California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread Forum
-
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:23 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Actually, since I'm predicting Wills/Trusts, Real Property, and (probably) Contracts, I guess Remedies is a pretty likely crossover with any of those. I wouldn't rule out a PR crossover too, just because the bar examiners seem to love PR so much.
- Old Gregg
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I think this is right.Torts Illustrated wrote:Actually, since I'm predicting Wills/Trusts, Real Property, and (probably) Contracts, I guess Remedies is a pretty likely crossover with any of those. I wouldn't rule out a PR crossover too, just because the bar examiners seem to love PR so much.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:47 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Corps is probably out of the question for being tested again, right? At the least, they probably won't ask a question involving self-dealing directors.
- worldtraveler
- Posts: 8676
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
This exam is making me question every single decision I have made in my life that led me toward the bar exam.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- jmhendri
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I was thinking trusts is out for this reason too... or at least not a trusts problem involving charitable purposes?deadlinguo wrote:Corps is probably out of the question for being tested again, right? At the least, they probably won't ask a question involving self-dealing directors.
- Old Gregg
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Haha, I basically told myself "this doesn't make sense now, but it'll make sense and I'll have a plan of action in the end. If I don't, I'm fucked."
After reading all the materials: "I'm fucked."
After reading all the materials: "I'm fucked."
- jmhendri
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
yeah, I actually think I would have done better if I more or less cut and paste the same analysis for at least three of those.hopkins23 wrote:I concur with what everyone said in this thread regarding the PT. I never had a clear understanding of the law or how to extract the law from the statutes/cases and was always unsure about what exactly I was doing. I never felt comfortable at all throughout that exam.
As I was reading through the library, I was thinking, "Umm...this is going to be cleared up soon and make sense, right." Few pages later, "Right...?" At the end of the library, "&*#&@." I read the library twice and skimmed through it again, to no avail.
I "finished", but the last two sections of the five-part section thingy was pretty much the same drivel. And the second part was drivel too that I wrote in 5 minutes.
Misery loves company.
- Mroberts3
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:10 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Yeah that PT SUUUUUCKED. I think part of it was the way our idiot attorney asked us to structure our answer that threw me off the most. I think my analysis on part 2 of the PT was pretty solid (I did it first because the first section was too much to handle).
My real concern with the PT is that when they go to calibrate it, they will have so many different approaches that the one they choose as "correct" will inevitably be somewhat arbitrary. Hopefully they recognize that and give points for trying to follow instructions and not going off topic.
My real concern with the PT is that when they go to calibrate it, they will have so many different approaches that the one they choose as "correct" will inevitably be somewhat arbitrary. Hopefully they recognize that and give points for trying to follow instructions and not going off topic.
-
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I don't even want to know what we were supposed to do on it. I actually wrote like 3000 words. Just rambling incoherent nonsense, most of which repeated itself. Holyshit.Emma. wrote:Reinhardt wrote:I bombed that PT. Holy shit.
- Old Gregg
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Post on xo:
"i just checked the cmr and it didn't even have anything about the "involuntary servitude clause." you actually had to go to the big outline to even know anything at all about that question. lol just fucking lol."
thank you for summing up this morning.
"i just checked the cmr and it didn't even have anything about the "involuntary servitude clause." you actually had to go to the big outline to even know anything at all about that question. lol just fucking lol."
thank you for summing up this morning.
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:01 am
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
That PT was horrible. Would be thrilled with a 55.
Wonder what standards are for a 55? A 50? Worse?
3 of those 5 sections completely punted....
Wonder what standards are for a 55? A 50? Worse?
3 of those 5 sections completely punted....
- Haribo
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:47 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I ran out of time and did that. I cut and paste in my analysis for the second problem for the last two. Pretty sure it's wrong, pretty sure I failed. I thought performance tests were supposed to be easy? "Don't bother studying, if you don't know it by law school, you won't learn it for the bar exam.."jmhendri wrote:
yeah, I actually think I would have done better if I more or less cut and paste the same analysis for at least three of those.
Also WTF is the involuntary servitude clause.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:47 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Yeah that was totally out of left field. I just made up some shit like "it prevents the state from forcing a person to perform labor" which is like the definition of the term yeah fuckin brilliant. Although I at least was clever enough to also write that it doesn't apply to criminal punishments because I remembered chain gangs from Hollywood movies...Fresh Prince wrote:Post on xo:
"i just checked the cmr and it didn't even have anything about the "involuntary servitude clause." you actually had to go to the big outline to even know anything at all about that question. lol just fucking lol."
thank you for summing up this morning.
- Old Gregg
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Pretty much did the exact same thing.deadlinguo wrote:Yeah that was totally out of left field. I just made up some shit like "it prevents the state from forcing a person to perform labor" which is like the definition of the term yeah fuckin brilliant. Although I at least was clever enough to also write that it doesn't apply to criminal punishments because I remembered chain gangs from Hollywood movies...Fresh Prince wrote:Post on xo:
"i just checked the cmr and it didn't even have anything about the "involuntary servitude clause." you actually had to go to the big outline to even know anything at all about that question. lol just fucking lol."
thank you for summing up this morning.
- jmhendri
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I had no idea what that was about, but I made something up about it not being involuntary servitude if they could arguably just not drop out to avoid it.
- a male human
- Posts: 2233
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I hope corporations and remedies are out of the picture now.
So I didn't even understand the assignment for a while, even after reading it several times. The statutes only talked about director liability, and the assignment wanted me to talk about SIA's liability. Out of desperation, I said a corporation provides limited liability to its directors and officers, so SIA would be liable for the acts of the directors. Then I just paraphrased the statutes as part of my answer (like I wouldn't have access to copy and paste IRL).
I "finished," but I was just smashing the keyboard in bullet time in the last 30 seconds. Was hoping to get a few more words in before the announcer called time. The second part about dissolution was 3 paragraphs long, just based on the last case.
Totally BS'd the 13th amendment shit, too.
So I didn't even understand the assignment for a while, even after reading it several times. The statutes only talked about director liability, and the assignment wanted me to talk about SIA's liability. Out of desperation, I said a corporation provides limited liability to its directors and officers, so SIA would be liable for the acts of the directors. Then I just paraphrased the statutes as part of my answer (like I wouldn't have access to copy and paste IRL).
I "finished," but I was just smashing the keyboard in bullet time in the last 30 seconds. Was hoping to get a few more words in before the announcer called time. The second part about dissolution was 3 paragraphs long, just based on the last case.
Totally BS'd the 13th amendment shit, too.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I just applied strict scrutiny and moved on. Sounded like I knew what I was talking about. Lulzdeadlinguo wrote:Yeah that was totally out of left field. I just made up some shit like "it prevents the state from forcing a person to perform labor" which is like the definition of the term yeah fuckin brilliant. Although I at least was clever enough to also write that it doesn't apply to criminal punishments because I remembered chain gangs from Hollywood movies...Fresh Prince wrote:Post on xo:
"i just checked the cmr and it didn't even have anything about the "involuntary servitude clause." you actually had to go to the big outline to even know anything at all about that question. lol just fucking lol."
thank you for summing up this morning.
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 6:39 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
To those who didn't finish the PT - don't worry. I did the one thing I wasn't supposed to do so I'm pretty sure I failed. Totally forgot we weren't supposed to talk about director liability. Of course that's all I did on parts of it because there was nothing else I could think of to talk about .... Guess I'll try to make it up tomorrow.
- Mroberts3
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:10 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I actually liked that part of the question -- tests your creativity. I think both of the above are good routes. I focused more on analogizing to the draft but then shot that down because its a state doing labor camps instead of the feds fighting a war.
- Tangerine Gleam
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Is it just wishful thinking to hope that W&T is less likely after we've had a Community Property question today? (And after that fucked up sorta trusts-related PT?)
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Ha, I did this exact same thing.Mroberts3 wrote:I actually liked that part of the question -- tests your creativity. I think both of the above are good routes. I focused more on analogizing to the draft but then shot that down because its a state doing labor camps instead of the feds fighting a war.
- Old Gregg
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I think so. W&T wasn't on the last exam, and it's basically on almost every exam, so something makes me think it has to be tested.Tangerine Gleam wrote:Is it just wishful thinking to hope that W&T is less likely after we've had a Community Property question today? (And after that fucked up sorta trusts-related PT?)
- Old Gregg
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
This too. It's the nature of the curve. The fact that there aren't people in this thread, which is generally comprised of really smart people, who were like "well shit that was easy" is pretty reassuring.hopkins23 wrote:I read a few pages back that if you don't finish a PT, it doesn't necessarily mean you don't pass the essay. Anyone can confirm this?
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login