Seperac UBE MASTER outline Post-Exam Analysis for the MEE
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. The MEE MASTER 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 2018 NCBE MEE Subject Matter Outline, there are 364 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 364 categories. My UBE MASTER outline will likewise give you content to study for these 364 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 46 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 ten different statistical determinations to establish my priorities. These priorities enable examinees to significantly reduce their MEE study without significantly affecting their MEE scoring potential.
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 becausee 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.
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 is a post-exam follow-up from a foreign examinee subscriber who studied part-time for the F17 exam and passed with a UBE score of 317 by employing this methodology:
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!!
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.
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 (19 exams to date) to enable examinees (and myself) to better assess that risk:
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. For example, 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) explained the following when asked by another subscriber how she utilized the JULY 2017 UBE MASTER outline:
(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.
Please note that 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, almost 50% of the priorities changed between the F17 UBE MASTER outline and the J17 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.
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.