time because I could open right away the rule I needed to learn and rule that connects to the issue in essay.
Your two days before exam summaries were helpful to be strong and to remember most important things.
Thanks for your evaluation of my results as well it helped me to organize my studying and to overcome kind of "sickness" and bitter feelings I had after I failed second time and to start studying again.
The most powerful thing for me was to do question everyday even if I was tired and did not want to do it and most important in this process:
1. to go over questions, same day no matter how tired I was (goal was 100, when i couldn't- at least 66, which is 2h)
2. To read all explanations for each choice during checking results
3. To mark wrong ones (certain subject - certain color sticker if printed) or if from program to pull out the rules from explanations even from wrong choices and put rules in my rules tracker. I pulled all rules for a week or two and then spent some time over weekend to read and organize them by certain areas of the subject, because I did it for 8-7 weeks I had seen same rules over and over when I organized them and reorganized. When time was close to exam I just copy pasted all explanations in my rule-sheets and spent time at one point to shorten them and make it look final, so the week before exam I could only skip through one day -one subject.
4. I decided to make Adaptibar my priority, because when I did trial I understood I couldn't get those questions correct easily. I did in tutor mode all 1750 qq and 2 exams. But I was so scared I would not pass and I opened and read all 4 exams questions and explanations.
A J17 subscriber that passed the exam with an MBE of 141 and UBE of 266 after failing the exam with MBE scores of 110 and 119 told me the following immediately after taking the exam in July:
I just wanted to drop by and say thank you for your outlines and subscription page! Day 1 of the bar went well for me. I was able to spot nearly 90% of the issues on the essays and had time to complete both MPTs and felt pretty ok about it. The multiple choice on day 2 was tough but manageable. I made a lot of "educated guesses" and decisions based on POE. Your NCBE outline helped tremendously. I'm not a good multiple choice taker so I'm not sure how it went overall. I walked out feeling tired and thinking that it was tough, but let's see what happens in October. How did the other candidates you subscribe feel about the multiple choice? I hope I NEVER have to repeat this again, but if I ever did or choose to take another jx, I would honestly only use your materials. Here's to hoping my name appears on the pass list in late October.
After passing, the examinee followed up with the following:
JOE! I PASSED THE BAR AND LITERALLY ALL THANKS TO YOU AND ALL OF YOUR HELP. YOUR OUTLINES WERE THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO ME. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
I truly thought your UBE Master Outline contributed to my success. Like I said, I didn't pass with flying colors, but it was crucial in defining concepts that I had trouble understanding and just helped me get as many points as possible. I also really benefited from Adaptibar. I thought that doing and re-doing questions, especially for civil procedure, was key.
I'm not a great test-taker, especially when it comes to the MC. I struggled with the MPRE (took it twice) and I struggled with the Bar (three total attempts). I did well in law school only because all of the exams were essays. If you have students who are similar to me in terms of their difficulties, please tell them also to go through your "Top MBE Rules" outline- that helped me, especially the two days before the test. It was good review.
Joe, again thank you for all of your help. I am telling everyone I know who is taking or retaking the bar to subscribe to your page.
I passed the bar! I want to thank you for everything. Your to the point accuracy is exactly what I needed to pass this exam. You were right on point about everything, even down to beginning with the last essay and working backward. Amazing! I only wish I would have found out about you sooner. I attached my results. As you can see, that 140 on the MBE makes for better odds, as you repeatedly noted. I took and passed the NYLE and I will be taking the MPRE next week. Thanks again, Joe. I am more grateful than I can express. ... Clearly, the MBE is the ticket to passing this exam and what I attribute to passing. I dispensed with trying to master every single rule and used your material to narrow down law most likely to be tested, based on your master outline. Your method of analysis helps to filter out unnecessary information and gets to the critical points in a concise manner. It helped me focus my attention and get the points I needed to pass. Had I done this sooner, I would have likely saved myself a lot of time, heartbreak, and money. But, I am so grateful to be here now.
I passed. I finally passed the exam (second sitting). Thank you so much for your time, advice, and the invaluable resource - the subscription.
The one thing I can attribute my passing is the guides you provided the days before the exam on how to the approach the MPT & MEEs. I committed the methods to memory. This knowledge helped me keep calm and write as quickly and thoroughly as possible. I stuck to the format even though overall, I did not really practice this portion of the exam as much as I planned. At the end of the two days, I felt confident on the MEE/MPT.
Even though statistically, the MBE is most important, I didn't feel at all confident when I finished that second day. It was a bit frustrating because the questions were distinctly different from past questions on the Emanuals and even the Kaplan QBank (possible more difficult than the Kaplan Qs). Even the Barbri students commented on how difficult the questions seemed after the exam. I'm not sure if this is anecdotal, but it was a shared sentiment in the days after the examination. That aside, I know that I left each session with about a handful of questions where I ended up guessing between two answers. It was rare that I found a question that I could not eliminate (estimate 1 or 2 per session).
On the MBE I answered 1042 overall with 526 correct (percentage wise 50.5%). I dedicated nearly 80% of my overall study time to the MBE subjects and questions. One thing I did was to practice as many questions as possible. Where I think I could have improved was to really review daily or weekly the questions I answered. I also used Adaptibar because I worked full-time until two weeks before the exam. My idea had been to make access to prep as easy as possible so no matter how much work I had I could practice questions. I completed most of the Emanual books and did a good amount of the Kaplan Q Bank. I think I learned best when I used the 2nd MBE Emanual book where the questions are split by the topics and you see the answer. This helped me because I saw the examples and understood quickly the rule applied. I could later identify the kind of question and determine more accurately the correct answer. If I were to do this again, I would start with that book, and then the 2016 version, and then Kaplan Qbank.
In content, the master outline was my bible and I annotated it with my own mini outlines. The excel spreadsheets were also very helpful in sorting out the questions to review. In the end, I think memorizing the Master plus answering as many MBEs as possible is what helped me most. I think I would have improved more had I been able to review my past questions more often, and had more variety in the sources of the MBE questions.
Regarding the Essays, I made my own smaller outlines, but honestly only memorized the high priority MEE topics. On the MBE subjects I tried to memorize all High Priority and Medium Priority topics. Again the MEE subjects were not high priority to me, but I did skim through everything that was important. I think on the MEEs and the MPTs, the key is to follow the format you suggested. Making it easy to grade and getting a few rules with analysis in, even if it isn't 100% correct is why I think I passed. The short guides you released before the exam helped me approach that first day systematically without panicking.
One foreign examinee (English was her second language) failed the F16 exam with an MBE score of 121.1 and a final score of 561 (which converts to a UBE final score of 224). The examinee’s F16 Essays/MPT score would convert to a 103.8 on the UBE exam. This examinee subscribed for the J16 exam and spent 90% of her study time on the MBE. This subscriber also filled out my post-exam form immediately after the exam. In that form, I ask “If you had to identify one thing that helped you the MOST on the exam, what would it be?” The examinee answered “The fact that I stopped practicing Barbri questions and started on past questions.” In response to the question “If you had to identify one thing that helped you the LEAST on the exam, what would it be?” the examinee told me: “That I followed the advice to concentrate on MBE subjects only, neglecting MEE subjects.” The examinee went on to say “I ran out of time on MEE and MPT. I did not write anything on one MEE done very very poorly (didnt know anything about the topic) in another and didn'd answer half of MPT (just short of time).“ The examinee also stated: “I cannot remember how I did on the essays except that I did not write anything on one, only wrote a couple of sentences on another. “
Despite this examinee’s concern immediately after the exam of “neglecting MEE subjects,” this examinee passed the July 2016 UBE exam with an MBE score of 147.4 despite not answering two MEE essays. According to the examinee: “You were right all this time. Despite the fact that I did not write 2 essays and did poorly for the other essays, I passed by just concentrating on the MBE. The total was 274, scaled MBE score of 147.4. I don't know if my MBE was good or not but anyways I just wanted to tell you that you helped me a lot and I am really thankful.”
Based on a scaled MBE score of 147.4, this was an estimated raw MBE score of about 132/190 correct (70% correct). Based on the 2015 national statistics on the MBE (this year's statistics will not be released until next year), this is 67% percentile for the MBE (meaning 33% of last year's examinees nationwide did better than a 147.4 on the MBE). The examinee’s calculated MEE/MPT of 126.6 was the 22.1% percentile among examinees nationwide (meaning that 77.9% of last year's examinees nationwide scored better than 126.6 on the MEE/MPT).
This is what generally happens with high MBE examinees. It is as if something “magical” happens to your essay/MPT scores when you score high on the MBE. Perhaps the bar examiners take the grader’s essay/MPT assessment and then adjust it based on the examinee’s MBE. This would reduce the possibility of a qualified candidate failing simply because this examinee had a harsh grader or some other candidate got lucky on the essays. Whatever weird thing happens, I don’t know. All I can say is that if you get above a 140 on the MBE (which is about 63%-65% correct), you have a 98% chance of passing based on my sample of 4,200 examinees.
However, I generally don’t recommend that examinees spend 90% of their study-time on the MBE unless they have previously scored very low on it (about 120 scaled or below) because passing this way is much more of a gamble. Here, this examinee got lucky because 4 of the 6 MEE questions on the July 2016 exam were based on MBE subjects. Basically, 68% of an examinee’s J16 MEE score was based on MBE subjects (CivPro, Contracts, CrimLaw, Evidence, Property, and Torts). The only non-MBE subjects tested on the J16 essays were Corp/LLC and Secured Transactions. In contrast, this examinee’s outcome may have been different if the examinee sat for the F17 exam (where 4 of the 6 MEE questions were based on MEE subjects – Trusts/Wills, Family Law, Corporations and Agency). Thus, while all examinees need to focus heavily on the MBE subjects (75% of their study time), I regard it as a gamble to focus almost entirely on the MBE (90%+ of your study time) unless you previously scored very low on the MBE (after a legitimate effort) because if the subjects don’t fall your way, you risk being one of the few examinees who scores 140+ on the MBE but still fails.
In her J16 studies, this examinee answered 4,000 MBE practice questions (a combination of Barbri and NCBE questions) and had an overall average of 67% correct. As I discuss on the subscription site, a mix of NCBE questions and commercial questions often leads to the best outcome on the MBE (this is why I built the NCBE MBE rules into my UBE MASTER outline). The examinee made an MBE rules outline that contained 500 rules and she stated that she studied this outline every day. The examinee told me that for the first few weeks of review, she reviewed each answer immediately after answering a question, but in the last few weeks before the exam, she was reviewing answers after answering MBE practice questions in blocks of 18. The examinee stopped practicing MBE practice questions and focused on memorizing outlines 10 days before the exam. By averaging 67% correct on a large number of relevant practice questions, is was very likely this examinee was going to score 140+ on the MBE. This is why you must track your overall % correct in MBE practice. Then, if you find you are not in the range for a good MBE score, you must adjust your studying.
In response to your question regarding how I studied for the MBE:
1- OUTLINES
I realized early on that your outlines were much more concise and better organized than any commercial outline I had or had created. So, I studied from your outlines almost exclusively, and only briefly looked through mine. Also, it really helped that at the end of each topic, there was a list of rules from MBE questions as well as MEE essay questions/answers.
2- BOOKS
I used the Strategies and Tactics books (2013, 2015 and 2016- orange and purple books) exclusively for practice questions. I averaged about 30-50 questions per day. I also completed practice exams from these books. I was not at all confident about my possibilities of a passing MBE score, since I never got over 50% correct on the practice exams. I also completed 200 practice questions from the Kaplan MBE practice exam from 2012. I did not use any other commercial practice program such as Adaptibar.
3- SCHEDULE
On an average day, I would spend 3-4 hours reading your outlines on a specific topic. I would then read your MBE rules outline. After lunch, I tested myself from one of the S&Ts on that topic (e.g. Individual Rights). After practicing, I would review each answer and figure out why I got it right/wrong. This meant going through the questions, the answer and the MBE rules document you created. I made copious notes as to why I kept getting the same wrong answers and practiced that topic again during the week. As I got closer to the exam, I combined topics and selected practice questions at random (e.g. Individual Rights and Admission of Evidence). This helped me get accustomed to how it would be on the exam in terms of jumping from topic to topic.
In the evenings, as I worked out for an hour, I listened to your MBE MP3 rules on the subjects I was having most difficulty with.
I studied about 10 hours per day, and as I got closer to the exam it was between 11-13 hours per day.
4- PRACTICE EXAMS, NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, and PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION
The last two weeks of the exam, I must have taken at least 5 practice exams, including an OPE, but the last 3 days I focused exclusively on your outlines and read through the MBE rules over an over again.
In total, I think I averaged about 1800 questions, including practice exams.
I spent 80% of my time studying for the MBE. I spent the rest on practicing MEE, and 2 days before the exam, I read through your MPT bible (which is the most comprehensive MPT study guide I have ever read through --- and the best!)
5- THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT REASON WHY I PASSED
Looking back, I believe the single most important thing I did was continuously practice MBE questions with your outlines as a reference. I was fortunate to have your guides, which were very organized and incorporated MBE rules at the end of each substantive topic. These outlines were essential because it took the work out of having to organize these documents myself, which would have given me unnecessary anxiety and I would have been worried as to how much to put in these outlines. MBE practice questions and your outlines were the only thing I focused on for 8 weeks. I studied very little for the MEE (about 2 weeks) and almost nothing for the MPT. I also remained confident throughout the process. Almost every day I felt as if I wouldn't make it, but I kept pushing through each question and remained confident even if I got the answer wrong. It may seem unimportant, but remaining confident allowed me stay focused, which helped me block out all the negative thoughts.
I jumped about 10 MBE points from my previous attempts and 20 points from my initial bar exam attempt. This was the most I've gained since I began taking the exam.
Again, thank you for all you did. Your outlines, advice on your website and over the phone, were invaluable.
A subscriber passed the J16 exam with an MBE of 140.8 and a final score of 267. The examinee failed the F16 exam with an MBE score of 125.2 and his final score was 238 (converted to UBE). When I asked him to explain what he did to pass, this is what he told me:
Here is how I studied the second time= I passed. I had to cut so many corners again since I had only a month to study!!! I tried focusing on the MBE (the only reliable part of the exam). I focused 75% of my time on the MBE. Did about 2,200 Kaplan Q's (they were very hard) and ended with 65% correct total. After each question I did a rule outline every time one q was answered incorrectly. I read your MBE outline and summarized it so I also had my own summary (handwritten). I also did 800 Adaptibar Q's. They were too easy-was scoring 70% when really focused. I do not recommend these, Cannot stress this enough!! The first time I failed I was scoring 78% on the practice exams of Adaptibar so I had a false sense of security. I also watched all of Kaplan's videos (fast forward), did the midterm (got 121/200 raw) and final exam (131/200) raw. Re the written portion: I practiced 4 MPTs' trying to write at least 1200 words like you mention on your program. Felt good in the bar exam but barely finished while practicing. Re essays: practiced about 10 and they always felt awful. The highest score I got in Kaplan was a 3/10. For the essay part I only used your MASTER to study and summarized it even further. I would recommend: studying at least two months, focusing on the MBE, using master, the rabbit hole and ur outlines.
Less comprehensive comments from other passing subscribers are here. Typically, subscribers who use the UBE MASTER outline as their MBE+MEE bible have the best outcomes. If an at-risk examinee passes the exam due to the subscription site, it is generally because they devote more time to the MBE at the expense of the MEE by taking a calculated risk on what MEE topics will appear through the UBE MASTER priorities. By having a higher than expected MBE score (and doing OK on the essays/MPT), these examinees are more likely to pass than by bringing up their MEE/MPT scores and having an MBE score that is average for their demographic. This may not work for everyone, but it has helped a number of examinees. No matter what your background is, whether the subscription site will be enough to help you pass, I don't know, but I strongly believe it will give you your best opportunity at passing. For example, the UBE MASTER OUTLINE contains about 175 pages of black letter law on the 7 MBE subjects and I expect you to find all 175 pages of law in this outline fully relevant to the upcoming MBE.
I generally work with examinees who did not succeed with conventional bar review. I also work with examinees who have a high statistical likelihood of failing on their first attempt (e.g. part-time studiers and foreign examinees). If you compare me to other bar reviews, I am extremely unconventional. I promote taking calculated risks and studying based on priorities I establish for each of the 364 testable MBE and MEE categories. I find that examinees that fail usually can’t absorb/process all the information a conventional bar review gives them, so I focus on cutting out whatever I regard as superfluous for the upcoming exam.
I strongly believe there is no better representation of the current MBE than this outline in as condensed a format. Thus, if there is a part of the outline you don’t understand pertaining to an MBE issue, you must review/research it to understand it. The MBE tests both past topics and new current topics and this outline is intended to help you with both. The past MBE topics are reflected in the built-in MBE rules (I wrote synopses of the law for each of the 1,800+ released NCBE questions – these are the same questions in Adaptibar/Strategies & Tactics, Barmax, etc). The past topics and new current topics are reflected in the black letter law sections of the outline. I devote one page of black letter law (font size of 10) to what I expect to represent one MBE question on the exam. Thus, there are 175 pages of black letter law for the 7 MBE subjects, plus the built in MBE and MEE issues. The past topics and new current topics are also reflected in the built-in MEE issues (over past 400 MEE issues related to the 7 MBE subjects). What I have discovered is that MEE issues have been turned into MBE questions (especially with Civil Procedure). Accordingly, knowing the past tested MEE issues will help you on the MBE. Finally, the outline is highly prioritized. It is sorted by subject based on how much each subject is expected to contribute to your final score (both in context of the MBE and MEE). It is further prioritized by category so that you study the MEE topics expected to be repeated before you study any MEE topics not expected to be repeated. Put simply, if you know this outline well, you should score well on the MBE and significantly increase your odds of passing the exam.
After the exam, I urge subscribers to go back to the UBE MASTER outline to spot the issues and assess the outline's usefulness. In addition, post-exam analysis of how each MASTER version performed in regards to the essays can be viewed below.
Since examinees are taking a calculated risk by following these essay priorities, I prepare a detailed post-exam analysis of the priorities (the "MASTER batting average") for each administration it was used (24 exams to date) to enable examinees (and myself) to better assess that risk:
SEPERAC UBE MASTER MEE PRIORITY Post-Exam Analysis
To understand the benefits of my MEE topic prioritization, you first need to understand the scope of the exam. For the MEE, there are 365 testable areas (based on the ABC levels of the current NCBE MEE Subject Matter outline).
CivPro: Cat I: Jurisdiction (A. Federal SMJ)
CivPro: Cat I: Jurisdiction (B. Personal jurisdiction)
CivPro: Cat I: Jurisdiction (C. Service of process and notice)
CivPro: Cat I: Jurisdiction (D. Venue/Forum non conveniens/Transfer)
CivPro: Cat II: Laws Fed Cts (A. State law in federal court)
CivPro: Cat II: Laws Fed Cts (B. Federal common law)
CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (A. Preliminary injunctions/TROs)
CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (B. Pleadings & amended & supplemental)
CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (C. Rule 11)
CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (D. Joinder of parties and claims)
CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (E. Discovery/disclosure/sanctions)
CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (F. Adjudication without a trial)
CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (G. Pretrial conference and order)
CivPro: Cat IV: Jury Trials (A. Right to jury trial)
CivPro: Cat IV: Jury Trials (B. Selection and composition of juries)
CivPro: Cat IV: Jury Trials (C. Jury instruct Requests/Objections)
CivPro: Cat V: Motions (A. Pretrial motions)
CivPro: Cat V: Motions (B. Motions for JMOV)
CivPro: Cat V: Motions (C. Post-trial motions)
CivPro: Cat VI: Verdicts/Jmts (A. Defaults & dismissals)
CivPro: Cat VI: Verdicts/Jmts (B. Jury verdicts)
CivPro: Cat VI: Verdicts/Jmts (C. Judicial findings and conclusions)
CivPro: Cat VI: Verdicts/Jmts (D. Claim and issue preclusion)
CivPro: Cat VII: Appeal/Review (A. Availability of interlocutory review)
CivPro: Cat VII: Appeal/Review (B. Final judgment rule)
CivPro: Cat VII: Appeal/Review (C. Scope of review for judge and jury)
ConLaw: Cat I: Judicial Review (A. State/Fed courts in fed system)
ConLaw: Cat I: Judicial Review (B. Jurisdiction)
ConLaw: Cat I: Judicial Review (C. Judicial review in operation)
ConLaw: Cat II: Sep of Powers (A. Powers of Congress)
ConLaw: Cat II: Sep of Powers (B. Powers of the president)
ConLaw: Cat II: Sep of Powers (C. Federal interbranch relationships)
ConLaw: Cat III: Fed Nation vs States (A. Intergovernmental immunities)
ConLaw: Cat III: Fed Nation vs States (B. Fed limits on state authority)
ConLaw: Cat IV: Individual Rights (A. State action)
ConLaw: Cat IV: Individual Rights (B. Due process)
ConLaw: Cat IV: Individual Rights (C. Equal protection)
ConLaw: Cat IV: Individual Rights (D. Takings)
ConLaw: Cat IV: Individual Rights (E. Other protections)
ConLaw: Cat IV: Individual Rights (F. First Amm freedoms)
Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (A. Mutual assent)
Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (B. Indefiniteness)
Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (C. Consideration)
Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (D. Obligations)
Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (E. Modifications)
Contracts: Cat II: Defenses to Ks (A. Incapacity to contract)
Contracts: Cat II: Defenses to Ks (B. Duress and Undue influence)
Contracts: Cat II: Defenses to Ks (C. Mistake, misunderstanding)
Contracts: Cat II: Defenses to Ks (D. Fraud/Misrepresentation/Nondisclosure)
Contracts: Cat II: Defenses to Ks (E. Illegality & Unconscionability)
Contracts: Cat II: Defenses to Ks (F. Statute of frauds)
Contracts: Cat III: Content/Meaning of Ks (A. Parol evidence)
Contracts: Cat III: Content/Meaning of Ks (B. Interpretation)
Contracts: Cat III: Content/Meaning of Ks (C. Omitted/implied terms)
Contracts: Cat IV: Perf/Breach/Discharge (A. Conditions)
Contracts: Cat IV: Perf/Breach/Discharge (B. Excuse of conditions)
Contracts: Cat IV: Perf/Breach/Discharge (C. Breach)
Contracts: Cat IV: Perf/Breach/Discharge (D. Good faith & fair dealing)
Contracts: Cat IV: Perf/Breach/Discharge (E. Warranties in goods contracts)
Contracts: Cat IV: Perf/Breach/Discharge (F. Other performance matters)
Contracts: Cat IV: Perf/Breach/Discharge (G. Impossibility & frustration)
Contracts: Cat IV: Perf/Breach/Discharge (H. Discharge of contractual duties)
Contracts: Cat V: Remedies (A. Expectation interest)
Contracts: Cat V: Remedies (B. Causation and foreseeability)
Contracts: Cat V: Remedies (C. Liquidated damages and penalties)
Contracts: Cat V: Remedies (D. Avoidable consequences & Mitigation)
Contracts: Cat V: Remedies (E. Rescission and reformation)
Contracts: Cat V: Remedies (F. Specific perf & injunctions)
Contracts: Cat V: Remedies (G. Restitutionary & reliance recoveries)
Contracts: Cat V: Remedies (H. Rights of breaching parties)
Contracts: Cat VI: 3rd Party Rights (A. Third-party beneficiaries)
Contracts: Cat VI: 3rd Party Rights (B. Assmt of rights/Delegation of duties)
CrimLaw: Cat I: Homicide (A. Intended killings)
CrimLaw: Cat I: Homicide (B. Unintended killings)
CrimLaw: Cat II: Other Crimes (A. Theft and receiving stolen goods)
CrimLaw: Cat II: Other Crimes (B. Robbery)
CrimLaw: Cat II: Other Crimes (C. Burglary)
CrimLaw: Cat II: Other Crimes (D. Assault and battery)
CrimLaw: Cat II: Other Crimes (E. Rape/statutory rape)
CrimLaw: Cat II: Other Crimes (F. Kidnapping)
CrimLaw: Cat II: Other Crimes (G. Arson)
CrimLaw: Cat II: Other Crimes (H. Possession offenses)
CrimLaw: Cat III: Inchoate Crime/Parties (A. Inchoate offenses)
CrimLaw: Cat III: Inchoate Crime/Parties (B. Parties to crime)
CrimLaw: Cat IV: General Principles (A. Acts and omissions)
CrimLaw: Cat IV: General Principles (B. State of mind)
CrimLaw: Cat IV: General Principles (C. Responsibility)
CrimLaw: Cat IV: General Principles (D. Causation)
CrimLaw: Cat IV: General Principles (E. Justification and excuse)
CrimLaw: Cat IV: General Principles (F. Jurisdiction)
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (A. Arrest, search & seizure)
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (B. Confessions/Self-incrim privilege)
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (C. Lineups & other forms of ID)
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (D. Right to counsel)
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (E. Fair trial and guilty pleas)
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (F. Double jeopardy)
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (G. Cruel and unusual punishment)
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (H. Burdens of proof and persuasion)
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (I. Appeal & error)
Evidence: Cat I: Presentation of Evid (A. Intro of evidence)
Evidence: Cat I: Presentation of Evid (B. Presumptions)
Evidence: Cat I: Presentation of Evid (C. Mode and order)
Evidence: Cat I: Presentation of Evid (D. Impeachment/Contradiction/Rehab)
Evidence: Cat I: Presentation of Evid (E. Proceedings where evid rules apply)
Evidence: Cat II: Relevancy & Excl Evid (A. Probative value)
Evidence: Cat II: Relevancy & Excl Evid (B. Authentication and identification)
Evidence: Cat II: Relevancy & Excl Evid (C. Character and related concepts)
Evidence: Cat II: Relevancy & Excl Evid (D. Expert testimony)
Evidence: Cat II: Relevancy & Excl Evid (E. Real/Demonstrative/Experimental evid)
Evidence: Cat III: Privileges/Exclusions (A. Spousal immunity/Marital privilege)
Evidence: Cat III: Privileges/Exclusions (B. Attorney-client and work product)
Evidence: Cat III: Privileges/Exclusions (C. Physician/psychotherapist-patient)
Evidence: Cat III: Privileges/Exclusions (D. Other privileges)
Evidence: Cat III: Privileges/Exclusions (E. Insurance coverage)
Evidence: Cat III: Privileges/Exclusions (F. Remedial measures)
Evidence: Cat III: Privileges/Exclusions (G. Compromise/Pmt of medical exp/Plea neg)
Evidence: Cat III: Privileges/Exclusions (H. Past sexual conduct of victim)
Evidence: Cat IV: Writings/Recs/Photos (A. Requirement of original)
Evidence: Cat IV: Writings/Recs/Photos (B. Summaries)
Evidence: Cat IV: Writings/Recs/Photos (C. Completeness rule)
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (A. Definition of hearsay)
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (B. Present sense imp/Excited utterance)
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (C. Stmts of mental & physical condition)
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (D. Statements for medical diagnosis)
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (E. Past recollection recorded)
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (F. Business records)
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (G. Public records and reports)
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (H. Learned treatises)
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (I. Former testimony/Depositions)
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (J. Statements against interest)
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (K. Other hearsay exceptions)
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (L. Right to confront witnesses)
Property: Cat I: Ownership (A. Present estates & future interests)
Property: Cat I: Ownership (B. Cotenancy)
Property: Cat I: Ownership (C. Landlord tenant law)
Property: Cat I: Ownership (D. Special problems)
Property: Cat II: Rights in land (A. Restrictive covenants)
Property: Cat II: Rights in land (B. Easements, profits, and licenses)
Property: Cat II: Rights in land (C. Fixtures)
Property: Cat II: Rights in land (D. Zoning fundamentals)
Property: Cat III: Contracts (A. Real estate brokerage)
Property: Cat III: Contracts (B. Creation and construction)
Property: Cat III: Contracts (C. Marketability of title)
Property: Cat III: Contracts (D. Equitable conversion/Risk of loss)
Property: Cat III: Contracts (E. Options and rights of first refusal)
Property: Cat III: Contracts (F. Fitness and suitability)
Property: Cat III: Contracts (G. Merger)
Property: Cat IV: Mortgages (A. Types of security devices)
Property: Cat IV: Mortgages (B. Some security relationships)
Property: Cat IV: Mortgages (C. Transfers)
Property: Cat IV: Mortgages (D. Discharge)
Property: Cat IV: Mortgages (E. Foreclosure)
Property: Cat V: Titles (A. Adverse possession)
Property: Cat V: Titles (B. Transfer by deed)
Property: Cat V: Titles (C. Transfer by operation of law & by will)
Property: Cat V: Titles (D. Title assurance systems)
Property: Cat V: Titles (E. Title insurance)
Property: Cat V: Titles (F. Special title problems)
Torts: Cat I: Intentional Torts (A. Harms to persons/property)
Torts: Cat I: Intentional Torts (B. Defenses to claims for physical harms)
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (A. The duty question)
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (B. Standard of care)
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (C. Res ipsa loquitur)
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (D. Problems relating to causation)
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (E. Limitations on liability)
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (F. Liability for acts of others)
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (G. Defenses)
Torts: Cat III: Strict/Prod Liability (A. Common law strict liability)
Torts: Cat III: Strict/Prod Liability (B. Defenses to strict liability)
Torts: Cat III: Strict/Prod Liability (C. Claims against manufacturers)
Torts: Cat III: Strict/Prod Liability (D. Defenses to claims)
Torts: Cat IV: Other Torts (A. Claims based on nuisance & defenses)
Torts: Cat IV: Other Torts (B. Defamation/Privacy & Defenses)
Torts: Cat IV: Other Torts (C. Misrepresentations & defenses)
Torts: Cat IV: Other Torts (D. Interference w/ business relations)
AgentPart: Cat I: Agency (A. Creation)
AgentPart: Cat I: Agency (B. Types)
AgentPart: Cat I: Agency (C. Termination)
AgentPart: Cat II: Power of A to bind P (A. Authority)
AgentPart: Cat II: Power of A to bind P (B. Apparent authority)
AgentPart: Cat II: Power of A to bind P (C. Inherent agency power)
AgentPart: Cat III: P's Vicarious Liab (A. Vicarious liab)
AgentPart: Cat IV: P&A Fiduciary Duties (A. Duty of care)
AgentPart: Cat IV: P&A Fiduciary Duties (B. Duty of loyalty)
AgentPart: Cat IV: P&A Fiduciary Duties (C. Duty of obedience)
AgentPart: Cat IX: Special rules for LPs (A. Disclosure requirements)
AgentPart: Cat IX: Special rules for LPs (B. The control limitation)
AgentPart: Cat IX: Special rules for LPs (C. Economic rts of limited partners)
AgentPart: Cat V: Partnership Creation (A. General partnerships)
AgentPart: Cat V: Partnership Creation (B. Limited partnerships)
AgentPart: Cat V: Partnership Creation (C. Limited liab partnerships)
AgentPart: Cat VI: Partner Power/Liability (A. Power of partners)
AgentPart: Cat VI: Partner Power/Liability (B. Liability of partners)
AgentPart: Cat VII: Rights btwn Partners (A. Profits and losses)
AgentPart: Cat VII: Rights btwn Partners (B. Management and control)
AgentPart: Cat VII: Rights btwn Partners (C. Duty of care)
AgentPart: Cat VII: Rights btwn Partners (D. Duty of loyalty)
AgentPart: Cat VIII: Dissolution (A. Dissolution/wind up/termination)
AgentPart: Cat VIII: Dissolution (B. Rightful versus wrongful)
AgentPart: Cat VIII: Dissolution (C. GPs, LPs and LLPs)
Conflict: Cat I: Domicile (A. Meaning and legal consequences)
Conflict: Cat I: Domicile (B. States law )
Conflict: Cat II: Jux of Courts (A. Types of jurisdiction)
Conflict: Cat II: Jux of Courts (B. Bases of jurisdiction)
Conflict: Cat II: Jux of Courts (C. Notice and opportunity to be heard)
Conflict: Cat II: Jux of Courts (D. Limits on exercise of jurisdiction)
Conflict: Cat III: Choice of Law (A. Basic concepts)
Conflict: Cat III: Choice of Law (B. Choice of law theories)
Conflict: Cat III: Choice of Law (C. Application in specific areas)
Conflict: Cat III: Choice of Law (D. Defenses vs applying foreign law)
Conflict: Cat III: Choice of Law (E. Constitutional limitations)
Conflict: Cat III: Choice of Law (F. Federal-state conflicts)
Conflict: Cat IV: Other St Judgments (A. Full faith & credit)
Conflict: Cat IV: Other St Judgments (B. Claim & issue preclusion)
Conflict: Cat IV: Other St Judgments (C. Defenses to enforcement)
Conflict: Cat IV: Other St Judgments (D. Family law judgments)
CorpLLC: Cat I: Corp & LLC Formation (A. Articles of incorporation)
CorpLLC: Cat I: Corp & LLC Formation (B. Bylaws)
CorpLLC: Cat I: Corp & LLC Formation (C. Art of organization/Cert of form)
CorpLLC: Cat I: Corp & LLC Formation (D. Operating agreements)
CorpLLC: Cat II: Preorganization Acts (A. Promoter Ks & fiduciary duties)
CorpLLC: Cat II: Preorganization Acts (B. Subscriptions for shares)
CorpLLC: Cat III: Piercing the Veil (A. Corporations)
CorpLLC: Cat III: Piercing the Veil (B. Subsidiaries)
CorpLLC: Cat III: Piercing the Veil (C. LLCs)
CorpLLC: Cat IV: Financing Org (A. Sources of finance)
CorpLLC: Cat IV: Financing Org (B. Security issuance & character)
CorpLLC: Cat IV: Financing Org (C. Dividends and distributions)
CorpLLC: Cat IV: Financing Org (D. Redemptions and repurchases)
CorpLLC: Cat IX: S&H/Member Litigation (A. Direct litigation)
CorpLLC: Cat IX: S&H/Member Litigation (B. Derivative litigation)
CorpLLC: Cat IX: S&H/Member Litigation (C. Class litigation)
CorpLLC: Cat V: Mgmt & Control (A. Shareholders)
CorpLLC: Cat V: Mgmt & Control (B. Directors)
CorpLLC: Cat V: Mgmt & Control (C. Officers)
CorpLLC: Cat V: Mgmt & Control (D. Members and managers)
CorpLLC: Cat VI: Fiduciary Duties (A. Directors/Officers/Shareholders)
CorpLLC: Cat VI: Fiduciary Duties (B. Managers and members)
CorpLLC: Cat VII: Close Corps (A. Share transfer restrictions)
CorpLLC: Cat VII: Close Corps (B. Special agmts allocating authority)
CorpLLC: Cat VII: Close Corps (C. Resolution of disputes/deadlocks)
CorpLLC: Cat VII: Close Corps (D. Option or buy/sell agreements)
CorpLLC: Cat VIII: Corp & LLC Structure (A. Amendments)
CorpLLC: Cat VIII: Corp & LLC Structure (B. Mergers and consolidations)
CorpLLC: Cat VIII: Corp & LLC Structure (C. Sales of substantially all assets)
CorpLLC: Cat VIII: Corp & LLC Structure (D. Recapitalizations)
CorpLLC: Cat VIII: Corp & LLC Structure (E. Exchanges of securities)
CorpLLC: Cat VIII: Corp & LLC Structure (F. Dissolution of organization)
Family: Cat I: Getting Married (A. Problems in anticipation of marriage)
Family: Cat I: Getting Married (B. Limitations on who may marry)
Family: Cat I: Getting Married (C. Procedural requirements)
Family: Cat I: Getting Married (D. State of mind requirements)
Family: Cat I: Getting Married (E. Common law marriage)
Family: Cat I: Getting Married (F. Premarital contracts)
Family: Cat II: Being Married (A. Rights & responsibilities of spouses)
Family: Cat II: Being Married (B. Family privacy)
Family: Cat II: Being Married (C. Tortious interference with marriage)
Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (A. Grounds and defenses)
Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (B. Jurisdiction & recognition of decree)
Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (C. Prelim/Interlocutory/Final orders)
Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (D. Division of property)
Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (E. Maintenance or alimony)
Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (F. Child support)
Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (G. Maintenance/Child support modification)
Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (H. Enforcement of awards)
Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (I. Mediation and ADR)
Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (J. Separation agreements)
Family: Cat IV: Child Custody (A. Standards for decision)
Family: Cat IV: Child Custody (B. Visitation)
Family: Cat IV: Child Custody (C. Joint custody)
Family: Cat IV: Child Custody (D. Enforcement)
Family: Cat IV: Child Custody (E. Procedural issues)
Family: Cat IV: Child Custody (F. Modification)
Family: Cat IV: Child Custody (G. Mediation/ADR)
Family: Cat V: Unmarried Cohabitants (A. Rights of cohabitants inter se)
Family: Cat V: Unmarried Cohabitants (B. Unmarried parents & illegitimate child)
Family: Cat VI: Parent/Child/State (A. Legal disabilities of childhood)
Family: Cat VI: Parent/Child/State (B. Duty to support)
Family: Cat VI: Parent/Child/State (C. Intra-family immunities)
Family: Cat VI: Parent/Child/State (D. Claims for loss of consortium)
Family: Cat VI: Parent/Child/State (E. Parents right to control upbringing)
Family: Cat VI: Parent/Child/State (F. Custody disputes w 3rd parties)
Family: Cat VII: Adoption (A. Jurisdiction)
Family: Cat VII: Adoption (B. Agency versus independent placements)
Family: Cat VII: Adoption (C. Parental consent)
Family: Cat VIII: Adoption Alternative (A. Artificial insemination by donor)
Family: Cat VIII: Adoption Alternative (B. Surrogacy arrangements)
Family: Cat VIII: Adoption Alternative (C. In vitro/surrogacy/embryos)
SecTrans: Cat I: General UCC Principles (A. Rules of construction)
SecTrans: Cat I: General UCC Principles (B. General definitions)
SecTrans: Cat I: General UCC Principles (C. General Rules)
SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (A. Subject matter of Article 9)
SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (B. Perfection in multiple state trans)
SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (C. Excluded transactions)
SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (D. Definitions)
SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (E. Classification of goods)
SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (F. Including sufficiency of description)
SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (G. Art 2 security interests)
SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (H. Priority of consignments )
SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (A. Title to collateral immaterial)
SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (B. Enforceability)
SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (C. After-acquired prop/future advances)
SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (D. Collateral use/disposition by debtor)
SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (E. Collateral in SP possession)
SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (F. Request for accounting)
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (A. Priority over unperfected SIs)
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (B. Filing & perfection & assmts)
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (C. Protection of buyers)
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (D. Priority of liens arising by law)
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (E. Alienability of debtors rights)
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (F. Priority of conflicting SI)
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (G. Fixtures)
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (H. Accessions & commingling)
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (I. Subordination)
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (J. Defenses vs assignee)
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (K. Termination/collateral rel)
SecTrans: Cat V: Default (A. Default rights & remedies)
SecTrans: Cat V: Default (B. Debtors rights)
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (A. Classification)
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (B. Creation)
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (C. Types of trusts)
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (D. Alienability of trust interests)
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (E. Protective trusts)
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (F. Powers of invasion)
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (G. Modification)
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (H. Termination)
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (I. Powers & duties of trustee)
Trusts: Cat II: Future Interests (A. Reversions/Remainders/Exec Interests)
Trusts: Cat II: Future Interests (B. Life estates and terms of years)
Trusts: Cat II: Future Interests (C. Vested and contingent interests)
Trusts: Cat II: Future Interests (D. Powers of appointment)
Trusts: Cat II: Future Interests (E. Acceleration of future interests)
Trusts: Cat II: Future Interests (F. Rule Against Perpetuities)
Trusts: Cat III: Construction Problems (A. Survivorship problems)
Trusts: Cat III: Construction Problems (B. Gifts to classes)
Trusts: Cat III: Construction Problems (C. Gifts to heirs)
Trusts: Cat III: Construction Problems (D. Doctrine of Worthier Title)
Trusts: Cat III: Construction Problems (E. Gifts to children and issue)
Trusts: Cat III: Construction Problems (F. Death without issue)
Trusts: Cat III: Construction Problems (G. Gifts by implication)
Wills: Cat I: Intestate Succession (A. Procedure)
Wills: Cat I: Intestate Succession (B. Share of the surviving spouse)
Wills: Cat I: Intestate Succession (C. Share of children/Remote descendants)
Wills: Cat I: Intestate Succession (D. Share of ancestors and collaterals)
Wills: Cat I: Intestate Succession (E. Advancements)
Wills: Cat I: Intestate Succession (F. Simultaneous death)
Wills: Cat II: Wills (A. Will execution requirements)
Wills: Cat II: Wills (B. Integration of wills)
Wills: Cat II: Wills (C. Codicils)
Wills: Cat II: Wills (D. Incorporation by reference)
Wills: Cat II: Wills (E. Facts of independent significance)
Wills: Cat II: Wills (F. Revocation)
Wills: Cat II: Wills (G. Revival)
Wills: Cat II: Wills (H. Contractual wills)
Wills: Cat II: Wills (I. Construction problems)
Wills: Cat II: Wills (J. Will contests)
Wills: Cat II: Wills (K. Nonprobate transfers)
Wills: Cat II: Wills (L. Personal rep powers/duties )
Wills: Cat III: Family Protection (A. Spousal elective share)
Wills: Cat III: Family Protection (B. After-born/pretermitted child shares)
Wills: Cat IV: Living Wills & POAs (A. Execution requirements)
Wills: Cat IV: Living Wills & POAs (B. Revocation)
Wills: Cat IV: Living Wills & POAs (C. Agents & Attorney-in-fact)
Wills: Cat IV: Living Wills & POAs (D. Authority of agent or attorney-in-fact)
For each exam, I use statistical analysis to establish essay topic priorities. I have provided consistently accurate essay priorities to examinees for the past 25 exam administrations for the UBE/New York exam (see below for detailed statistics). Typically, when I prioritize the essay categories, I designate about 1/3 as HIGH priority, 1/3 as MEDIUM priority, and 1/3 as LOW priority. For example, following is a post-exam analysis of how the UBE MASTER priorities performed overall since 2016:
In looking at the UBE MASTER outline MEE priority designations from July 2016 to July 2022 (the last 11 MEE exams), I made 3,871 category priority designations. Across these 11 MEE exams, I designated 1291 of these categories as HIGH priority for the MEE, 998 categories as MEDIUM priority, and 1582 categories as LOW priority (for a total of 3,871 categories). Of the 1291 categories I designated as HIGH priority for the MEE, 150 categories were tested on the MEE. These 150 categories contributed 4,375/6,458 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (68% of the total MEE score). Of the 998 categories I designated as MEDIUM priority for the MEE, 34 categories were tested on the MEE. These 34 categories contributed 1,389/6,458 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (22% of the total MEE score). Of the 1582 categories I designated as LOW priority for the MEE, 29 categories were tested on the MEE. These 29 categories contributed 695/6,458 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (11% of the total MEE score). Following is a table breakdown of how the priorities were distributed in the UBE MASTER outline and how much each contributed to an examinee's overall MEE score:
| Post-Exam MEE Analysis | # of categories in the J16-J22 Seperac UBE MASTER outlines | # of categories that appeared on the J16-J22 MEE | % of overall MEE score | % score |
| HIGH priority category in the UBE MASTER outline | 1291 |
150 |
4374.6 |
68% |
| MEDIUM priority category in the UBE MASTER outline | 998 |
34 |
1389 |
22% |
| LOW priority category in the UBE MASTER outline | 1582 |
29 |
694.8 |
11% |
| TOTALS | 3871 |
213 |
6458.4 |
100% |
This illustrates the significant benefit of studying for the MEE on a prioritized basis (without the inherent risk of focusing on specific subjects). While most examinees will study all the MEE areas (100% of the categories), UBE Course tutees will focus on the HIGH priority MEE categories (which usually represent only 30% of the 365 testable categories) and these categories have represented over 65% of an examinee's overall MEE score. More importantly, UBE Course tutees generally put very little time into the LOW priority categories (avoiding about 40% of the MEE categories), and in doing so, it will only affect about 11% of their overall MEE score. This gives examinees the time to focus more time on the MBE by having the power to take calculated risks on the MEE and ignore almost 50% of the MEE categories (while greatly minimizing the danger of employing such a strategy).
As I explain in further detail below, I have been statistically prioritizing bar exam essay topics since 2008. These priorities started to become very popular in 2016-2017 and I feel NCBE may have purposefully sought to counteract these priorities in 2018 when a number of statistical anomalies occurred on the MEE. As a result, the July 2018 exam was the last exam where I made the UBE MASTER priorities publicly available. Not surprisingly, my F19-F20 priorities (which were only available to a small number of subscribers to my UBE Course) have been much more effective. Due to the 3 different MEE exams (July 2020, September 2020 and October 2020), I did not attempt to prioritize these MEE because I expect there to be turbulance with the priorities until the exam returns to normal.
The below analyses illustrate how you can take calculated risks and focus on particular areas and still have a strong outcome. For example, of the thousands of examinees who have relied on my essay priorities over the past 12 years, I have never had a single one tell me they regretted taking that risk. Following are detailed breakdowns of the accuracy of my priorities for the last 24 exams:
MEE MASTER JULY 2022 Post-Exam Analysis
The July 2022 UBE MASTER outline (which is based on the 14 MBE/MEE subjects) was broken down into 365 categories (based on the 2020 NCBE subject matter outline ABC level). I designated 135 of these categories as HIGH priority for the July 2022 MEE, 122 categories as MEDIUM priority, and 108 categories as LOW priority (for a total of 365 categories). Of the 135 categories I designated as HIGH priority for the July 2022 MEE, 13 categories were tested on the July 2022 MEE. These 13 categories contributed 385/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (64% of the total MEE score). Of the 122 categories I designated as MEDIUM priority for the July 2022 MEE, 4 categories were tested on the July 2022 MEE. These 4 categories contributed 155/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (26% of the total MEE score). Of the 108 categories I designated as LOW priority for the July 2022 MEE, 2 categories were tested on the July 2022 MEE. These 2 categories contributed 60/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (10% of the total MEE score). Following is a table breakdown of how the priorities were distributed in the July 2022 UBE MASTER outline and how much each contributed to an examinee's overall MEE score:
| Category | UBE MASTER JULY 2022 MEE Priority | Points |
CivPro: Cat I: Jurisdiction (A. Federal SMJ) |
HIGH |
50.0 |
CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (D. Joinder of parties and claims) |
HIGH |
30.0 |
CivPro: Cat V: Motions (A. Pretrial motions) |
HIGH |
20.0 |
Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (B. Indefiniteness) |
LOW |
30.0 |
Contracts: Cat II: Defenses to Ks (E. Illegality & Unconscionability) |
LOW |
30.0 |
Contracts: Cat III: Content/Meaning of Ks (A. Parol evidence) |
HIGH |
40.0 |
Evidence: Cat II: Relevancy & Excl Evid (A. Probative value) |
HIGH |
20.0 |
Evidence: Cat II: Relevancy & Excl Evid (C. Character and related concepts) |
HIGH |
35.0 |
Evidence: Cat II: Relevancy & Excl Evid (D. Expert testimony) |
HIGH |
35.0 |
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (A. Definition of hearsay) |
HIGH |
10.0 |
Property: Cat I: Ownership (A. Present estates & future interests) |
MED |
80.0 |
Property: Cat I: Ownership (D. Special problems) |
HIGH |
20.0 |
AgentPart: Cat I: Agency (A. Creation) |
HIGH |
40.0 |
CorpLLC: Cat VI: Fiduciary Duties (A. Directors/Officers/Shareholders) |
HIGH |
40.0 |
CorpLLC: Cat VIII: Corp & LLC Structure (F. Dissolution of organization) |
HIGH |
20.0 |
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (B. Creation) |
MED |
40.0 |
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (C. Types of trusts) |
MED |
10.0 |
Trusts: Cat II: Future Interests (F. Rule Against Perpetuities) |
MED |
25.0 |
Wills: Cat I: Intestate Succession (C. Share of children/Remote descendants) |
HIGH |
25.0 |
| July 2022 Post-Exam MEE Analysis | # of categories in the July 2022 Seperac UBE MASTER outline | # of categories that appeared on the July 2022 MEE | Total Points | % of overall MEE score |
| HIGH priority category in the July 2022 UBE MASTER outline | 135 |
13 |
385 |
64% |
| MEDIUM priority category in the July 2022 UBE MASTER outline | 122 |
4 |
155 |
26% |
| LOW priority category in the July 2022 UBE MASTER outline | 108 |
2 |
60 |
10% |
| TOTALS | 365 |
19 |
600 |
100% |
MEE MASTER FEB 2022 Post-Exam Analysis
The Feb 2022 UBE MASTER outline (which is based on the 14 MBE/MEE subjects) was broken down into 365 categories (based on the 2020 NCBE subject matter outline ABC level). I designated 145 of these categories as HIGH priority for the Feb 2022 MEE, 67 categories as MEDIUM priority, and 153 categories as LOW priority (for a total of 365 categories). Of the 145 categories I designated as HIGH priority for the Feb 2022 MEE, 14 categories were tested on the Feb 2022 MEE. These 14 categories contributed 464/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (77% of the total MEE score). Of the 67 categories I designated as MEDIUM priority for the Feb 2022 MEE, 1 categories were tested on the Feb 2022 MEE. These 1 categories contributed 13/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (2% of the total MEE score). Of the 153 categories I designated as LOW priority for the Feb 2022 MEE, 5 categories were tested on the Feb 2022 MEE. These 5 categories contributed 125/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (21% of the total MEE score). Following is a table breakdown of how the priorities were distributed in the Feb 2022 UBE MASTER outline and how much each contributed to an examinee's overall MEE score:
| Category | UBE MASTER FEB 2022 MEE Priority | Points |
| Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (A. Mutual assent) | HIGH |
5.0 |
| Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (B. Indefiniteness) | LOW |
10.0 |
| Contracts: Cat II: Defenses to Ks (F. Statute of frauds) | HIGH |
40.0 |
| Contracts: Cat III: Content/Meaning of Ks (C. Omitted/implied terms) | LOW |
20.0 |
| Contracts: Cat V: Remedies (D. Avoidable consequences & Mitigation) | HIGH |
25.0 |
| CrimLaw: Cat II: Other Crimes (A. Theft and receiving stolen goods) | HIGH |
43.0 |
| CrimLaw: Cat II: Other Crimes (B. Robbery) | LOW |
35.0 |
| CrimLaw: Cat IV: General Principles (B. State of mind) | HIGH |
23.0 |
| AgentPart: Cat II: Power of A to bind P (A. Authority) | HIGH |
60.0 |
| AgentPart: Cat II: Power of A to bind P (B. Apparent authority) | HIGH |
40.0 |
| CorpLLC: Cat IX: S&H/Member Litigation (B. Derivative litigation) | LOW |
40.0 |
| CorpLLC: Cat V: Mgmt & Control (B. Directors) | LOW |
20.0 |
| CorpLLC: Cat VI: Fiduciary Duties (A. Directors/Officers/Shareholders) | HIGH |
40.0 |
| SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (B. Enforceability) | HIGH |
35.0 |
| SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (C. After-acquired prop/future advances) | HIGH |
20.0 |
| SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (B. Filing & perfection & assmts) | HIGH |
15.0 |
| SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (F. Priority of conflicting SI) | HIGH |
30.0 |
| Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (E. Protective trusts) | HIGH |
50.0 |
| Trusts: Cat II: Future Interests (D. Powers of appointment) | HIGH |
38.0 |
| Trusts: Cat III: Construction Problems (C. Gifts to heirs) | MED |
13.0 |
| Feb 2022 Post-Exam MEE Analysis | # of categories in the Feb 2022 Seperac UBE MASTER outline | # of categories that appeared on the Feb 2022 MEE | Total Points | % of overall MEE score |
| HIGH priority category in the Feb 2022 UBE MASTER outline | 145 |
14 |
464 |
77% |
| MEDIUM priority category in the Feb 2022 UBE MASTER outline | 67 |
1 |
13 |
2% |
| LOW priority category in the Feb 2022 UBE MASTER outline | 153 |
5 |
125 |
21% |
| TOTALS | 365 |
20 |
602 |
100% |
MEE MASTER JULY 2021 Post-Exam Analysis
The July 2021 UBE MASTER outline (which is based on the 14 MBE/MEE subjects) was broken down into 364 categories (based on the 2020 NCBE subject matter outline ABC level). I designated 127 of these categories as HIGH priority for the July 2021 MEE, 88 categories as MEDIUM priority, and 149 categories as LOW priority (for a total of 364 categories). Of the 127 categories I designated as HIGH priority for the July 2021 MEE, 12 categories were tested on the July 2021 MEE. These 12 categories contributed 525/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (88% of the total MEE score). Of the 88 categories I designated as MEDIUM priority for the July 2021 MEE, 1 categories were tested on the July 2021 MEE. These 1 categories contributed 50/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (8% of the total MEE score). Of the 149 categories I designated as LOW priority for the July 2021 MEE, 1 categories were tested on the July 2021 MEE. These 1 categories contributed 25/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (4% of the total MEE score). Following is a table breakdown of how the priorities were distributed in the July 2021 UBE MASTER outline and how much each contributed to an examinee's overall MEE score:
| Category | UBE MASTER JULY 2021 MEE Priority | Points |
CivPro: Cat I: Jurisdiction (A. Federal SMJ) |
HIGH |
60.0 |
CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (B. Pleadings & amended & supplemental) |
HIGH |
40.0 |
Conflict: Cat III: Choice of Law (C. Application in specific areas) |
HIGH |
70.0 |
CorpLLC: Cat V: Mgmt & Control (A. Shareholders) |
HIGH |
30.0 |
CorpLLC: Cat VIII: Corp & LLC Structure (B. Mergers and consolidations) |
MED |
50.0 |
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (A. Arrest, search & seizure) |
HIGH |
25.0 |
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (C. Lineups & other forms of ID) |
LOW |
25.0 |
Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (B. Jurisdiction & recognition of decree) |
HIGH |
40.0 |
Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (F. Child support) |
HIGH |
30.0 |
Family: Cat IV: Child Custody (E. Procedural issues) |
HIGH |
30.0 |
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (A. The duty question) |
HIGH |
42.0 |
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (B. Standard of care) |
HIGH |
15.0 |
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (D. Problems relating to causation) |
HIGH |
43.0 |
Wills: Cat II: Wills (I. Construction problems) |
HIGH |
100.0 |
| July 2021 Post-Exam MEE Analysis | # of categories in the July 2021 Seperac UBE MASTER outline | # of categories that appeared on the July 2021 MEE | Total Points | % of overall MEE score |
| HIGH priority category in the July 2021 UBE MASTER outline | 127 |
12 |
525 |
88% |
| MEDIUM priority category in the July 2021 UBE MASTER outline | 88 |
1 |
50 |
8% |
| LOW priority category in the July 2021 UBE MASTER outline | 149 |
1 |
25 |
4% |
| TOTALS | 364 |
14 |
600 |
100% |
MEE MASTER FEB 2021 Post-Exam Analysis
The Feb 2021 UBE MASTER outline (which is based on the 14 MBE/MEE subjects) was broken down into 365 categories (based on the 2020 NCBE subject matter outline ABC level). I designated 141 of these categories as HIGH priority for the Feb 2021 MEE, 81 categories as MEDIUM priority, and 143 categories as LOW priority (for a total of 365 categories). Of the 141 categories I designated as HIGH priority for the Feb 2021 MEE, 12 categories were tested on the Feb 2021 MEE. These 12 categories contributed 358/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (62% of the total MEE score). Of the 81 categories I designated as MEDIUM priority for the Feb 2021 MEE, 8 categories were tested on the Feb 2021 MEE. These 8 categories contributed 178/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (31% of the total MEE score). Of the 143 categories I designated as LOW priority for the Feb 2021 MEE, 1 categories were tested on the Feb 2021 MEE. These 1 categories contributed 40/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (7% of the total MEE score). Following is a table breakdown of how the priorities were distributed in the Feb 2021 UBE MASTER outline and how much each contributed to an examinee's overall MEE score:
| Category | UBE MASTER FEB 2021 MEE Priority | Points |
| AgentPart: Cat I: Agency (B. Types) | LOW |
40.0 |
| AgentPart: Cat III: P's Vicarious Liab (A. Vicarious liab) | MED |
27.0 |
| AgentPart: Cat V: Partnership Creation (A. General partnerships) | HIGH |
20.0 |
| AgentPart: Cat VI: Partner Power/Liability (B. Liability of partners) | MED |
13.0 |
| CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (D. Joinder of parties and claims) | HIGH |
42.5 |
| CivPro: Cat VI: Verdicts/Jmts (D. Claim and issue preclusion) | MED |
57.5 |
| Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (A. Mutual assent) | HIGH |
20.0 |
| Contracts: Cat II: Defenses to Ks (F. Statute of frauds) | HIGH |
60.0 |
| Contracts: Cat IV: Perf/Breach/Discharge (C. Breach) | HIGH |
20.0 |
| Property: Cat II: Rights in land (B. Easements, profits, and licenses) | HIGH |
75.0 |
| Property: Cat V: Titles (D. Title assurance systems) | HIGH |
25.0 |
| SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (E. Classification of goods) | MED |
11.7 |
| SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (F. Including sufficiency of description) | MED |
11.7 |
| SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (B. Enforceability) | MED |
11.7 |
| SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (F. Priority of conflicting SI) | MED |
40.0 |
| Wills: Cat I: Intestate Succession (A. Procedure) | MED |
5.0 |
| Wills: Cat I: Intestate Succession (C. Share of children/Remote descendants) | HIGH |
5.0 |
| Wills: Cat II: Wills (A. Will execution requirements) | HIGH |
15.0 |
| Wills: Cat II: Wills (C. Codicils) | HIGH |
15.0 |
| Wills: Cat II: Wills (D. Incorporation by reference) | HIGH |
30.0 |
| Wills: Cat II: Wills (F. Revocation) | HIGH |
30.0 |
| Feb 2021 Post-Exam MEE Analysis | # of categories in the Feb 2021 Seperac UBE MASTER outline | # of categories that appeared on the Feb 2021 MEE | Total Points | % of overall MEE score |
| HIGH priority category in the Feb 2021 UBE MASTER outline | 141 |
12 |
358 |
62% |
| MEDIUM priority category in the Feb 2021 UBE MASTER outline | 81 |
8 |
178 |
31% |
| LOW priority category in the Feb 2021 UBE MASTER outline | 143 |
1 |
40 |
7% |
| TOTALS | 365 |
21 |
576 |
100% |
MEE MASTER JULY 2020 Post-Exam Analysis
Due to the 3 different MEE exams (July 2020, September 2020 and October 2020), I did not prioritize these MEE. I expect there to be some turbulance with the priorities until things normalize.
MEE MASTER FEB 2020 Post-Exam Analysis
The Feb 2020 UBE MASTER outline (which is based on the 14 MBE/MEE subjects) was broken down into 364 categories (based on the 2018 NCBE subject matter outline ABC level). I designated 128 of these categories as HIGH priority for the Feb 2020 MEE, 78 categories as MEDIUM priority, and 158 categories as LOW priority (for a total of 364 categories). Of the 128 categories I designated as HIGH priority for the Feb 2020 MEE, 17 categories were tested on the Feb 2020 MEE. These 17 categories contributed 470/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (78% of the total MEE score). Of the 78 categories I designated as MEDIUM priority for the Feb 2020 MEE, 2 categories were tested on the Feb 2020 MEE. These 2 categories contributed 130/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (22% of the total MEE score). Of the 158 categories I designated as LOW priority for the Feb 2020 MEE, 0 categories were tested on the Feb 2020 MEE. These 0 categories contributed 0/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (0% of the total MEE score). Following is a table breakdown of how the priorities were distributed in the Feb 2020 UBE MASTER outline and how much each contributed to an examinee's overall MEE score:
| Category | UBE MASTER F20 MEE Priority | Points |
| AgentPart: Cat II: Power of A to bind P (A. Authority) | HIGH |
25.0 |
| AgentPart: Cat II: Power of A to bind P (B. Apparent authority) | HIGH |
25.0 |
| AgentPart: Cat III: P's Vicarious Liab (A. Vicarious liab) | HIGH |
50.0 |
| CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (D. Joinder of parties and claims) | HIGH |
100.0 |
| Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (A. Mutual assent) | HIGH |
20.0 |
| Contracts: Cat IV: Perf/Breach/Discharge (C. Breach) | HIGH |
50.0 |
| Contracts: Cat V: Remedies (A. Expectation interest) | MED |
30.0 |
| CrimLaw: Cat IV: General Principles (E. Justification and excuse) | HIGH |
20.0 |
| Evidence: Cat I: Presentation of Evid (D. Impeachment/Contradiction/Rehab) | HIGH |
25.0 |
| Evidence: Cat II: Relevancy & Excl Evid (A. Probative value) | HIGH |
6.0 |
| Evidence: Cat II: Relevancy & Excl Evid (C. Character and related concepts) | HIGH |
25.0 |
| Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (A. Definition of hearsay) | HIGH |
18.0 |
| Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (C. Stmts of mental & physical condition) | HIGH |
6.0 |
| Property: Cat I: Ownership (B. Cotenancy) | MED |
100.0 |
| SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (A. Subject matter of Article 9) | HIGH |
12.5 |
| SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (D. Definitions) | HIGH |
22.5 |
| SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (B. Enforceability) | HIGH |
10.0 |
| SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (A. Priority over unperfected SIs) | HIGH |
25.0 |
| SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (J. Defenses vs assignee) | HIGH |
30.0 |
| Feb 2020 Post-Exam MEE Analysis | # of categories in the Feb 2020 Seperac UBE MASTER outline | # of categories that appeared on the Feb 2020 MEE | Total Points | % of overall MEE score |
| HIGH priority category in the Feb 2020 UBE MASTER outline | 128 |
17 |
470 |
78% |
| MEDIUM priority category in the Feb 2020UBE MASTER outline | 78 |
2 |
130 |
22% |
| LOW priority category in the Feb 2020 UBE MASTER outline | 158 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
| TOTALS | 364 |
19 |
600 |
100% |
MEE MASTER JULY 2019 Post-Exam Analysis
The July 2019 UBE MASTER outline (which is based on the 14 MBE/MEE subjects) was broken down into 365 categories (based on the 2019 NCBE subject matter outline ABC level). I designated 130 of these categories as HIGH priority for the July 2019 MEE, 83 categories as MEDIUM priority, and 152 categories as LOW priority (for a total of 365 categories). Of the 130 categories I designated as HIGH priority for the July 2019 MEE, 15 categories were tested on the July 2019 MEE. These 15 categories contributed 520/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (87% of the total MEE score). Of the 83 categories I designated as MEDIUM priority for the July 2019 MEE, 2 categories were tested on the July 2019 MEE. These 2 categories contributed 50/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (8% of the total MEE score). Of the 152 categories I designated as LOW priority for the July 2019 MEE, 1 categories were tested on the July 2019 MEE. These 1 categories contributed 30/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (5% of the total MEE score). Following is a table breakdown of how the priorities were distributed in the July 2019 UBE MASTER outline and how much each contributed to an examinee's overall MEE score:
| Category | UBE MASTER J19 MEE Priority | Points |
| CivPro: Cat I: Jurisdiction (A. Federal SMJ) | HIGH |
35.0 |
| CivPro: Cat II: Laws Fed Cts (A. State law in federal court) | HIGH |
17.5 |
| CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (D. Joinder of parties and claims) | HIGH |
17.5 |
| ConLaw: Cat I: Judicial Review (C. Judicial review in operation) | LOW |
30.0 |
| Contracts: Cat V: Remedies (A. Expectation interest) | HIGH |
20.0 |
| Contracts: Cat V: Remedies (B. Causation and foreseeability) | HIGH |
40.0 |
| Contracts: Cat V: Remedies (D. Avoidable consequences & Mitigation) | MED |
40.0 |
| CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (B. Confessions/Self-incrim privilege) | HIGH |
30.0 |
| CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (D. Right to counsel) | HIGH |
70.0 |
| Conflict: Cat III: Choice of Law (C. Application in specific areas) | MED |
10.0 |
| CorpLLC: Cat VI: Fiduciary Duties (A. Directors/Officers/Shareholders) | HIGH |
100.0 |
| Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (E. Maintenance or alimony) | HIGH |
20.0 |
| Family: Cat IV: Child Custody (A. Standards for decision) | HIGH |
30.0 |
| Family: Cat IV: Child Custody (E. Procedural issues) | HIGH |
20.0 |
| Family: Cat VI: Parent/Child/State (E. Parents right to control upbringing) | HIGH |
30.0 |
| Wills: Cat II: Wills (A. Will execution requirements) | HIGH |
60.0 |
| Wills: Cat II: Wills (I. Construction problems) | HIGH |
20.0 |
| Wills: Cat III: Family Protection (B. After-born/pretermitted child shares) | HIGH |
10.0 |
| July 2019 Post-Exam MEE Analysis | # of categories in the July 2019 Seperac UBE MASTER outline | # of categories that appeared on the July 2019 MEE | Total Points | % of overall MEE score |
| HIGH priority category in the July 2019 UBE MASTER outline | 130 |
15 |
520 |
87% |
| MEDIUM priority category in the July 2019 UBE MASTER outline | 83 |
2 |
50 |
8% |
| LOW priority category in the July 2019 UBE MASTER outline | 152 |
1 |
30 |
5% |
| TOTALS | 365 |
18 |
600 |
100% |
MEE MASTER Feb 2019 Post-Exam Analysis
The Feb 2019 UBE MASTER outline (which is based on the 14 MBE/MEE subjects) was broken down into 364 categories (based on the NCBE subject matter outline ABC level). I designated 119 of these categories as HIGH priority for the Feb 2019 MEE, 93 categories as MEDIUM priority, and 152 categories as LOW priority (for a total of 364 categories). Of the 119 categories I designated as HIGH priority for the Feb 2019 MEE, 21 categories were tested on the Feb 2019 MEE. These 21 categories contributed 500/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (83% of the total MEE score). Of the 93 categories I designated as MEDIUM priority for the Feb 2019 MEE, 2 categories were tested on the Feb 2019 MEE. These 2 categories contributed 92/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (15% of the total MEE score). Of the 152 categories I designated as LOW priority for the Feb 2019 MEE, 1 categories were tested on the Feb 2019 MEE. These 1 categories contributed 8/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (1% of the total MEE score). Following is a table breakdown of how the priorities were distributed in the Feb 2019 UBE MASTER outline and how much each contributed to an examinee's overall MEE score:
| Category | UBE MASTER F19 MEE Priority | Points |
CrimLaw: Cat II: Other Crimes (A. Theft and receiving stolen goods) |
HIGH |
80.0 |
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (E. Protective trusts) |
MED |
56.7 |
CivPro: Cat I: Jurisdiction (A. Federal SMJ) |
HIGH |
50.0 |
CivPro: Cat I: Jurisdiction (B. Personal jurisdiction) |
HIGH |
50.0 |
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (C. Res ipsa loquitur) |
HIGH |
40.0 |
AgentPart: Cat VIII: Dissolution (A. Dissolution/wind up/termination) |
HIGH |
35.0 |
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (I. Powers & duties of trustee) |
MED |
35.0 |
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (A. Priority over unperfected SIs) |
HIGH |
23.3 |
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (B. Standard of care) |
HIGH |
20.0 |
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (D. Problems relating to causation) |
HIGH |
20.0 |
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (E. Limitations on liability) |
HIGH |
20.0 |
AgentPart: Cat V: Partnership Creation (A. General partnerships) |
HIGH |
20.0 |
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (B. Filing & perfection & assmts) |
HIGH |
20.0 |
AgentPart: Cat VI: Partner Power/Liability (A. Power of partners) |
HIGH |
15.0 |
AgentPart: Cat VII: Rights btwn Partners (B. Management and control) |
HIGH |
15.0 |
AgentPart: Cat VIII: Dissolution (B. Rightful versus wrongful) |
HIGH |
15.0 |
SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (F. Including sufficiency of description) |
HIGH |
13.3 |
SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (B. Enforceability) |
HIGH |
13.3 |
CrimLaw: Cat II: Other Crimes (C. Burglary) |
HIGH |
10.0 |
CrimLaw: Cat IV: General Principles (B. State of mind) |
HIGH |
10.0 |
SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (D. Definitions) |
HIGH |
10.0 |
SecTrans: Cat V: Default (A. Default rights & remedies) |
HIGH |
10.0 |
SecTrans: Cat V: Default (B. Debtors rights) |
HIGH |
10.0 |
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (F. Powers of invasion) |
LOW |
8.3 |
| FEB 2019 Post-Exam MEE Analysis | # of categories in the Feb 2019 Seperac UBE MASTER outline | # of categories that appeared on the Feb 2019 MEE | Total Points | % of overall MEE score |
| HIGH priority category in the Feb 2019 UBE MASTER outline | 119 |
21 |
500 |
83% |
| MEDIUM priority category in the Feb 2019 UBE MASTER outline | 93 |
2 |
92 |
15% |
| LOW priority category in the Feb 2019 UBE MASTER outline | 152 |
1 |
8 |
1% |
| TOTALS | 364 |
24 |
600 |
100% |
MEE MASTER JULY 2018 Post-Exam Analysis
Following is a post-exam analysis of how the UBE MASTER priorities performed in regards to the July 2018 MEE exam. Below is a breakdown of the NCBE categories that appeared on the July 2018 MEE (based on ABC level of the 2018 NCBE Subject matter outlines) along with the July 2018 UBE MASTER outline priority for that category and the amount of points each category contributed to an examinee's MEE score (total points of 600, or 100 per MEE question).
| Category | J18 MEE Priority | Points |
| Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (I. Powers & duties of trustee) | HIGH |
80.0 |
| ConLaw: Cat II: Sep of Powers (A. Powers of Congress) | HIGH |
50.0 |
| Evidence: Cat II: Relevancy & Excl Evid (C. Character and related concepts) | HIGH |
25.0 |
| Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (F. Business records) | HIGH |
20.0 |
| Evidence: Cat I: Presentation of Evid (A. Intro of evidence) | HIGH |
10.0 |
| Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (A. Definition of hearsay) | HIGH |
10.0 |
| Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (D. Statements for medical diagnosis) | HIGH |
10.0 |
| CorpLLC: Cat II: Preorganization Acts (A. Promoter Ks & fiduciary duties) | MED |
90.0 |
| Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (A. Mutual assent) | MED |
86.7 |
| Property: Cat IV: Mortgages (A. Types of security devices) | MED |
65.0 |
| ConLaw: Cat III: Fed Nation vs States (A. Intergovernmental immunities) | MED |
50.0 |
| CorpLLC: Cat I: Corp & LLC Formation (A. Articles of incorporation) | MED |
10.0 |
| Property: Cat II: Rights in land (D. Zoning fundamentals) | LOW |
35.0 |
| Evidence: Cat III: Privileges/Exclusions (C. Physician/psychotherapist-patient) | LOW |
15.0 |
| Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (D. Obligations) | LOW |
13.3 |
| Evidence: Cat II: Relevancy & Excl Evid (D. Expert testimony) | LOW |
10.0 |
| Trusts: Cat II: Future Interests (A. Reversions/Remainders/Exec Interests) | LOW |
10.0 |
| Trusts: Cat II: Future Interests (B. Life estates and terms of years) | LOW |
10.0 |
The July 2018 UBE MASTER outline (which is based on the 14 MBE/MEE subjects) was broken down into 363 categories (based on the 2018 NCBE subject matter outline ABC level). I designated 117 of these categories as HIGH priority for the July 2018 MEE, 78 categories as MEDIUM priority, and 168 categories as LOW priority (for a total of 363 categories). Of the 117 categories I designated as HIGH priority for the July 2018 MEE, 7 categories were tested on the July 2018 MEE. These 7 categories contributed 205/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (34% of the total MEE score). Of the 78 categories I designated as MEDIUM priority for the July 2018 MEE, 5 categories were tested on the July 2018 MEE. These 5 categories contributed 302/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (50% of the total MEE score). Of the 168 categories I designated as LOW priority for the July 2018 MEE, 6 categories were tested on the July 2018 MEE. These 6 categories contributed 93/600 MEE points to an examinee's total MEE score (16% of the total MEE score). Following is a table breakdown of how the priorities were distributed in the July 2018 UBE MASTER outline and how much each contributed to an examinee's overall MEE score:
| JULY 2018 Post-Exam MEE Analysis | # of categories in the July 2018 Seperac UBE MASTER outline | # of categories that appeared on the July 2018 MEE | Total Points | % of overall MEE score |
| HIGH priority category in the July 2018 UBE MASTER outline | 117 |
7 |
205 |
34% |
| MEDIUM priority category in the July 2018 UBE MASTER outline | 78 |
5 |
302 |
50% |
| LOW priority category in the July 2018 UBE MASTER outline | 168 |
6 |
93 |
16% |
| TOTALS | 363 |
18 |
600 |
100% |
This is the last exam where the UBE MASTER Outline was publicly available. It had become clear to me at this point that the public availability of the UBE Master outline and the MEE priorities was harming their effectiveness. Not surprisingly, the F19 priorities which were not publicly released were much more accurate.
MEE MASTER FEB 2018 Post-Exam Analysis
Following is a post-exam analysis of how the MASTER priorities performed in regards to the February 2018 MEE exam. The February 2018 UBE MASTER outline was released on December 22, 2017. Below is a breakdown of the NCBE categories that appeared on the February 2018 MEE (based on ABC level of the 2018 NCBE Subject matter outlines) along with the February 2018 UBE MASTER outline priority for that category and the amount of points each category contributed to an examinee's MEE score (total points of 600, or 100 per MEE question).
| Category | UBE MASTER F18 MEE Priority | Points |
| CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (C. Rule 11) | LOW |
82.5 |
| AgentPart: Cat VIII: Dissolution (A. Dissolution/wind up/termination) | HIGH |
62.5 |
| CrimLaw: Cat IV: General Principles (C. Responsibility) | MED |
60.0 |
| Property: Cat V: Titles (B. Transfer by deed) | HIGH |
60.0 |
| Contracts: Cat III: Content/Meaning of Ks (A. Parol evidence) | LOW |
40.0 |
| Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (D. Division of property) | HIGH |
35.0 |
| Family: Cat IV: Child Custody (A. Standards for decision) | HIGH |
35.0 |
| Family: Cat I: Getting Married (F. Premarital contracts) | MED |
30.0 |
| Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (A. Mutual assent) | HIGH |
25.0 |
| Property: Cat III: Contracts (F. Fitness and suitability) | HIGH |
25.0 |
| AgentPart: Cat VI: Partner Power/Liability (A. Power of partners) | HIGH |
25.0 |
| CrimLaw: Cat IV: General Principles (B. State of mind) | LOW |
20.0 |
| CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (E. Fair trial and guilty pleas) | LOW |
20.0 |
| CivPro: Cat III: Pretrial Proc (B. Pleadings & amended & supplemental) | HIGH |
17.5 |
| Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (C. Consideration) | HIGH |
17.5 |
| Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (E. Modifications) | LOW |
17.5 |
| Property: Cat II: Rights in land (B. Easements, profits, and licenses) | HIGH |
15.0 |
| AgentPart: Cat VII: Rights btwn Partners (B. Management and control) | HIGH |
12.5 |
The FEBRUARY 2018 UBE MASTER outline (which is based on the 14 MBE/MEE subjects) was broken down into 364 categories (based on the 2018 NCBE subject matter outline ABC level). I designated 121 of these categories as HIGH priority for the February 2018 MEE, 73 categories as MEDIUM priority, and 170 categories as LOW priority (for a total of 364 categories). Of the 121 categories I designated as HIGH priority for the February 2018 MEE, 11 categories were tested on the February 2018 2017 MEE. These 11 categories contributed 330/600 MEE points to an examinee's totsl MEE score (55% of your total MEE score). Of the 73 categories I designated as MEDIUM priority, 2 categories were tested on the February 2018 MEE. These 2 categories contributed 90/600 MEE points (15% of your total MEE score). Of the 170 categories I designated as LOW priority for the February 2018 MEE, 5 categories were tested. These 5 categories contributed 180/600 MEE points (30% of your total MEE score). Following is a table breakdown of how the priorities were distributed in the FEBRUARY 2018 UBE MASTER outline and how much each contributed to an examinee's overall MEE score:
| FEB 2018 Post-Exam MEE Analysis | # of categories in the Feb 2018 Seperac UBE MASTER outline |
# of categories that appeared on the Feb 2018 MEE |
Total Points |
% of overall MEE score |
| HIGH priority category in the Feb 2018 UBE MASTER outline | 121 |
11 |
330 |
55% |
| MEDIUM priority category in the Feb 2018 UBE MASTER outline | 73 |
2 |
90 |
15% |
| LOW priority category in the Feb 2018 UBE MASTER outline | 170 |
5 |
180 |
30% |
| TOTALS | 364 |
18 |
600 |
100% |
Accordingly, if you studied only the HIGH priority categories (121 total categories out of a possible 364 categories) in the February 2018 UBE MASTER outline, this would have accounted for 55% of your total MEE score. Even though the bar examiners threw a major curveball in F18 by testing Rule 11 for the entire essay, the prioritized studying is still significantly beneficial because you spend the most time on the areas most likely to appear and the least time on the areas least likely to appear. Please note that based on the priorities, I provide study time recommendations for each category, meaning examinees are expected to spend the more study time on the higher priority items while reducing study time on the lower priority items.
MEE MASTER JULY 2017 Post-Exam Analysis
Following is a post-exam analysis of how the MASTER priorities performed in regards to the July 2017 MEE exam. The July 2017 UBE MASTER outline was released on May 26, 2017. Below is a breakdown of the NCBE categories that appeared on the July 2017 MEE (based on ABC level of the 2017 NCBE Subject matter outlines) along with the July 2017 UBE MASTER outline priority for that category and the amount of points each category contributed to an examinee's MEE score (total points of 600, or 100 per MEE question).
| Category | UBE MASTER J17 MEE Priority | Points |
Wills: Cat II: Wills (A. Will execution requirements) |
HIGH |
45.0 |
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (E. Limitations on liability) |
HIGH |
40.0 |
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (B. Confessions/Self-incrimination privilege) |
HIGH |
30.0 |
Wills: Cat II: Wills (D. Incorporation by reference) |
HIGH |
30.0 |
CivPro: Cat I: Jurisdiction (C. Service of process and notice) |
HIGH |
30.0 |
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (B. Present sense imp & Excited utterance) |
HIGH |
30.0 |
SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (D. Definitions) |
HIGH |
25.0 |
CivPro: Cat V: Motions (A. Pretrial motions) |
HIGH |
20.0 |
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (F. Liability for acts of others) |
HIGH |
20.0 |
Evidence: Cat II: Relevancy & Excl Evid (A. Probative value) |
HIGH |
20.0 |
SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (B. Enforceability) |
HIGH |
17.5 |
Wills: Cat II: Wills (C. Codicils) |
HIGH |
15.0 |
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (F. Priority of conflicting SI) |
HIGH |
13.3 |
CivPro: Cat II: Laws Fed Cts (A. State law in federal court) |
HIGH |
10.0 |
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (B. Filing & perfection & assmts) |
HIGH |
10.0 |
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (A. Priority over unperfected SIs) |
HIGH |
6.7 |
SecTrans: Cat I: General UCC Principles (B. General definitions) |
HIGH |
7.5 |
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (A. Definition of hearsay) |
HIGH |
7.5 |
ConLaw: Cat I: Judicial Review (B. Jurisdiction) |
MED |
60.0 |
ConLaw: Cat III: Fed Nation vs States (B. Federalism based limits on state authority) |
MED |
40.0 |
Torts: Cat III: Strict/Prod Liability (A. Common law strict liability) |
MED |
40.0 |
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (C. Stmts of mental & physical condition) |
MED |
12.5 |
Conflict: Cat III: Choice of Law (C. Application in specific areas) |
MED |
10.0 |
SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (A. Subject matter of Article 9) |
MED |
10.0 |
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (J. Defenses vs assignee) |
MED |
10.0 |
Conflict: Cat III: Choice of Law (B. Choice of law theories) |
LOW |
30.0 |
Trusts: Cat II: Future Interests (F. Rule Against Perpetuities) |
LOW |
10.0 |
TOTAL |
600 |
The JULY 2017 UBE MASTER outline (which is based on the 14 MBE/MEE subjects) was broken down into 358 categories (based on the 2017 NCBE subject matter outline ABC level). I designated 92 of these categories as HIGH priority for the July 2017 MEE, 131 categories as MEDIUM priority for the July 2017 MEE, and 135 categories as LOW priority for the July 2017 MEE (for a total of 358 categories). Of the 92 categories I designated as HIGH priority for the July 2017 MEE, 18 categories were tested on the July 2017 MEE. These 18 categories contributed 377.5/600 MEE points to an examinee's totsl MEE score (63% of your total MEE score). Of the 131 categories I designated as MEDIUM priority for the July 2017 MEE, 7 categories were tested on the July 2017 MEE. These 7 categories contributed 182.5/600 MEE points (30% of your total MEE score). Of the 135 categories I designated as LOW priority for the July 2017 MEE, 2 categories were tested on the July 2017 MEE. These 2 categories could have contributed 40/600 MEE points (7% of your total MEE score). Following is a table breakdown of how the priorities were distributed in the JULY 2017 UBE MASTER outline and how much each contributed to an examinee's overall MEE score:
| JULY 2017 Post-Exam MEE Analysis | # of categories in the July 2017 Seperac UBE MASTER outline | # of categories that appeared on the July 2017 MEE | Total Points | % of overall MEE score |
| HIGH priority category in the July 2017 UBE MASTER outline | 92 |
18 |
377.5 |
63% |
| MEDIUM priority category in the July 2017 UBE MASTER outline | 131 |
7 |
182.5 |
30% |
| LOW priority category in the July 2017 UBE MASTER outline | 135 |
2 |
40 |
7% |
| TOTALS | 358 |
27 |
600 |
100% |
Accordingly, if you studied only the HIGH priority categories (92 total categories out of a possible 358 categories) in the July 2017 UBE MASTER outline, this would have accounted for 63% of your total MEE score. If you also studied the MEDIUM categories (131 total categories out of a possible 358 categories), this would have accounted for 30% of your total MEE score. If you ignored the LOW priority categories (135 total categories), this would have accounted for a mere 7% of your total MEE score. This is the benefit of studying on a prioritized basis - you spend the most time on the areas most likely to appear and the least time on the areas least likely to appear. Please note that based on the priorities, I provide study time recommendations for each category, meaning examinees are expected to spend the more study time on the higher priority items while reducing study time on the lower priority items.
MEE MASTER FEB 2017 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER priorities performed in regards to the February 2017 MEE exam. The February 2017 UBE MASTER outline was released on December 18, 2016. Following is a breakdown of the NCBE categories that appeared on the February 2017 MEE (based on ABC level of the 2017 NCBE Subject matter outlines) along with the February 2017 UBE MASTER outline priority for that category and the amount of points each category contributed to an examinee's MEE score (total points of 600, or 100 per MEE question).
| Category | UBE MASTER F17 MBE-MEE Priority |
Points |
AgentPart: Cat II: Power of Agent (A. Authority) |
MED |
90 |
AgentPart: Cat II: Power of Agent (B. Apparent authority) |
HIGH |
10 |
Conflict: Cat III: Choice of Law (C. Application in specific areas) |
HIGH |
10 |
Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (A. Mutual assent) |
HIGH-LOW |
88 |
Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (B. Consideration) |
HIGH-MED |
12 |
CorpLLC: Cat IX: S&H/Member Litigation (B. Derivative litigation) |
HIGH |
30 |
CorpLLC: Cat V: Mgmt & Control (A. Shareholders) |
HIGH |
30 |
CorpLLC: Cat VI: Fiduciary Duties (A. Directors, officers, and shareholders) |
HIGH |
40 |
Family: Cat I: Getting Married (B. Limitations on who may marry) |
LOW |
15 |
Family: Cat I: Getting Married (E. Common law marriage) |
MED |
15 |
Family: Cat III: Separation/Divorce (D. Division of property) |
HIGH |
27.5 |
Family: Cat IV: Child Custody (B. Visitation) |
MED |
20 |
Family: Cat V: Unmarried Cohabitants (A. Rights of cohabitants inter se) |
LOW |
12.5 |
Property: Cat I: Ownership (C. The law of landlord and tenant) |
HIGH-MED |
100 |
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (C. Types of trusts) |
HIGH |
30 |
Trusts: Cat I: Trusts (G. Modification) |
HIGH |
25 |
Trusts: Cat II: Future Interests (D. Powers of appointment) |
HIGH |
45 |
The UBE MASTER outline (which is based on the 14 MBE/MEE subjects) was broken down into 358 categories (based on the 2017 NCBE subject matter outline ABC level). Of these 358 categories that are testable on the MEE, 17 of the categories were tested on the Feb 2017 MEE. Following is a breakdown of how the priorities were distributed in the F17 UBE MASTER outline and how much each contributed to an examinee's overall MEE score:
| MBE-MEE Priority | # of Categories | # on F17 MEE | Points | % of MEE |
| HIGH | 75 |
9 |
247.5 |
41% |
| HIGH-MED | 23 |
2 |
112 |
19% |
| HIGH-LOW | 18 |
1 |
88 |
15% |
| MED-HIGH | 14 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
| MED | 77 |
3 |
125 |
21% |
| MED-LOW | 28 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
| LOW-HIGH | 2 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
| LOW-MED | 9 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
| LOW | 112 |
2 |
27.5 |
5% |
| TOTAL | 358 |
17 |
600 |
100% |
Accordingly, if you studied only the HIGH to MED categories (204 total categories) in the F17 UBE MASTER outline, this would have accounted for 95% of your total MEE score. If you ignored the MED-LOW to LOW categories (151 total categories), this would have accounted for 5% of your total MEE score. This is the benefit of studying on a prioritized basis - you spend the most time on the areas most likely to appear and the least time on the areas least likely to appear.
MEE MASTER JULY 2016 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MEE MASTER JULY 2016 performed in regards to the July 2016 MEE exam. The July 2016 MEE MASTER outline was released on May 26, 2016.
The July 2016 MEE MASTER outline was based on 241 ABC Categories from the NCBE Subject Matter outlines (these ABC categories were all previously tested on the MEE sometime in the last 43 MEE exams). The July 2016 MEE MASTER outline designated 86 of these categories as HIGH priority, 76 of these categories as MEDIUM priority, and 79 of these categories as LOW priority. Of the 86 HIGH priority categories, 13 were tested on the July 2016 MEE. Of the 76 MEDIUM priority categories, 3 were tested on the July 2016 MEE. Of the 79 LOW priority categories, 3 were tested on the July 2016 MEE. NCBE also tested 6 ABC categories that were never tested before on the MEE (in past 43 exams). Based on the NCBE answer point breakdowns, the HIGH priority topics tested on the July 2016 represented 327 of the 600 points you could earn on the six MEE essays. Thus, if you knew the HIGH priority topics well, this would have represented 55% of your MEE score. The MEDIUM priority topics tested on the July 2016 represented 108 of the 600 points you could earn on the six MEE essays. If you knew the MEDIUM priority topics OK, this would have represented 18% of your MEE score. Finally, the 3 LOW priority topics tested on the July 2016 represented 33 of the 600 points you could earn on the six MEE essays. Subscribers were expected to have very little knowledge of these 3 LOW priority topics, and in doing so lost 6% of their MEE score, but avoided having to study 79 LOW priority ABC categories (which would have been a very poor return on investment). This is how the MASTER priorities work - once I determine what categories are not expected to appear, I can determine what categories are more likely to appear on the upcoming MEE.
Following is a breakdown of the NCBE categories that appeared on the July 2016 MEE (based on ABC level of the July 2016 NCBE Subject matter outlines) along with the amount of points each category contributed to an examinee's score (total points of 600, or 100 per question) along with the Juy 2016 MEE MASTER priority for that category:
| NCBE Item (based on ABC level of 2016 NCBE subject matter outlines) | NCBE Points | J16 MEE MASTER priority |
CivPro: Cat I: Jurisdiction (A. Federal SMJ) |
50.0 |
HIGH |
CivPro: Cat I: Jurisdiction (B. Personal jurisdiction) |
25.0 |
HIGH |
CivPro: Cat I: Jurisdiction (D. Venue/Forum non conveniens/Transfer) |
25.0 |
HIGH |
Contracts: Cat I: Formation of Ks (A. Mutual assent) |
22.5 |
HIGH |
CorpLLC: Cat I: Corp & LLC Formation (D. Operating agreements) |
10.0 |
HIGH |
CorpLLC: Cat V: Mgmt & Control (D. Members and managers) |
50.0 |
HIGH |
CorpLLC: Cat VIII: Corp & LLC Structure (F. Dissolution of organization) |
30.0 |
HIGH |
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (B. Confessions/Self-incrimination privilege) |
16.7 |
HIGH |
CrimLaw: Cat V: Const Protections of Ds (D. Right to counsel) |
15.8 |
HIGH |
SecTrans: Cat II: Definitions (E. Classification of goods) |
13.3 |
HIGH |
SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (B. Enforceability) |
23.3 |
HIGH |
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (B. Filing & perfection & assmts) |
20.0 |
HIGH |
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (B. The standard of care) |
25.0 |
HIGH |
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (A. Definition of hearsay) |
32.5 |
MED |
Torts: Cat II: Negligence (D. Problems relating to causation) |
35.0 |
MED |
Torts: Cat III: Strict/Prod Liability (C. Claims against manufacturers) |
40.0 |
MED |
SecTrans: Cat III: Validity of Sec Agmts (D. Use/disposition of collateral by debtor) |
10.0 |
LOW |
SecTrans: Cat IV: Rights of 3rd Parties (G. Fixtures) |
10.0 |
LOW |
SecTrans: Cat V: Default (A. Rights and remedies on default) |
13.3 |
LOW |
Contracts: Cat VI: 3rd Party Rights (A. Third-party beneficiaries) |
37.5 |
NEW |
Contracts: Cat VI: 3rd Party Rights (B. Assignment of rights/Delegation of duties) |
40.0 |
NEW |
CorpLLC: Cat I: Corp & LLC Formation (C. Art of organization/Cert of form) |
10.0 |
NEW |
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (E. Past recollection recorded) |
30.0 |
NEW |
Evidence: Cat V: Hearsay & Admissibility (G. Public records and reports) |
5.0 |
NEW |
Property: Cat II: Rights in land (C. Fixtures) |
10.0 |
NEW |
Below reports post-exam analysis of how each pre-UBE MASTER version performed in regards to the administration it was prepared for. Approximately 50-100 topics changed priority between each MASTER version.
MASTER JULY 2015 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER JULY 2015 performed in regards to the July 2015 exam. MASTER JULY 2015 was released on May 28, 2015.
In MASTER JULY 2015, there were a total of 334 topics. These 334 topics represented every topic answered on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995 to July 2011. Of these 334 topics, 152 of the topics were designated as HIGH priority topics (16 of these 152 topics appeared on the July 2015 exam). Of these 334 topics, 80 of the topics were designated as MEDIUM priority topics (2 of these 80 topics appeared on the July 2015 exam). Of these 334 topics, 102 of the topics were designated as LOW priority topics (7 of these 102 topics appeared on the July 2015 exam), and the remaining 10.7% of the July 2015 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995.
Following are the essay topics from the exam and the priorities that were assigned to them in MASTER:
JULY 2015 MASTER ANALYSIS
| Essay 1 | J15 Prio |
| PROPERTY: Adverse Possession | HIGH |
| PROPERTY: Adverse Possession | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Divorce | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Jurisdiction-Divorce | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Jurisdiction-Divorce | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Nuptial Agreements | LOW |
| Essay 2 | J15 Prio |
| WILLS: Administrator Appointment | LOW |
| WILLS: Non-Probate Transfers-Inter Vivos Gifts | NEW |
| UCC9: Perfection of Security Interest | HIGH |
| WILLS: Intestate Succession | LOW |
| DOMESTIC: Paternity | HIGH |
| Essay 3 | J15 Prio |
| CONTRACT: Non-Conforming Goods | HIGH |
| CONTRACT: Warranties | LOW |
| CONTRACT: Warranties | LOW |
| PROF-RES: Fees | MED |
| PROF-RES: Communications with Opposing Party | HIGH |
| Essay 4 | J15 Prio |
| NYPRAC: Motion to Dismiss | HIGH |
| TORTS: Landowner Liability | HIGH |
| TORTS: Negligence | HIGH |
| TORTS: Assumption of Risk* | MED |
| TORTS: Negligent Supervision-Intrafamily Immunity | HIGH |
| TORTS: Negligent Entrustment | LOW |
| TORTS: Joint and Several Liability | HIGH |
| Essay 5 | J15 Prio |
| NYPRAC: Article 78 Action | LOW |
| ADMIN: Administrative Hearings | NEW |
| ADMIN: Administrative Hearings | NEW |
| EVIDENCE: Hearsay** | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Elements of a Crime | HIGH |
* Master response insufficient - It did not discuss the NY GOL Recreational Use statute which is based on a recreationist's assumption of risk on another's land.
** Master response partly insufficient - I added a sentence that administrative hearings don’t require strict adherence to rules of evidence such as hearsay.
SUMMARY OF MASTER TOPICS ON THE JULY 2015 EXAM
| Priority | # of topics | % of exam |
| NEW | 3 |
10.7% |
| HIGH | 16 |
57.1% |
| MEDIUM | 2 |
7.1% |
| LOW | 7 |
25.0% |
| TOTAL | 28 |
100% |
MASTER JULY 2015 consisted of 152 HIGH priority topics; 80 MEDIUM priority topics; and 102 LOW priority topics. On the July 2015 exam, 57.1% of all the July 2015 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2015 HIGH priority topics; 7.1% of all the July 2015 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2015 MEDIUM priority topics; 25% of all the July 2015 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2015 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 10.7% of the July 2015 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995).
In the July 2015 MASTER, the HIGH priority topics represented 53.2% of the words in MASTER. In the July 2015 MASTER, the MEDIUM priority topics represented 21% of the words in MASTER. In the July 2015 MASTER, the LOW priority topics represented 25.8% of the words in MASTER.
The MASTER JULY 2015 outline contains 101,026 words (not including the table of contents or issue links). The BAR/BRI long outlines contain about 754,000 words (not including the table of contents), meaning MASTER is about 13% the size of the BAR/BRI long outlines. The BAR/BRI Conviser contains about 287,000 words (not including the table of contents), meaning MASTER is about 35% the size of the BAR/BRI Conviser. If you were to study only the MASTER HIGH and MEDIUM priority topics, this consists of 74,945 words (not including the table of contents or issue links), which would be about 10% the size of the BAR/BRI long outlines or about 26% the size of the BAR/BRI Conviser.
MASTER FEB 2015 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER FEB 2015 performed in regards to the Feb 2015 exam. MASTER FEB 2015 was released on December 20, 2014.
In MASTER FEB 2015, there were a total of 334 topics. These 334 topics represented every topic answered on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995 to July 2014. Of these 334 topics, 130 of the topics were designated as HIGH priority topics (14 of these 130 topics appeared on the Feb 2015 exam). Of these 334 topics, 90 of the topics were designated as MEDIUM priority topics (4 of these 90 topics appeared on the Feb 2015 exam). Of these 334 topics, 114 of the topics were designated as LOW priority topics (3 of these 114 topics appeared on the Feb 2015 exam), and the remaining 0% of the Feb 2015 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995.
Following are the essay topics from the exam and the priorities that were assigned to them in MASTER:
FEB 2015 MASTER ANALYSIS
| Essay 1 | F15 Prio |
| WILLS: Creation and Validity | HIGH |
| WILLS: Revival of Will | HIGH |
| WILLS: Specific Gift | MED |
| WILLS: Interested Witness | HIGH |
| WILLS: Partial Intestacy | HIGH |
| Essay 2 | F15 Prio |
| CRIMLAW: Driving while Intoxicated (DWI/DUI) | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Search and Seizure–Police Encounters | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Right to Counsel–Miranda | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Manslaughter | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Criminally Negligent Homicide | LOW |
| Essay 3 | F15 Prio |
| CONTRACT: Breach by Seller | HIGH |
| CORP: Professional Corporations | LOW |
| CONTRACT: Non-Compete Agreements | MED |
| Essay 4 | F15 Prio |
| NYPRAC: Summary Judgment Motion | HIGH |
| TORTS: Negligence-Per Se | MED |
| TORTS: No-Fault Insurance* | LOW |
| CONFLICT: Conflict of Law | HIGH |
| Essay 5 | F15 Prio |
| CONTRACT: Equitable Remedies | MED |
| PROPERTY: Marketable Title | HIGH |
| NYPRAC: Permanent Injunction | HIGH |
| PROPERTY: Tenant Duty to Repair | HIGH |
* Master response partly insufficient - discussed serious injury, but not 90/180 day rule (although rule is in Seperac Torts outline)
SUMMARY OF MASTER TOPICS ON THE FEB 2015 EXAM
| Priority | # of topics |
% of exam |
| NEW | 0 |
|
| HIGH | 14 |
66.7% |
| MEDIUM | 4 |
19% |
| LOW | 3 |
14.3% |
| TOTAL | 21 |
100% |
MASTER FEB 2015 consisted of 130 HIGH priority topics; 90 MEDIUM priority topics; and 114 LOW priority topics. On the Feb 2015 exam, 66.7% of all the Feb 2015 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2015 HIGH priority topics; 19% of all the Feb 2015 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2015 MEDIUM priority topics; 14.3% of all the Feb 2015 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2015 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 0% of the Feb 2015 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995).
In the Feb 2015 MASTER, the HIGH priority topics represented 45.8% of the words in MASTER. In the Feb 2015 MASTER, the MEDIUM priority topics represented 25.4% of the words in MASTER. In the Feb 2015 MASTER, the LOW priority topics represented 28.8% of the words in MASTER.
The MASTER FEB 2015 outline contains 100,616 words (not including the table of contents or issue links). The BAR/BRI long outlines contain about 754,000 words (not including the table of contents), meaning MASTER is about 13% the size of the BAR/BRI long outlines. The BAR/BRI Conviser contains about 287,000 words (not including the table of contents), meaning MASTER is about 35% the size of the BAR/BRI Conviser. If you were to study only the MASTER HIGH and MEDIUM priority topics (which covered about 86% of the topics tested on the NY essays), this consists of 71,633 words (not including the table of contents or issue links), which would be about 10% the size of the BAR/BRI long outlines or about 25% the size of the BAR/BRI Conviser.
MASTER JULY 2014 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER JULY 2014 performed in regards to the July 2014 exam. MASTER JULY 2014 was released on May 28, 2014.
In MASTER JULY 2014, there were a total of 333 topics. These 333 topics represented every topic answered on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995 to July 2010. Of these 333 topics, 122 of the topics were designated as HIGH priority topics (8 of these 122 topics appeared on the July 2014 exam). Of these 333 topics, 84 of the topics were designated as MEDIUM priority topics (5 of these 84 topics appeared on the July 2014 exam). Of these 333 topics, 127 of the topics were designated as LOW priority topics (7 of these 127 topics appeared on the July 2014 exam), and the remaining 9.1% of the July 2014 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995.
Following are the essay topics from the exam and the priorities that were assigned to them in MASTER:
JULY 2014 MASTER ANALYSIS
| Essay 1 | Priority |
| PROF-RES: Solicitation/Referral Fees | LOW |
| CRIMLAW: Search and Seizure–Warrant | MED |
| CRIMLAW: Justification | MED |
| CRIMLAW: Burden of Proof* | HIGH |
| Essay 2 | Priority |
| CORP: Shareholder Derivative Action** | MED |
| CORP: De Facto Corporation | NEW |
| CONTRACT: Confirmatory Memo | HIGH |
| EVIDENCE: Hearsay | HIGH |
| Essay 3 | Priority |
| TRUSTS: Spendthrift Trust | LOW |
| TRUSTS: Revocable Trust | LOW |
| WILLS: Mistake or Ambiguity | NEW |
| WILLS: Advance Against An Inheritance | LOW |
| Essay 4 | Priority |
| DOMESTIC: Equitable Distribution of Marital Property | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Maintenance | MED |
| DOMESTIC: Child Support-Nonpayment | LOW |
| DOMESTIC: Child Support | HIGH |
| Essay 5 | Priority |
| TORTS: No-Fault Insurance | HIGH |
| TORTS: Negligence-Per Se*** | LOW |
| TORTS: Permissive Use Doctrine | MED |
| TORTS: Dram Shop Law | LOW |
| TORTS: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress | HIGH |
| TORTS: Negligent Supervision-Intrafamily Immunity | HIGH |
* Master response partly insufficient - did not talk about ordinary defenses, but Justification topic (J14 Prio: MED) could have answered it
** Master response partly insufficient - did not talk about LLC members being able to bring a derivative suit
*** Master response partly insufficient - talked about traffic violations but did not discuss DWI
SUMMARY OF MASTER TOPICS ON THE JULY 2014 EXAM
| Priority | # of topics |
% of exam |
| NEW | 2 |
9.1% |
| HIGH | 8 |
36.4% |
| MEDIUM | 5 |
22.7% |
| LOW | 7 |
31.8% |
| TOTAL | 22 |
100% |
MASTER JULY 2014 consisted of 122 HIGH priority topics; 84 MEDIUM priority topics; and 127 LOW priority topics. On the July 2014 exam, 36.4% of all the July 2014 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2014 HIGH priority topics; 22.7% of all the July 2014 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2014 MEDIUM priority topics; 31.8% of all the July 2014 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2014 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 9.1% of the July 2014 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995). In the July 2014 MASTER, the HIGH priority topics represented 45.2% of the words in MASTER. In the July 2014 MASTER, the MEDIUM priority topics represented 25.8% of the words in MASTER. In the July 2014 MASTER, the LOW priority topics represented 28.9% of the words in MASTER.
The MASTER JULY 2014 outline contained 97,651 words (not including the table of contents or issue links). The BAR/BRI long outlines contain about 754,000 words (not including the table of contents), meaning MASTER is about 13% the size of the BAR/BRI long outlines. The BAR/BRI Conviser contains about 287,000 words (not including the table of contents), meaning MASTER is about 34% the size of the BAR/BRI Conviser. If you were to study only the MASTER HIGH and MEDIUM priority topics, this consisted of 69,400 words (not including the table of contents or issue links), which would be about 9% the size of the BAR/BRI long outlines or about 24% the size of the BAR/BRI Conviser.
MASTER FEB 2014 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER FEB 2014 performed in regards to the Feb 2014 exam. MASTER FEB 2014 was released on December 22, 2013.
In MASTER FEB 2014, there were a total of 337 topics. These 337 topics represented every topic answered on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995 to July 2013. Of these 337 topics, 130 of the topics were designated as HIGH priority topics (14 of these 130 topics appeared on the Feb 2014 exam). Of these 337 topics, 89 of the topics were designated as MEDIUM priority topics (6 of these 89 topics appeared on the Feb 2014 exam). Of these 337 topics, 118 of the topics were designated as LOW priority topics (2 of these 118 topics appeared on the Feb 2014 exam), and the remaining 4.3% of the Feb 2014 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995.
Following are the essay topics from the exam and the priorities that were assigned to them in MASTER:
FEB 2014 MASTER ANALYSIS
| Essay 1 | Priority |
| DOMESTIC: Child Custody | HIGH |
| PROPERTY: Easement | HIGH |
| PROPERTY: Easement by Implication | NEW |
| PROPERTY: Easement by Prescription | LOW |
| Essay 2 | Priority |
| PROF-RES: Attorney Conflict of Interest* | MED |
| AGENT-PART: Agent Liability | LOW |
| AGENT-PART: Agency | MED |
| CRIMLAW: Search and Seizure–Warrant | MED |
| CRIMLAW: Search and Seizure–Home | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Search and Seizure–Fruit of The Poisonous Tree | HIGH |
| Essay 3 | Priority |
| CONTRACT: Unconscionability | HIGH |
| CONTRACT: Non-Conforming Goods | MED |
| CONTRACT: Risk of Loss and Bailments | HIGH |
| PROPERTY: Termination of Tenancy/Tenant Holdover | HIGH |
| Essay 4 | Priority |
| TORTS: Municipality Negligence | HIGH |
| TORTS: Vicarious Liability/Agency | HIGH |
| TORTS: Superseding Causes | HIGH |
| TORTS: Landowner Liability | HIGH |
| Essay 5 | Priority |
| WILLS: Revocation of Will | HIGH |
| WILLS: Renunciation | MED |
| WILLS: Divorce-Termination of Benefits | MED |
| WILLS: Antilapse Statute | HIGH |
| WILLS: Distribution of Residuary Estate** | HIGH |
* Master response partly insufficient - Did not discuss business transactions with clients, only general conflict rules.
** Master response partly insufficient - Did not cover disinheriting but the topic WILLS: Distributions (F14 Prio: HIGH) covered it.
SUMMARY OF MASTER TOPICS ON THE FEB 2014 EXAM
| Priority | # of topics |
% of exam |
| NEW | 1 |
4.3% |
| HIGH | 14 |
60.9% |
| MEDIUM | 6 |
26.1% |
| LOW | 2 |
8.7% |
| TOTAL | 23 |
100% |
MASTER FEB 2014 consisted of 130 HIGH priority topics; 89 MEDIUM priority topics; and 118 LOW priority topics. On the Feb 2014 exam, 60.9% of all the Feb 2014 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2014 HIGH priority topics; 26.1% of all the Feb 2014 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2014 MEDIUM priority topics; 8.7% of all the Feb 2014 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2014 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 4.3% of the Feb 2014 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995). In the Feb 2014 MASTER, the HIGH priority topics represented 46.6% of the words in MASTER. In the Feb 2014 MASTER, the MEDIUM priority topics represented 26.9% of the words in MASTER. In the Feb 2014 MASTER, the LOW priority topics represented 26.4% of the words in MASTER.
The MASTER FEB 2014 outline contained 97,226 words (not including the table of contents or issue links). The BAR/BRI long outlines contain about 754,000 words (not including the table of contents), meaning MASTER is about 13% the size of the BAR/BRI long outlines. The BAR/BRI Conviser contains about 287,000 words (not including the table of contents), meaning MASTER is about 34% the size of the BAR/BRI Conviser. If you were to study only the MASTER HIGH and MEDIUM priority topics, this consisted of 71,514 words (not including the table of contents or issue links), which would be about 9% the size of the BAR/BRI long outlines or about 25% the size of the BAR/BRI Conviser.
MASTER JULY 2013 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER JULY 2013 performed in regards to the July 2013 exam. MASTER JULY 2013 was released on May 30, 2013.
In MASTER JULY 2013, there were a total of 337 topics. These 337 topics represented every topic answered on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995 to Feb 2013. Of these 337 topics, 119 of the topics were designated as HIGH priority topics (20 of these 119 topics appeared on the July 2013 exam). Of these 337 topics, 106 of the topics were designated as MEDIUM priority topics (3 of these 106 topics appeared on the July 2013 exam). Of these 337 topics, 112 of the topics were designated as LOW priority topics (5 of these 112 topics appeared on the July 2013 exam), and the remaining 0% of the July 2013 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995.
Following are the essay topics from the exam and the priorities that were assigned to them in MASTER:
JULY 2013 MASTER ANALYSIS
| Essay 1 | Priority |
| DOMESTIC: Adoption-Parental Consent * | LOW |
| PROPERTY: Tenants by the Entirety–Mortgage ** | LOW |
| NYPRAC: Failure to State a Cause of Action | MED |
| PROPERTY: Partition | LOW |
| DOMESTIC: Equitable Distribution of a Gift | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Equitable Distribution of Separate Property | HIGH |
| Essay 2 | Priority |
| CRIMLAW: Attempt | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Criminal Possession of Stolen Property | MED |
| CRIMLAW: Larceny | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Robbery | LOW |
| CRIMLAW: Assault | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Justification | HIGH |
| Essay 3 | Priority |
| PROF-RES: Attorney Conflict of Interest | MED |
| CORP: Shareholder Derivative Action | HIGH |
| CORP: Director Duty of Loyalty | HIGH |
| CONTRACT: Breach by Seller | HIGH |
| CONTRACT: Non-Conforming Goods | HIGH |
| Essay 4 | Priority |
| NYPRAC: Motion to Dismiss | HIGH |
| TORTS: Negligence | HIGH |
| TORTS: Workers Compensation | HIGH |
| NYPRAC: Statute of Limitations *** | HIGH |
| TORTS: Strict Products Liability | HIGH |
| Essay 5 | Priority |
| DOMESTIC: Paternity | HIGH |
| WILLS: Pretermitted Children | HIGH |
| WILLS: Ademption | HIGH |
| WILLS: Joint Bank Accounts | LOW |
| WILLS: Antilapse Statute | HIGH |
| WILLS: Distributions | HIGH |
* Master response partly insufficient - This topic and Adoption Revoke Consent (also LOW) would have covered the issue.
** Master response partly insufficient - The HIGH priority topic of Tenants by the Entirety could have answered this issue. Accordingly, I re-categorized some of these issues.
*** Master response insufficient - NO coverage. I added information on SOL for strict liability and discovery tolling.
SUMMARY OF MASTER TOPICS ON THE JULY 2013 EXAM
| Priority | # of topics |
% of exam |
| NEW | 0 |
0.0% |
| HIGH | 20 |
71.4% |
| MEDIUM | 3 |
10.7% |
| LOW | 5 |
17.9% |
| TOTAL | 28 |
100.0% |
MASTER JULY 2013 consisted of 119 HIGH priority topics; 106 MEDIUM priority topics; and 112 LOW priority topics. On the July 2013 exam, 71.4% of all the July 2013 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2013 HIGH priority topics; 10.7% of all the July 2013 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2013 MEDIUM priority topics; 17.9% of all the July 2013 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2013 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 0% of the July 2013 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995). In the July 2013 MASTER, the HIGH priority topics represented 41.4% of the words in MASTER. In the July 2013 MASTER, the MEDIUM priority topics represented 32.9% of the words in MASTER. In the July 2013 MASTER, the LOW priority topics represented 25.7% of the words in MASTER.
MASTER FEB 2013 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER FEB 2013 performed in regards to the Feb 2013 exam. MASTER FEB 2013 was released on December 24, 2012.
In MASTER FEB 2013, there were a total of 333 topics. These 333 topics represented every topic answered on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995 to July 2012. Of these 331 topics, 109 of the topics were designated as HIGH priority topics (11 of these 109 topics appeared on the Feb 2013 exam). Of these 331 topics, 106 of the topics were designated as MEDIUM priority topics (5 of these 106 topics appeared on the Feb 2013 exam). Of these 331 topics, 118 of the topics were designated as LOW priority topics (3 of these 118 topics appeared on the Feb 2013 exam) and the remaining 4 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995.
Following are the essay topics from the exam and the priorities that were assigned to them in MASTER:
FEB 2013 MASTER ANALYSIS
| Essay 1 | Priority |
| CONTRACT: Creation/Validity | HIGH |
| CONTRACT: Mailbox Rule | NEW |
| CONTRACT: Real Estate Sales Contract | HIGH |
| PROF-RES: Communications with Opposing Party | MED |
| PROPERTY: Real Estate Brokerage Contract | MED |
| Essay 2 | Priority |
| EVIDENCE: Excited Utterance/Present Sense Impression | LOW |
| EVIDENCE: Dying Declaration Hearsay | MED |
| PROF-RES: Conduct Before a Tribunal | NEW |
| CRIMLAW: Alibi | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Double Jeopardy | NEW |
| Essay 3 | Priority |
| PROPERTY: Rule Against Perpetuities* | LOW |
| WILLS: Totten Trust | HIGH |
| WILLS: Uniform Simultaneous Death Act | MED |
| WILLS: Elective Share | HIGH |
| Essay 4 | Priority |
| TORTS: Punitive Damages | NEW |
| TORTS: Malpractice | HIGH |
| TORTS: Res Ipsa Loquitur | HIGH |
| TORTS: Joint and Several Liability | MED |
| TORTS: Contribution | HIGH |
| Essay 5 | Priority |
| CORP: Board Authorization** | LOW |
| CORP: Director Duty of Care | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Modification of Child Support in a Separation Agreement*** | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Child Support | HIGH |
* Master response partly insufficient - I added a sentence regarding if an interest is void due to RAP.
** Master response partly insufficient - I expanded on quorums
*** Master response was partly sufficient - did not discuss new law for modifying separation agreements
SUMMARY OF MASTER TOPICS ON THE FEB 2013 EXAM
| Priority | # of topics |
% of exam |
| NEW | 4 |
17.4% |
| HIGH | 11 |
47.8% |
| MEDIUM | 5 |
21.7% |
| LOW | 3 |
13.0% |
| TOTAL | 23 |
82.6% |
MASTER JULY 2012 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER JULY 2012 performed in regards to the July 2012 exam. MASTER JULY 2012 was released on May 28, 2012.
In MASTER JULY 2012, there were a total of 331 topics. These 331 topics represented every topic answered on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995 to Feb 2012. Of these 331 topics, 120 of the topics were designated as HIGH priority topics (14 of these 120 topics appeared on the July 2012 exam). Of these 331 topics, 106 of the topics were designated as MEDIUM priority topics (11 of these 106 topics appeared on the July 2012 exam). Of these 331 topics, 105 of the topics were designated as LOW priority topics (0 of these 105 topics appeared on the July 2012 exam) and the remaining 7.4% of the July 2012 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995.
Following are the essay topics from the July 2012 exam and the priorities that were assigned to them in MASTER JULY 2012:
| Essay 1 | Priority |
| NYPRAC: Failure to State a Cause of Action | HIGH |
| CONTRACT: Statute of Frauds | MED |
| CONTRACT: Risk of Loss and Bailments | HIGH |
| CONTRACT: Mutual Mistake | MED |
| PROPERTY: Joint Tenants | MED |
| Essay 2 | Priority |
| CRIMLAW: Search and Seizure–Standing* | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Search and Seizure–Warrantless Search Exceptions | MED |
| CRIMLAW: Search and Seizure–Fruit of The Poisonous Tree** | MED |
| EVIDENCE: Prior Bad Act | MED |
| EVIDENCE: Prior Bad Act-Sandoval Hearing | NEW |
| TORTS: Municipality Negligence | HIGH |
| Essay 3 | Priority |
| DOMESTIC: Jurisdiction-Divorce | MED |
| DOMESTIC: Jurisdiction-Maintenance and Equitable Distribution | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Divorce | MED |
| DOMESTIC: Equitable Distribution of Marital Property | HIGH |
| NYPRAC: Contempt of Court | NEW |
| Essay 4 | Priority |
| NYPRAC: Summary Judgment Motion | HIGH |
| PROPERTY: Tenant Duty to Repair | HIGH |
| TORTS: Negligence | HIGH |
| TORTS: Landowner Liability | HIGH |
| EVIDENCE: Hearsay*** | MED |
| CONFLICT: Conflict of Law | MED |
| Essay 5 | Priority |
| WILLS: Creation and Validity | HIGH |
| WILLS: No Contest Clause | HIGH |
| WILLS: Interested Witness | HIGH |
| PROF-RES: Attorney Conflict of Interest**** | MED |
| WILLS: Putnam Scrutiny | HIGH |
* Master response was insufficient - only one sentence on government vs. private actors
** Master response was insufficient - did not discuss inevitable discovery doctrine
***Master response was insufficient - did not discuss party admissions
****Master response was insufficient - did not discuss RPC gift conflict rules (I also moved this topic from WILLS to PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY).
SUMMARY OF MASTER TOPICS ON THE JULY 2012 EXAM
| Priority | # of topics |
% of exam |
| NEW | 2 |
7.4% |
| HIGH | 14 |
51.9% |
| MEDIUM | 11 |
40.7% |
| LOW | 0 |
0.0% |
| TOTAL | 27 |
With 25 of the 27 topics being repeaters (plus 4 topics containing insufficent MASTER responses), the MASTER JULY 2012 outline contained answers to approximately 78% of the topics answered on the July 2012 NY Bar exam essays. MASTER JULY 2012 was approximately 1/10 the size of the BARBRI 2008 Long Books and approximately 1/3 the size of the BARBRI 2008 Conviser. The MASTER JULY 2012 outline was 161 pages long and consisted of approximately 87,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). Based on a reading rate or 400 words per minute, it would take you approximately 3.6 hours to read the entire MASTER JULY 2012 outline once. In comparison, the 26 subjects in the BARBRI 2008 Long Books comprise approximately 1,267 pages and consist of approximately 754,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). At the same reading rate, it would take you about 31.4 hours to read the 26 subjects in the BARBRI Long Books. Although the BARBRI 2008 Long Books probably covered almost 100% of the New York essay portion of the exam in detail, studying this entire book would take up a tremendous amount of your time let alone the difficulty in trying to process and remember everything. With MASTER JULY 2012, you would have had basic answers for 78% or more of the tested July 2012 topics (I excluded the topics with sparse coverage in MASTER JULY 2012) in an outline that would take you about 3.5 hours to read . More so, with the MASTER JULY 2012 HIGH Priority Topics Outline (70 pages, approximately 36,000 words), you would have had 50% of the tested July 2012 topics in an outline that would take you about 1.4 hours to read or 2.8 hours to study. This is what I mean by efficiency. Again, MASTER isn't perfect. It isn't on point every time and of course there will always be new topics, which is why you should study outlines and other bar materials also. However, I don't think there is a more efficient way to study for the essay portion of the exam than with MASTER. Keep in mind that MASTER 2013 (or any other bar material for that matter) will not help you if you cannot spot the issues - the MASTER outline and the other material will help you focus on high priority areas, but you still must be able to issue spot and write a good answer.
| Resource | Pages | Words (approx.) | Words per page | Hours to read* | Hours to study* |
| MASTER JULY 2012 | 161 | 87,200 |
535 |
3.6 |
7.2 |
| BARBRI Long Books 2008 | 1,267 | 754,000 |
595 |
31.4 |
62.8 |
| BARBRI Conviser Mini Review 2008 | 682 | 287,000 |
420 |
11.9 |
23.9 |
*based on 400 word per minute for reading and 200 words per minute for studying.
MASTER FEB 2012 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER FEB 2012 performed in regards to the February 2012 exam. MASTER FEB 2012 was released on December 22, 2011.
In MASTER FEB 2012, there were a total of 330 topics. These 330 topics represented every topic answered on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995 to July 2011. MASTER FEB 2012 consisted of 105 HIGH priority topics; 112 MEDIUM priority topics; and 113 LOW priority topics. On the Feb 2012 exam, 76% of all the Feb 2012 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2012 HIGH priority topics; 16% of all the Feb 2012 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2012 MEDIUM priority topics; 0% of all the Feb 2012 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2012 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 8% of the Feb 2012 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995).
Following are the essay topics from the Feb 2012 exam and the priorities that were assigned to them in MASTER FEB 2012:
| Essay 1 | Priority |
| CONTRACT: Statute of Frauds | HIGH |
| CONTRACT: Substantial Performance | HIGH |
| CONTRACT: Confirmatory Memo | HIGH |
| CONTRACT: Lost Volume Seller* | NEW |
| Essay 2 | Priority |
| CRIMLAW: Elements of a Crime | NEW |
| CRIMLAW: Burglary** | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Search and Seizure–Home | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Search and Seizure–Warrantless Search Exceptions | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Search and Seizure–Police Encounters | MED |
| Essay 3 | Priority |
| CORP: Closely Held Corporation | HIGH |
| CORP: Judicial Dissolution | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Jurisdiction-Divorce | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Divorce | MED |
| DOMESTIC: Equitable Distribution of Professional License | HIGH |
| Essay 4 | Priority |
| NYPRAC: Long Arm Jurisdiction | MED |
| NYPRAC: Statute of Limitations*** | HIGH |
| NYPRAC: Motion to Dismiss | HIGH |
| TORTS: Defamation | HIGH |
| TORTS: Defamation-Qualified Privilege Defense | MED |
| Essay 5 | Priority |
| PROPERTY: Constructive Trust | HIGH |
| WILLS: Creation and Validity | HIGH |
| WILLS: Interested Witness | HIGH |
| WILLS: Incorporation by Reference-Pourover | HIGH |
| WILLS: Intestate Succession | HIGH |
| WILLS: Pretermitted Children | HIGH |
* I made it a new topic, but Breach by Buyer (F12 Prio: MED) could have answered it
** Master response was insufficient - did not discuss offices as dwellings
*** Master response was insufficient - SOL did not discuss tolling when re-filing
SUMMARY OF MASTER TOPICS ON THE FEB 2012 EXAM
| Priority | # of topics |
% of exam |
| NEW | 2 |
8.0% |
| HIGH | 19 |
76.0% |
| MEDIUM | 4 |
16.0% |
| LOW | 0 |
0.0% |
| TOTAL | 25 |
With 23 of the 25 topics being repeaters, the MASTER FEB 2012 outline contained approximately 92% of the topics answered on the Feb 2012 NY Bar exam essays. MASTER FEB 2012 was approximately 1/10 the size of the BARBRI 2008 Long Books and approximately 1/4 the size of the BARBRI 2008 Conviser. The MASTER FEB 2012 outline was 161 pages long and consisted of approximately 86,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). Based on a reading rate or 400 words per minute, it would take you approximately 3.6 hours to read the entire MASTER FEB 2012 outline once. In comparison, the 26 subjects in the BARBRI 2008 Long Books comprise approximately 1,267 pages and consist of approximately 754,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). At the same reading rate, it would take you about 31.4 hours to read the 26 subjects in the BARBRI Long Books. Although the BARBRI 2008 Long Books probably covered almost 100% of the New York essay portion of the exam in detail, studying this entire book would take up a tremendous amount of your time let alone the difficulty in trying to process and remember everything. With MASTER FEB 2012, you would have had basic answers for 92% or more of the tested Feb 2012 topics in an outline that would take you about 3.5 hours to read. More so, with the MASTER FEB 2012 HIGH Priority Topics Outline (70 pages, approximately 33,000 words), you would have had 76% of the tested Feb 2012 topics in an outline that would take you about 1.4 hours to read or 2.8 hours to study. This is what I mean by efficiency. Again, MASTER isn't perfect. It isn't on point every time and of course there will always be new topics, which is why you should study outlines and other bar materials also. However, I don't think there is a more efficient way to study for the essay portion of the exam than with MASTER. Keep in mind that MASTER 2012 (or any other bar material for that matter) will not help you if you cannot spot the issues - the MASTER outline and the other material will help you focus on high priority areas, but you still must be able to issue spot and write a good answer.
| Resource | Pages | Words (approx.) | Words per page | Hours to read* | Hours to study* |
| MASTER FEB 2012 | 158 | 86,000 |
535 |
3.6 |
7.2 |
| BARBRI Long Books 2008 | 1,267 | 754,000 |
595 |
31.4 |
62.8 |
| BARBRI Conviser Mini Review 2008 | 682 | 287,000 |
420 |
11.9 |
23.9 |
*based on 400 word per minute for reading and 200 words per minute for studying.
MASTER JULY 2011 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER JULY 2011 performed in regards to the February 2011 exam. MASTER JULY 2011 was released on May 28, 2011.
In MASTER JULY 2011, there were a total of 325 topics. These 325 topics represented every topic answered on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995 to Feb 2011. MASTER JULY 2011 consisted of 106 HIGH priority topics; 111 MEDIUM priority topics; and 108 LOW priority topics. On the July 2011 exam, 34.8% of all the July 2011 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2011 HIGH priority topics; 39.1% of all the July 2011 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2011 MEDIUM priority topics; 4.3% of all the July 2011 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2011 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 21.7% of the July 2011 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995).
Following are the essay topics from the July 2011 exam and the priorities that were assigned to them in MASTER JULY 2011:
| Essay 1 | Priority |
| PROPERTY: Tenants in Common | MED |
| PROPERTY: Tenants in Common–Repairs* | NEW |
| PROPERTY: Easement | HIGH |
| PROPERTY: License | MED |
| PROPERTY: Risk of Loss (UVPRA) | MED |
| Essay 2 | Priority |
| CRIMLAW: Search and Seizure–Police Encounters | MED |
| CRIMLAW: Right to Counsel–Miranda | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Search and Seizure–Fruit of The Poisonous Tree | MED |
| CRIMLAW: Burden of Proof | LOW |
| UCC: Art 3-Unauthorized Indorsement | MED |
| Essay 3 | Priority |
| DOMESTIC: Paternity | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Modification of Child Support in a Separation Agreement | HIGH |
| CORP: Interested Director Transaction | HIGH |
| UCC: Art 9-Self-Help Repossession | MED |
| Essay 4 | Priority |
| TORTS: No-Fault Insurance | HIGH |
| TORTS: Negligence | HIGH |
| TORTS: Comparative Negligence | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Driving while Intoxicated (DWI/DUI) | NEW |
| Essay 5 | Priority |
| WILLS: Revocation of Will | MED |
| WILLS: Revival of Will | NEW |
| WILLS: Revocation–Dependent Relative Revocation | NEW |
| TRUSTS: Management | MED |
| AGENT-PART: Limited Liability Partnerships | NEW |
* The MASTER topic for PROPERTY: Tenants in Common briefly discussed repairs but I decided to create a new topic
SUMMARY OF MASTER TOPICS ON THE JULY 2011 EXAM
| Priority | # of topics |
% of exam |
| HIGH | 8 |
34.8% |
| MEDIUM | 9 |
39.1% |
| LOW | 1 |
4.3% |
| NEW | 5 |
21.7% |
| TOTAL | 23 |
With 18 of the 23 topics being repeaters, the MASTER JULY 2011 outline contained approximately 78% of the topics answered on the July 2011 NY Bar exam essays. MASTER JULY 2011 was approximately 1/10 the size of the BARBRI 2008 Long Books and approximately 1/4 the size of the BARBRI 2008 Conviser. The MASTER JULY 2011 outline was 134 pages long and consisted of approximately 85,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). Based on a reading rate or 400 words per minute, it would take you approximately 3.5 hours to read the entire MASTER JULY 2011 outline once. In comparison, the 26 subjects in the BARBRI 2008 Long Books comprise approximately 1,267 pages and consist of approximately 754,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). At the same reading rate, it would take you about 31.4 hours to read the 26 subjects in the BARBRI Long Books. Although the BARBRI 2008 Long Books probably covered almost 100% of the New York essay portion of the exam in detail, studying this entire book would take up a tremendous amount of your time let alone the difficulty in trying to process and remember everything. With MASTER JULY 2011, you would have had basic answers for 78% or more of the tested July 2011 topics in an outline that would take you about 3.5 hours to read. More so, with the MASTER JULY 2011 HIGH Priority Topics Outline (53 pages, approximately 32,000 words), you would have had 34.8% of the tested July 2011 topics in an outline that would take you about 1.3 hours to read or 2.7 hours to study. This is what I mean by efficiency. Again, MASTER isn't perfect. It isn't on point every time and of course there will always be new topics, which is why you should study outlines and other bar materials also. However, I don't think there is a more efficient way to study for the essay portion of the exam than with MASTER. Keep in mind that MASTER 2012 (or any other bar material for that matter) will not help you if you cannot spot the issues - the MASTER outline and the other material will help you focus on high priority areas, but you still must be able to issue spot and write a good answer.
| Resource | Pages | Words (approx.) | Words per page | Hours to read* | Hours to study* |
| MASTER July 2011 | 134 | 85,000 |
633 |
3.5 |
7.1 |
| BARBRI Long Books 2008 | 1,267 | 754,000 |
595 |
31.4 |
62.8 |
| BARBRI Conviser Mini Review 2008 | 682 | 287,000 |
420 |
11.9 |
23.9 |
*based on 400 word per minute for reading and 200 words per minute for studying.
MASTER FEB 2011 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER FEB 2011 performed in regards to the February 2011 exam. MASTER FEB 2011 was released on December 22, 2010.
In MASTER FEB 2011, there were a total of 323 topics. These 323 topics represented every topic answered on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995 to July 2010. MASTER FEB 2011 consisted of 99 HIGH priority topics; 86 MEDIUM priority topics; and 138 LOW priority topics. On the Feb 2011 exam, 42.3% of all the Feb 2011 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2011 HIGH priority topics; 26.9% of all the Feb 2011 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2011 MEDIUM priority topics; 19.2% of all the Feb 2011 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2011 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 11.5% of the Feb 2011 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay since July 1995).
Following are the essay topics from the February 2011 exam and the priorities that were assigned to them in MASTER FEB 2011:
| Essay 1 | Priority |
| PROPERTY: Adverse Possession | MED |
| CONTRACT: Third-Party Beneficiary | LOW |
| PROPERTY: Termination of Tenancy/Tenant Holdover* | LOW |
| Essay 2 | Priority |
| CRIMLAW: Conspiracy | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Arson | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Accomplice | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Murder in the Second Degree | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel | LOW |
| Essay 3 | Priority |
| DOMESTIC: Adultery | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Condonation | MED |
| DOMESTIC: Recrimination | NEW |
| CORP: Interested Director Transaction | HIGH |
| CORP: Shareholder Derivative Action | MED |
| UCC: Art 9-Perfection of Security Interest | MED |
| Essay 4 | Priority |
| PROF-RES: Communications with Opposing Party | NEW |
| NYPRAC: Discovery** | HIGH |
| NYPRAC: Summary Judgment Motion | HIGH |
| TORTS: Trespass to Land | LOW |
| TORTS: Assault | NEW |
| TORTS: Vicarious Liability/Agency | HIGH |
| TORTS: Municipality Negligence | HIGH |
| Essay 5 | Priority |
| WILLS: Totten Trust | MED |
| WILLS: Revocation of Will | MED |
| WILLS: Ademption | MED |
| WILLS: Antilapse Statute | HIGH |
| WILLS: Class Gifts to Issue | LOW |
* The MASTER topic for PROPERTY: Tenant Holdover did not discuss Termination of Tenancy - I subsequently added this to the response.
** The MASTER topic for NYPRAC: Discovery did not discuss materials prepared for litigation - I subsequently added a sentence on this to the response.
SUMMARY OF MASTER TOPICS ON THE FEB 2011 EXAM
| Priority | # of topics |
% of exam |
| HIGH | 11 |
42.3% |
| MEDIUM | 7 |
26.9% |
| LOW | 5 |
19.2% |
| NEW | 3 |
11.5% |
| TOTAL | 26 |
With 23 of the 26 topics being repeaters, the MASTER FEB 2011 outline contained approximately 88% of the topics answered on the February 2011 NY Bar exam essays. MASTER FEB 2011 was approximately 1/10 the size of the BARBRI 2008 Long Books and approximately 1/4 the size of the BARBRI 2008 Conviser. The MASTER FEB 2011 outline was 130 pages long and consisted of approximately 82,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). Based on a reading rate or 400 words per minute, it would take you approximately 3.4 hours to read the entire MASTER FEB 2011 outline once. In comparison, the 26 subjects in the BARBRI 2008 Long Books comprise approximately 1,267 pages and consist of approximately 754,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). At the same reading rate, it would take you about 31.4 hours to read the 26 subjects in the BARBRI Long Books. Although the BARBRI 2008 Long Books probably covered almost 100% of the New York essay portion of the exam in detail, studying this entire book would take up a tremendous amount of your time let alone the difficulty in trying to process and remember everything. With MASTER FEB 2011, you would have had basic answers for 88% of the tested February 2011 topics in an outline that would take you about 3.4 hours to read. More so, with the MASTER FEB 2011 HIGH Priority Topics Outline (47 pages, approximately 29,000 words), you would have had 42.3% of the tested February 2011 topics in an outline that would take you about 1.2 hours to read or 2.4 hours to study. This is what I mean by efficiency. Again, MASTER isn't perfect. It isn't on point every time and of course there will always be new topics, which is why you should study outlines and other bar materials also. However, I don't think there is a more efficient way to study for the essay portion of the exam than with MASTER. Keep in mind that MASTER 2011 (or any other bar material for that matter) will not help you if you cannot spot the issues - the MASTER outline and the other material will help you focus on high priority areas, but you still must be able to issue spot and write a good answer.
| Resource | Pages | Words (approx.) | Words per page | Hours to read* | Hours to study* |
| MASTER Feb 2011 | 130 | 82,000 |
630 |
3.4 |
6.8 |
| BARBRI Long Books 2008 | 1,267 | 754,000 |
595 |
31.4 |
62.8 |
| BARBRI Conviser Mini Review 2008 | 682 | 287,000 |
420 |
11.9 |
23.9 |
*based on 400 word per minute for reading and 200 words per minute for studying.
MASTER JULY 2010 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER JULY 2010 performed in regards to the July 2010 exam. MASTER JULY 2010 consisted of 317 total topics and was released May 29, 2010. These 317 topics represented every topic answered on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995-Feb 2010. MASTER JULY 2010 consisted of 137 LOW priority topics, 69 MEDIUM priority topics, and 111 HIGH priority topics. On the July 2010 exam, 40% of all the July 2010 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2010 HIGH priority topics; 28% of the July 2010 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2010 MEDIUM priority topics; and 8% of the July 2010 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2010 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 24% of the July 2010 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay from July 1995-Feb 2010). Following are the essay topics from the July 2010 exam and the priorities that were assigned to them in MASTER JULY 2010:
| Essay 1 | Priority |
| CRIMLAW: Alibi | HIGH |
| CRIMLAW: Brady/Rosario Material* | MED |
| PROF-RES: Competence | NEW |
| NYPRAC: Appeals | LOW |
| CRIMLAW: Manslaughter in the First Degree** | MED |
| Essay 2 | Priority |
| CONTRACT: Breach by Seller | MED |
| CONTRACT: Warranties | HIGH |
| CONTRACT: Non-Conforming Goods | HIGH |
| UCC: Art 3-Negotiable Instrument | HIGH |
| UCC: Art 3-Risk of Loss | LOW |
| Essay 3 | Priority |
| CORP: Shareholder Voting | NEW |
| CORP: Shareholder Proxies | NEW |
| CORP: Treasury Shares | NEW |
| CORP: Super-Majority Voting | MED |
| Essay 4 | Priority |
| DOMESTIC: Termination of Parental Rights | NEW |
| DOMESTIC: Child Custody | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Full Faith and Credit of Divorce Decrees | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Jurisdiction-Maintenance and Equitable Distribution | MED |
| Essay 5 | Priority |
| WILLS: Creation/Validity | MED |
| AGENT-PART: Partnerships | HIGH |
| WILLS: Distributions | MED |
| WILLS: Pretermitted Children | HIGH |
| WILLS: Elective Share | HIGH |
| WILLS: Intestate Succession | HIGH |
* The MASTER topic for CRIMLAW: Brady/Rosario Material was incomplete because it did not talk about exculpatory evidence - I subsequently added Brady material to the response.
** The MASTER topic for CRIMLAW: Manslaughter in the First Degree was incomplete because it did not discuss proximate or intervening cause - I subsequently added this to the response.
SUMMARY OF MASTER TOPICS ON THE JULY 2010 EXAM
| Priority | # of topics | % of exam |
| HIGH | 10 |
40.0% |
| MEDIUM | 7 |
28.0% |
| LOW | 2 |
8.0% |
| NEW | 6 |
24.0% |
| TOTAL | 25 |
With 19 of the 25 topics being repeaters, the MASTER JULY 2010 outline contained approximately 76% of the topics answered on the July 2010 NY Bar exam essays. MASTER JULY 2010 was approximately 1/10 the size of the BARBRI 2008 Long Books and approximately 1/4 the size of the BARBRI 2008 Conviser. The MASTER JULY 2010 outline was 125 pages long and consisted of approximately 78,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). Based on a reading rate or 400 words per minute, it would take you approximately 3.1 hours to read the entire MASTER JULY 2010 outline once. In comparison, the 26 subjects in the BARBRI 2008 Long Books comprise approximately 1,267 pages and consist of approximately 754,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). At the same reading rate, it would take you about 31.4 hours to read the 26 subjects in the BARBRI Long Books. Although the BARBRI 2008 Long Books probably covered almost 100% of the New York essay portion of the exam in detail, studying this entire book would take up a tremendous amount of your time let alone the difficulty in trying to process and remember everything. With MASTER JULY 2010, you would have had basic answers for 76% of the tested July 2010 topics in an outline that would take you about 3.2 hours to read. More so, with the MASTER JULY 2010 HIGH Priority Topics Outline (51 pages, approximately 31,5000 words), you would have had 40% of the tested July 2010 topics in an outline that would take you about 1.3 hours to read or 2.6 hours to study. This is what I mean by efficiency. Again, MASTER isn't perfect. It isn't on point every time and of course there will always be new topics, which is why you should study outlines and other bar materials also. However, I don't think there is a more efficient way to study for the essay portion of the exam than with MASTER. Keep in mind that MASTER 2011 (or any other bar material for that matter) will not help you if you cannot spot the issues - the MASTER outline and the other material will help you focus on high priority areas, but you still must be able to issue spot and write a good answer.
| Resource | Pages | Words (approx.) | Words per page | Hours to read* | Hours to study* |
| MASTER July 2010 | 125 | 78,000 |
623 |
3.2 |
6.5 |
| BARBRI Long Books 2008 | 1,267 | 754,000 |
595 |
31.4 |
62.8 |
| BARBRI Conviser Mini Review 2008 | 682 | 287,000 |
420 |
11.9 |
23.9 |
*based on 400 word per minute for reading and 200 words per minute for studying.
MASTER FEB 2010 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER FEB 2010 performed in regards to the Feb 2010 exam. MASTER FEB 2010 consisted of 311 total topics and was released December 21, 2009. These 311 topics represented every topic on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995-July 2009. MASTER FEB 2010 consisted of 134 LOW priority topics, 69 MEDIUM priority topics, and 108 HIGH priority topics. On the Feb 2010 exam, 48% of all the Feb 2010 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2010 HIGH priority topics; 17% of the Feb 2010 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2010 MEDIUM priority topics; and 9% of the Feb 2010 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2010 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 26% of the Feb 2010 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay from July 1995-July 2009). Here are the essay topics from the February 2010 exam and the priorities assigned to them in MASTER FEB 2010:
| Essay 1 | Priority |
| DOMESTIC: Conversion Divorce | MED |
| DOMESTIC: Jurisdiction-Divorce | HIGH |
| AGENT-PART: Partner Liability | LOW |
| UCC: Art 9-Perfection of Security Interest* | MED |
| Essay 2 | Priority |
| WILLS: Creation/Validity | HIGH |
| WILLS: Layperson Opinion | HIGH |
| AGENT-PART: Agency Termination | NEW |
| WILLS: Antilapse Statute | HIGH |
| WILLS: Ademption | HIGH |
| WILLS: No Contest Clause | MED |
| Essay 3 | Priority |
| TORTS: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress | HIGH |
| TORTS: Strict Liability for Animals | NEW |
| NYPRAC: Preliminary Injunction | HIGH |
| Essay 4 | Priority |
| PROPERTY: Easement-Merger | NEW |
| PROPERTY: Easement | LOW |
| PROPERTY: Marketable Title | NEW |
| CONTRACT: Statute of Frauds | HIGH |
| PROPERTY: Real Estate Brokerage Contract | NEW |
| Essay 5 | Priority |
| CORP: Shareholder Right to Inspect Records | NEW |
| CORP: Closely Held Corporation | MED |
| CORP: Director Duty of Care | HIGH |
| CORP: Director Duty of Loyalty | HIGH |
| CORP: Shareholder Derivative Action | HIGH |
* The MASTER topic for UCC: Art 9-Perfection of Security Interest was inadequate as it did not talk about automatic perfection in consumer goods - I subsequently added this to the response.
SUMMARY OF MASTER TOPICS ON THE FEBRUARY 2010 EXAM
HIGH PRIORITY - 11 TOPICS - 48%
MED PRIORITY - 4 TOPICS - 20%
LOW PRIORITY - 2 TOPICS - 16%
NEW TOPICS - 6 TOPICS - 12%
TOTAL TOPICS ON EXAM - 23
With 17 of the 23 topics being repeaters, the MASTER FEB 2010 outline contained approximately 74% of the topics on the Feb 2010 NY Bar exam.
MASTER FEB 2010 was approximately 1/10 the size of the BARBRI 2008 Long Books and approximately 1/4 the size of the BARBRI 2008 Conviser. The MASTER FEB 2010 outline was 94 pages long and consisted of approximately 73,700 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). Based on a reading rate or 400 words per minute, it would take you approximately 3.1 hours to read the entire MASTER FEB 2010 outline once. In comparison, the 26 subjects in the BARBRI 2008 Long Books comprise approximately 1,267 pages and consist of approximately 754,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). At the same reading rate, it would take you about 31.4 hours to read the 26 subjects in the BARBRI Long Books. Although the BARBRI 2008 Long Books probably covered almost 100% of the New York essay portion of the exam in detail, studying this entire book would take up a tremendous amount of your time let alone the difficulty in trying to process and remember everything. With MASTER FEB 2010, you would have had basic answers for 74% of the tested Feb 2010 topics in an outline that would take you about 3 hours to read. More so, with the MASTER FEB 2010 HIGH Priority Topics Outline (39 pages, approximately 30,6000 words), you would have had 48% of the tested Feb 2010 topics in an outline that would take you about 1.3 hours to read. This is what I mean by efficiency. Again, MASTER isn't perfect. It isn't on point every time and of course there will always be new topics, which is why you should study outlines and other bar materials also. However, I don't think there is a more efficient way to study for the essay portion of the exam than with MASTER. Keep in mind that MASTER 2009-2010 (or any other bar material for that matter) will not help you if you cannot spot the issues - the MASTER outline and the other material will help you focus on high priority areas, but you still must be able to issue spot and write a good answer.
| Resource | Pages | Words (approx.) | Words per page | Hours to read* | Hours to study* |
| MASTER Feb 2010 | 94 | 73,700 |
784 |
3.1 |
6.1 |
| BARBRI Long Books 2008 | 1,267 | 754,000 |
595 |
31.4 |
62.8 |
| BARBRI Conviser Mini Review 2008 | 682 | 287,000 |
420 |
11.9 |
23.9 |
*based on 400 word per minute for reading and 200 words per minute for studying.
MASTER July 2009 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER July 2009 performed in regards to the July 2009 exam. MASTER July 2009 consisted of 310 total topics and was released May 26, 2009. These 310 topics represented every topic on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995-Feb 2009. MASTER JULY 2009 consisted of 115 LOW priority topics, 79 MEDIUM priority topics, and 116 HIGH priority topics. On the July 2009 exam, 52% of all the July 2009 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2009 HIGH priority topics; 20% of the July 2009 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2009 MEDIUM priority topics; and 16% of the July 2009 essay topics came from the MASTER JULY 2009 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 12% of the July 2009 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay from July 1995-February 2009). The MASTER priorities for the July 2009 exam were slightly more accurate than the priorities for the Feb 2009 exam even though I allocated more topics as LOW priority for the July 2009 exam.
Here are the essay topics from July 2009 and the priorities assigned to them in MASTER July 2009:
| Essay 1 | Priority |
| AGENT-PART: Agency | MED |
| CONTRACT: Damages/Cover | HIGH |
| AGENT-PART: Agent Liability | NEW |
| CONTRACT: Installment Contract | MED |
| CONTRACT: Consideration | MED |
| Essay 2 | Priority |
| CRIMLAW: Larceny | MED |
| CRIMLAW: Issuing a Bad Check* | LOW |
| CRIMLAW: Duress | LOW |
| UCC: Art 3-Negotiable Instrument** | LOW |
| Essay 3 | Priority |
| DOMESTIC: Conversion Divorce | MED |
| DOMESTIC: Modification of a Separation Agreement*** | LOW |
| DOMESTIC: Modification of Child Support in a Separation Agreement | HIGH |
| DOMESTIC: Child Custody | HIGH |
| Essay 4 | Priority |
| TORTS: Negligent Supervision | HIGH |
| NYPRAC: Failure to State a Cause of Action | HIGH |
| TORTS: Negligence | HIGH |
| TORTS: Landowner Liability | HIGH |
| CONFLICT: Conflict of Law | HIGH |
| TORTS: Comparative Negligence | HIGH |
| Essay 5 | Priority |
| WILLS: Contest of Will/Competence | HIGH |
| WILLS: Elective Share | HIGH |
| WILLS: Distribution of Residuary Estate | HIGH |
| WILLS: No Contest Clause | HIGH |
| TRUSTS: Creation | NEW |
| TRUSTS: Irrevocable Trust | NEW |
* The MASTER topic for Issuing a Bad Check did not talk about defenses - I subsequently added defenses to the response.
** The MASTER topic for UCC: Art 3-Negotiable Instrument did not talk about notes or IOUs - I subsequently added this to the response.
*** The MASTER topic responses for DOMESTIC: Modification of a Separation Agreement and DOMESTIC: Modification of Child Support in a Separation Agreement were reversed due to a topic mis-labeling error.
SUMMARY OF MASTER TOPICS ON THE JULY 2009 EXAM
HIGH PRIORITY - 13 TOPICS - 52%
MED PRIORITY - 5 TOPICS - 20%
LOW PRIORITY - 4 TOPICS - 16%
NEW TOPICS - 3 TOPICS - 12%
TOTAL TOPICS - 25
With 22 of the 25 topics being repeaters, the July 2009 MASTER outline contained approximately 88% of the topics on the July 2009 NY Bar exam.
Master July 2009 was 93 pages long and consisted of approximately 71,400 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). Based on a reading rate or 400 words per minute, it would take you approximately 3.0 hours to read the entire MASTER July 2009 outline once. In comparison, the 26 subjects in the BARBRI 2008 Long Books comprise approximately 1,267 pages and consist of approximately 754,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). At the same reading rate, it would take you about 31.4 hours to read the 26 subjects in the BARBRI Long Books. Although the BARBRI 2008 Long Books probably covered almost 100% of the New York essay portion of the exam in detail, studying this entire book would take up a tremendous amount of your time let alone the difficulty in trying to process and remember everything. With MASTER FEB 2009 , you would have had basic answers for 88% of the tested July 2009 topics in an outline that would take you about 3 hours to read. More so, with the MASTER July 2009 HIGH Priority Topics Outline (33 pages, approximately 31,000 words), you would have had 52% of the tested July 2009 topics in an outline that would take you about 1.3 hours to read. This is what I mean by efficiency. Again, MASTER isn't perfect. It isn't on point every time and of course there will always be new topics, which is why you should study outlines and other bar materials also. However, I don't think there is a more efficient way to study for the essay portion of the exam than with MASTER. Keep in mind that MASTER 2009-2010 (or any other bar material for that matter) will not help you if you cannot spot the issues - the MASTER outline and the other material will help you focus on high priority areas, but you still must be able to issue spot and write a good answer.
| Resource | Pages | Words (approx.) | Words per page | Hours to read* | Hours to study* |
| MASTER July 2009 | 93 | 71,400 |
768 |
3.0 |
6.0 |
| BARBRI Long Books 2008 | 1,267 | 754,000 |
595 |
31.4 |
62.8 |
| BARBRI Conviser Mini Review 2008 | 682 | 287,000 |
420 |
11.9 |
23.9 |
*based on 400 word per minute for reading and 200 words per minute for studying.
MASTER FEB 2009 Post-Exam Analysis
This is a post-exam analysis of how MASTER FEB 2009 performed in regards to the February 2009 exam. MASTER FEB 2009 consisted of 307 total topics and was released December 26, 2009. These 307 topics represented every topic on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995-July 2008. MASTER FEB 2009 consisted of 95 LOW priority topics, 97 MEDIUM priority topics, and 115 HIGH priority topics. On the February 2009 exam, 50% of all the Feb 2009 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2009 HIGH priority topics; 19% of the Feb 2009 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2009 MEDIUM priority topics; and 19% of the Feb 2009 essay topics came from the MASTER FEB 2009 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 12% of the February 2009 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay from July 1995-July 2008). The MASTER priorities for the February 2009 exam were slightly more accurate than the priorities for the July 2008 exam even though I allocated more topics as LOW priority for the Feb 2009 exam.
FEBRUARY 2009 EXAM
HIGH PRIORITY - 13 TOPICS - 50%
MED PRIORITY - 5 TOPICS - 19%
LOW PRIORITY - 5 TOPICS - 19%
NEW TOPICS - 3 TOPICS - 12%
TOTAL TOPICS - 26
Here are the essay topics from February 2009 and the priorities assigned to them in MASTER FEB 2009 :
Essay 1
HIGH DOMESTIC: Equitable Distribution of Marital Property
HIGH DOMESTIC: Equitable Distribution of Separate Property
LOW DOMESTIC: Equitable Distribution of a Gift
LOW NYPRAC: Discovery
HIGH PROPERTY: Restrictive Covenant
MED PROPERTY: Constructive Trust
Essay2
HIGH TORTS: Strict Products Liability
NEW TORTS: Labor Law § 240
NEW CORP: Sale or Other Disposition of Assets
HIGH TORTS: Landowner Liability
HIGH TORTS: Negligence
HIGH TORTS: Workers Compensation
Essay3
HIGH WILLS: Reference by Incorporation-Pourover Trust
MED TRUSTS: Trust Amendment
LOW WILLS: Pretermitted Children
LOW WILLS: Anti-Lapse Statute
Essay 4
HIGH CONTRACT: Creation/Validity
NEW CONTRACT: Mutual Mistake *
MED CONTRACT: Unconscionability
MED TORTS: Malpractice
HIGH PRO-RES: Fees
Essay 5
HIGH NYPRAC: Motion to Dismiss
HIGH CRIMLAW: Burglary
LOW CRIMLAW: Kidnapping/Unlawful Imprisonment**
MED CRIMLAW: Alibi
HIGH CRIMLAW: Right to Counsel/Miranda
* Although the NY BOLE Content Outline combines Mutual Mistake with Unilateral Mistake, I created a new topic for Mutual Mistake since the answer for Unilateral Mistake was insufficient to answer the exam question. I may combine the two in the future to correspond with the NY BOLE Content Outline.
** Kidnapping previously appeared in Feb 1998, but Unlawful Imprisonment never appeared. The Kidnapping topic could have been used to answer the Unlawful Imprisonment question, so I added to the Kidnapping topic and "merged" the two topics.
With 23 of the 26 topics being repeaters, the February 2009 MASTER outline contained approximately 89% of the topics on the February 2009 NY Bar exam.
MASTER FEB 2009 was 76 pages long and consisted of approximately 68,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). Based on a reading rate or 400 words per minute, it would take you approximately 2.8 hours to read the entire MASTER FEB 2009 outline once. In comparison, the 26 subjects in the BARBRI 2008 Long Books comprise approximately 1,267 pages and consist of approximately 754,000 words (tables of content or headings were not included in the word count). At the same reading rate, it would take you about 31.4 hours to read the 26 subjects in the BARBRI Long Books. Although the BARBRI 2008 Long Books probably covered almost 100% of the New York essay portion of the exam in detail, studying this entire book would take up a tremendous amount of your time let alone the difficulty in trying to process and remember everything. With MASTER FEB 2009 , you would have had basic answers for 89% of the tested February 2009 topics in an outline that would take you about 3 hours to read. More so, with the MASTER FEB 2009 HIGH Priority Topics Outline (34 pages, approximately 32,500 words), you would have had 50% of the tested February 2009 topics in an outline that would take you about 1.4 hours to read. This is what I mean by efficiency. Again, MASTER isn't perfect. It isn't on point every time and of course there will always be new topics, which is why you should study outlines and other bar materials also. However, I don't think there is a more efficient way to study for the essay portion of the exam than with MASTER. Keep in mind that MASTER 2009 (or any other bar material for that matter) will not help you if you cannot spot the issues - the MASTER outline and the other material will help you focus on high priority areas, but you still must be able to issue spot and write a good answer.
| Resource | Pages | Words (approx.) | Words per page | Hours to read* | Hours to study* |
| MASTER Feb 2009 | 76 | 68,000 |
894 |
2.8 |
5.7 |
| BARBRI Long Books 2008 | 1,267 | 754,000 |
595 |
31.4 |
62.8 |
| BARBRI Conviser Mini Review 2008 | 682 | 287,000 |
420 |
11.9 |
23.9 |
*based on 400 word per minute for reading and 200 words per minute for studying.
MASTER JULY 2008 Post-Exam Analysis
MASTER 2008 consisted of 299 total topics. These 299 topics represented every topic on the NY bar exam essays from July 1995-February 2008. MASTER JULY 2008 consisted of 64 LOW priority topics, 122 MEDIUM priority topics, and 113 HIGH priority topics. On the July 2008 exam, 45% of all the July 2008 essay topics came from the MASTER 2008 HIGH priority topics; 21% of the July 2008 essay topics came from the MASTER 2008 MEDIUM priority topics; and 10% of the July 2008 essay topics came from the MASTER 2008 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 24% of the July 2008 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay from July 1995-February 2008). Based on the analysis that I discuss elsewhere on this page, the July 2008 topics were prioritized as follows: 64 LOW priority topics, 122 MEDIUM priority topics, and 113 HIGH priority topics. There were a total of 29 topics in the July 2008 essays:
On the July 2008 exam, 3 of the MASTER 2008 LOW priority topics appeared:
AGENT-PART: Partnerships
UCC: Art 9-Perfection of Security Interest
WILLS: Ademption
On the July 2008 exam, 6 of the MASTER 2008 MEDIUM priority topics appeared:
CONTRACT: Substantial Performance
CRIMLAW: Search of Car
EVIDENCE: Hearsay
PROPERTY: Easement-Abandonment
PROPERTY: Easement by Necessity
PROPERTY: Tenant Duty to Repair
On the July 2008 exam, 13 of the MASTER 2008 HIGH priority topics appeared:
CONTRACT: Modifications
CRIMLAW: Right to Counsel*
CRIMLAW: Warrantless Search Exceptions
DOMESTIC: Abandonment
DOMESTIC: Adultery
NYPRAC: Partial Summary Judgment
PROPERTY: Tenants by the Entirety
TORTS: Comparative Negligence
TORTS: Landowner Liability
TORTS: Negligence
WILLS: Anti-Lapse Statute
WILLS: Creation/Validity
WILLS: Pretermitted Children
* I ended up making this a separate topic called CRIMLAW: Right to Counsel/Recess in Testimony because this specific topic did previously appear in July 1998.
Finally, On the July 2008 exam, there were 7 new topics:
AGENT-PART: Accounting
AGENT-PART: Partner Liability
CRIMLAW: Right to Confrontation/6th Amendment
EVIDENCE: Excited Utterance/Present Sense Impression
PROPERTY: Power of Attorney
WILLS: Class Gifts
WILLS: Specific Gift
With 22 of the 29 topics being repeaters, the July 2008 MASTER outline contained approximately 76% of the topics in the July 2008 NY Bar exam. More so, 45% of all the July 2008 essay topics came from the MASTER 2008 HIGH priority topics; 21% of the July 2008 essay topics came from the MASTER 2008 MEDIUM priority topics; and 10% of the July 2008 essay topics came from the MASTER 2008 LOW priority topics (and the remaining 24% of the July 2008 essay topics were new topics that never previously appeared on a NY bar exam essay from July 1995-February 2008).
Master 2008 was 74 pages long and consisted of approximately 75,000 words. Based on a reading rate or 400 words per minute, it would take you approximately 3.1 hours to read the entire MASTER 2008 outline once. With MASTER 2008, you would have had basic answers for 76% of the tested July 2008 topics in an outline that would take you about 3.1 hours to read. More so, with the MASTER 2008 HIGH Priority Topics Outline, you would have had 45% of the tested July 2008 topics in an outline that would take you about 1.3 hours to read.
MASTER FEB 2008
I also performed a simulation on the February 2008 exam -- this is how MASTER 2008 would have prioritized the topics that appeared on the Feb 2008 exam:
HIGH PRIORITY TOPICS (since they appeared between the 2nd to 13th exams preceding February 2008)
CONTRACT: Non Conforming Delivery
CONTRACT: Parol Evidence
CORP: Director Duty of Loyalty
CRIMLAW: Attempt
CRIMLAW: Conspiracy
CRIMLAW: Justification
CRIMLAW: Solicitation
DOMESTIC: Modifying a Separation Agreement-Child Support
NYPRAC: Statute of Limitations
PRO-RES: Fees
TORTS: Contribution
TORTS: Negligence
TORTS: No-Fault Insurance
WILLS: Ademption
WILLS: Attorney as Executor Disclosure
WILLS: Creation/Validity
WILLS: Interested Witness
MEDIUM PRIORITY TOPICS (since they appeared between the 14th to 21st exams preceding February 2008)
CONTRACT: Risk of Loss and Bailments
CORP: Interested Director Transaction
CRIMLAW: Assault
CRIMLAW: Infancy
DOMESTIC: Paternity
TORTS: Superceding Causes
WILLS: Putnam Scrutiny
LOW PRIORITY TOPICS (since they appeared between the 22nd to 25th exams preceding February 2008 or the immediately preceding exam)
DOMESTIC: Child Support
NEW TOPIC (and therefore not covered by MASTER)
DOMESTIC: Child Support-Nonpayment
Here, MASTER would have covered 96% of the exam with 65% coming from the HIGH priority topics, 27% coming from the MEDIUM priority topics and 4% coming from the LOW priority topics.
If you have any questions, email me at joe@seperac.com.
Click here to go back to the site.