If MBE Subjects Were Winter Olympic Sports

The Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics are currently underway. I thought it would be fun to imagine the MBE subjects as Winter Olympic sports. The point isn't to become a sports expert overnight. The point is to use the sports as a simple way to remember what each subject feels like on test day, what it rewards, and what usually causes people to lose points.

Civil Procedure = Curling

Curling is the sport that looks like “shuffleboard on ice.” Two teams slide heavy granite stones down the ice toward a target made of concentric circles called the “house.” The stones don't go straight forever. They slowly curl as they glide. Teammates run alongside the stone and sweep the ice in front of it to change how far it goes and how much it curves. A team can also knock another team’s stone out of the scoring area.

Civil Procedure feels like curling because it rewards planning, order, and precision. In Civil Procedure, it's rarely about one isolated rule. It is about whether you can choose the right procedural move at the right time, and whether you can see how one decision sets up the next one. Personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, venue, removal, pleading standards, joinder, discovery, summary judgment, preclusion, and Erie doctrine are all connected. A small mistake early can put you “out of position” later, just like a stone that ends up in the wrong place can ruin the rest of the end.

A common mistake is that people memorize rules but don't practice “next step” thinking. They know what removal is, but they do not instinctively ask whether removal is allowed, whether it is timely, what happens if there is a forum defendant, and what motion comes next.

Training takeaway: When you review Civil Procedure questions, draw a quick arrow chain of the case (for example, “filed → removed → motion to remand → discovery → summary judgment”). Then circle the exact decision point the question is testing (jurisdiction, venue, removal, joinder, discovery, summary judgment, or preclusion). That routine trains you to see timing and sequencing, which is where most Civil Procedure points are won or lost.

Constitutional Law = Figure Skating

Figure skating is a judged sport where skaters perform a choreographed routine on ice. The routine includes required technical elements such as jumps and spins, and it also includes artistry and control. Skaters can lose points for falling, for doing the wrong element, or for doing the right element at the wrong time. Skaters can also lose points for sloppy execution even if they attempt something difficult.

Constitutional Law feels like figure skating because Constitutional Law is scored on both “technical correctness” and “clean execution.” Constitutional Law questions punish you when you apply the wrong standard of review, even if your analysis is thoughtful. Constitutional Law also rewards smooth, structured reasoning: You identify the right doctrine, you state the correct test, you apply the facts to the test, and you reach a defensible conclusion.

A common mistake is that students skip threshold Constitutional issues. Some questions turn on state action, standing, ripeness, mootness, or whether the government is acting as regulator versus proprietor. If you miss the threshold, you start your routine with the wrong music, and you can never fully recover.

Training takeaway: Before you look at the answer choices, say the test in your head in one complete sentence. For example, “This is a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction in a public forum, so it is valid if it is content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and leaves open ample alternative channels for communication.” That one habit dramatically reduces wrong-standard errors.

Contracts = Biathlon

Biathlon combines two very different skills. Athletes ski cross-country, which is physically exhausting. Then they stop and shoot a rifle at small targets, which requires calm, precision, and control. If they miss targets, they receive a penalty that costs them time. Biathlon is hard because you have to switch gears quickly from endurance to accuracy.

Contracts feels like biathlon because Contracts is both broad and detailed at the same time. You have to handle the “endurance” topics such as formation, defenses, performance, breach, and remedies, and then you have to slow down for “precision” topics such as whether the U.C.C. applies, whether the Statute of Frauds applies, what counts as a merchant, what counts as an offer versus an invitation, and when modification requires new consideration.

A common Contracts mistake is that students stay in “ski mode” when they need “shooting mode.” They rush through the classification issues, such as whether the transaction is governed by the U.C.C. or common law, and they miss the one detail that controls the entire question.

Training takeaway: After every Contracts question, write one complete sentence that begins with “This is governed by ___ because ___.” If you can justify U.C.C. versus common law in a sentence, you are far less likely to miss the question’s core.

Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure = Ice Hockey

Ice hockey is fast. It is played on ice with skates, and teams move a puck up and down the rink trying to score in the opponent’s net. Players constantly change lines to stay fresh. The game is physical, and penalties matter because a penalty can force a team to play with fewer players for a period of time, which creates a disadvantage.

Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure feel like hockey because they are fast-moving subjects with many “trigger facts” that change the rules instantly. In Criminal Law, a single word can shift the required mental state from specific intent to general intent. In Criminal Procedure, one detail can shift the analysis from a consensual encounter to a seizure, or from reasonable suspicion to probable cause, or from a custodial interrogation to a situation where Miranda is not required.

A common mistake is that students blend categories. They treat probable cause and reasonable suspicion as interchangeable. They treat Miranda issues like they are always present. They forget that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Fifth Amendment Miranda right are triggered differently and operate differently.

Training takeaway: When you miss a Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure question, highlight the single fact that “flipped” the rule (for example, custody, interrogation, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a key intent word). Then add that fact to a running Trigger Fact List in your notes under the correct bucket (Fourth Amendment, Miranda/Fifth, Sixth Amendment, or substantive criminal law). Over time, that list becomes your personal playbook for spotting what matters first.

Evidence = Short Track Speed Skating

Short track speed skating is a race on an oval ice track. Multiple skaters race at once, and they skate very close together. The turns are tight, and small mistakes cause big crashes. A skater who loses balance can take out other skaters, and everything happens quickly.

Evidence feels like short track speed skating because Evidence questions are rapid-fire decisions that come in a specific order. You often have to decide relevance first, then character, then hearsay, then an exception or exclusion, then impeachment, and sometimes the Confrontation Clause. Evidence is not hard because the words are complicated. Evidence is hard because the rules stack and you have to make multiple decisions quickly without mixing them up.

A common mistake is that students label something as hearsay without asking the most important question: Why is the statement being offered? If the statement is offered for a non-truth purpose, the entire hearsay analysis changes.

Training takeaway: Use a consistent checklist and force yourself to write it as complete sentences in review. For example, “This statement is hearsay because it is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Or, “This statement is not hearsay because it is offered to show its effect on the listener, not for its truth.” Evidence improves fast when your process is consistent.

Real Property = Alpine Skiing

Alpine skiing is downhill racing. Skiers go down a steep mountain course marked by gates. The goal is to make it through each gate as quickly as possible without missing a turn. If a skier takes one gate wrong, the race is essentially over. Alpine skiing rewards control, discipline, and reading the course correctly.

Real Property feels like alpine skiing because Property questions often feel long, and the key detail is easy to miss. Property also has many “gates” that you must pass through in the right order: estates and future interests, landlord-tenant, mortgages, recording acts, easements, covenants, and zoning. If you miss one gate, such as the type of estate being created or the type of recording act, you cannot reliably finish the question.

A common mistake is that students read quickly but do not diagram carefully. In future interests, the words “so long as,” “until,” and “but if” aren't decoration. They're the gates.

Training takeaway: Before you look at the answers, take ten seconds to mark up the conveyance. You should underline the words that control the estate (for example, “for life,” “so long as,” “until,” “but if,” or “then to”) and jot quick labels above the parties (for example, “A = life estate,” “B = remainder,” “O = reversion”). That quick diagram turns a confusing paragraph into a clean map, and it prevents you from guessing when the answer choices start sounding alike.

Torts = Snowboard Cross

Snowboard cross is a race where multiple snowboarders go down a course at the same time. The course includes jumps, bumps, banked turns, and narrow sections. Riders bump into each other, and there is always some chaos because you are racing alongside other people on a challenging course.

Torts feels like snowboard cross because Tort questions involve collisions, judgment calls, and messy fact patterns. Torts is full of issues where the rules are straightforward but the application depends on how you evaluate behavior. Negligence asks whether someone acted reasonably under the circumstances. Causation asks whether the harm was actually caused by the defendant and whether it was foreseeable. Comparative negligence and assumption of risk ask whether the plaintiff should share responsibility.

A common mistake is that students jump straight to causation and damages before they have done duty and breach correctly. On the MBE, that often leads to picking an answer that sounds fair but is legally incomplete.

Training takeaway: When you review Torts questions, do a quick three-tag check before you commit to an answer. You should tag the claim type (intentional tort, negligence, strict liability, products liability, etc.), tag any likely defense (comparative fault, assumption of risk, consent, or immunity), and tag the pivot element the question is really testing (duty, standard of care, causation, or damages). Those three tags keep you organized and prevent you from chasing the flashiest fact instead of the legally controlling issue.

The Big Picture: Why This Analogy Helps

Winter Olympic sports reward repetition, technique, and performance under pressure. Bar prep rewards the same things. Most students do not struggle because they never studied. Most students struggle because they did not train their process to stay consistent when the clock is running.