California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:13 am

i've never seen anyone post a grade on fb. you a stanford student?


No, no. I'm saying I'm sure it's not something Stanford students do by having gone to Stanford. I think it's a trait general to any law student at any law school. It's just in our nature to do these acts on some level.

User avatar
softey
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:03 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby softey » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:20 am

1L1284 wrote:
softey wrote:
softey wrote:In pasadena someone went out into the hall during PT to scream


Also multiple people crying


Didn't see that but heard all the swearing after the exam. Are the instructions going to be this long tomorrow and Thursday?


Remember: stay seated and BE QUIET.

lawdawg09
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawdawg09 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:20 am

There was a good 10 minute gap during the PT where I had absolutely no idea what to do. I looked at the timer and said shit I better write something.

I really hope the PT was it re corps/trusts.

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Reinhardt » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:23 am

Let's all take a step back and realize that the test fuct everyone equally, and the pass rate will probably still be the pass rate we'd all expected/feared.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:23 am

Reinhardt wrote:Let's all take a step back and realize that the test fuct everyone equally, and the pass rate will probably still be the pass rate we'd all expected/feared.

run26.2
Posts: 896
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby run26.2 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:24 am

Shaggier1 wrote:Any other thoughts on this:

Multiple people have been implying that this test is curved. I know the MBE is scaled but are the PT's and essays curved? That is, in the event that the large majority of people bomb a PT (as seems very likely today), will that section actually be curved?

How does it work?

I don't think there is an explicit curve for each question. IIRC, I have understood that they give you a 65 or 70 if you miss no more than 1 major issue, 60 if you miss no more than 2 major issues. Of course, they could redefine what a "major" issue is. And I think there will be a natural tendency to curve on a per-grader basis with more solid answers naturally receiving higher scores, regardless of the above rubric.

Where the real curve comes in is with the overall formula for calculating your score, i.e. with all your scores for essays, PTs, and the MBE factored in.

Just skimming this thread, I would say your question sounds like, but probably harder than last years 1st PT. It was very difficult to structure the answer effectively. The 2nd PT was significantly easier. My advice was to realize everybody struggled, and that most people here probably did much better than the average student. Just find a way to get your mind back in the game and you'll be fine. G/L.

deadlinguo
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:47 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby deadlinguo » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:26 am

anyone else try answering the PT like this or similarly?

1) SIA is a nonprofit corporation formed solely for the purpose of charity.

2) one of the cases says that the assets of a "nonprofit corporation formed solely for the purpose of charity" are a charitable trust.

3) corporation is the trustee of the charitable trust. when it fucks up, equity can come in and enjoin their behavior or force them to pay restitution.

4) the statutory provision for dissolution of a corporation provides that AG can ask for dissolution when corporation deviates so much from its purpose.

5) SIA deviated so much from its purpose when it became an acquiescent something something of its directors... basically when a corporation becomes its directors' bitch.

6) in the second case (the one where the corporation won the appeal and saved itself from dissolution), the AG had won at trial and had convinced the trial court to dissolve the corp because the corp had become its directors' bitch.

comparing SIA to the corp in the second case was how I answered #2.

even though the trial court was overturned on appeal, it wasn't because the trial court had fucked up on ordering dissolution when a corp deviates greatly from its purpose. it was because the trial court didn't consider that most or all of the problems had been resolved and that equity doesn't seek to punish, equity is only supposed to prevent harms. with the harm gone, the equitable remedy is now unnecessary. so i wrote that SIA could be dissolved for deviating from its purpose, but that if it were able to resolve its issues it would be able to save itself.

7) another way to look at it is that, as the trustee of the charitable trust (its own assets), SIA had duties to the beneficiaries of the trust to carry out the purpose of the trust. SIA failed its duty by becoming an ATM for its directors. violating those duties means courts can impose equitable remedies

8) so for #1, for each item I analyzed if that duty had been breached and then just mentioned random equitable remedies

wrote down to the last second and left a sentence unfinished.

Foosters Galore
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Foosters Galore » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:27 am

lawdawg09 wrote:There was a good 10 minute gap during the PT where I had absolutely no idea what to do. I looked at the timer and said shit I better write something.

I really hope the PT was it re corps/trusts.


I actually left and took like a 10 minute dump during the PT bc I was just staring at my computer screen. Figured I might as well get something done.

Man, I hate reading post essay analysis. Did you guys really talk about van camp? I saw that "sole reason" and went with pereira, or whatever the fuck it's called, add moved on.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:28 am

Foosters Galore wrote:
lawdawg09 wrote:There was a good 10 minute gap during the PT where I had absolutely no idea what to do. I looked at the timer and said shit I better write something.

I really hope the PT was it re corps/trusts.


I actually left and took like a 10 minute during the PT bc I was just staring at my computer screen. Figured I might as well get something done.

Man, I hate reading post essay analysis. Did you guys really talk about van camp? I saw that "sole reason" and went with pereira, or whatever the fuck it's called, add moved on.


Discussed both names to sound intelligent, but didn't remember what either meant and put something that sounded reasonable down, and then went with Pereira.

randomdandom
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:30 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
i've never seen anyone post a grade on fb. you a stanford student?


No, no. I'm saying I'm sure it's not something Stanford students do by having gone to Stanford. I think it's a trait general to any law student at any law school. It's just in our nature to do these acts on some level.


And what I was saying is that if you think its normal for law students to wear the gear to the bar exam and you think its normal to show off by posting grades on fb, more than likely you are surrounded by people who do that sort of douchey thing and thats why i asked if you go to stanford.

I'm not trying to start anything or put you down or anyting like. I'm just saying its not normal and it isn't okay imho.

lawdawg09
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawdawg09 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:30 am

There were a couple girls (two out of thousands) that were "bar exam hot" at my location.

mrpickles
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:31 am

Foosters Galore wrote:
lawdawg09 wrote:There was a good 10 minute gap during the PT where I had absolutely no idea what to do. I looked at the timer and said shit I better write something.

I really hope the PT was it re corps/trusts.


I actually left and took like a 10 minute dump during the PT bc I was just staring at my computer screen. Figured I might as well get something done.

Man, I hate reading post essay analysis. Did you guys really talk about van camp? I saw that "sole reason" and went with pereira, or whatever the fuck it's called, add moved on.


I did Pereira, then started Van Camp - and said, but there's not salary here in facts, so uhhh. Shit.

User avatar
uwb09
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:09 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby uwb09 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:32 am

deadlinguo wrote:anyone else try answering the PT like this or similarly?

1) SIA is a nonprofit corporation formed solely for the purpose of charity.

2) one of the cases says that the assets of a "nonprofit corporation formed solely for the purpose of charity" are a charitable trust.

3) corporation is the trustee of the charitable trust. when it fucks up, equity can come in and enjoin their behavior or force them to pay restitution.

4) the statutory provision for dissolution of a corporation provides that AG can ask for dissolution when corporation deviates so much from its purpose.

5) SIA deviated so much from its purpose when it became an acquiescent something something of its directors... basically when a corporation becomes its directors' bitch.

6) in the second case (the one where the corporation won the appeal and saved itself from dissolution), the AG had won at trial and had convinced the trial court to dissolve the corp because the corp had become its directors' bitch.

comparing SIA to the corp in the second case was how I answered #2.

even though the trial court was overturned on appeal, it wasn't because the trial court had fucked up on ordering dissolution when a corp deviates greatly from its purpose. it was because the trial court didn't consider that most or all of the problems had been resolved and that equity doesn't seek to punish, equity is only supposed to prevent harms. with the harm gone, the equitable remedy is now unnecessary. so i wrote that SIA could be dissolved for deviating from its purpose, but that if it were able to resolve its issues it would be able to save itself.

7) another way to look at it is that, as the trustee of the charitable trust (its own assets), SIA had duties to the beneficiaries of the trust to carry out the purpose of the trust. SIA failed its duty by becoming an ATM for its directors. violating those duties means courts can impose equitable remedies

8) so for #1, for each item I analyzed if that duty had been breached and then just mentioned random equitable remedies

wrote down to the last second and left a sentence unfinished.

see, this actually makes sense. It's logical, it flows, it leads to a conclusion. My PT answer was a mess of random ass copy and pasted code sections with some ramblings about remedies including reimbursement to the corporation because of that a-hole Ellis.

huckabees
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:33 am

deadlinguo wrote:anyone else try answering the PT like this or similarly?

1) SIA is a nonprofit corporation formed solely for the purpose of charity.

2) one of the cases says that the assets of a "nonprofit corporation formed solely for the purpose of charity" are a charitable trust.

3) corporation is the trustee of the charitable trust. when it fucks up, equity can come in and enjoin their behavior or force them to pay restitution.

4) the statutory provision for dissolution of a corporation provides that AG can ask for dissolution when corporation deviates so much from its purpose.

5) SIA deviated so much from its purpose when it became an acquiescent something something of its directors... basically when a corporation becomes its directors' bitch.

Sooo... how'd you use all those statutes in the beginning? :(
6) in the second case (the one where the corporation won the appeal and saved itself from dissolution), the AG had won at trial and had convinced the trial court to dissolve the corp because the corp had become its directors' bitch.

comparing SIA to the corp in the second case was how I answered #2.

even though the trial court was overturned on appeal, it wasn't because the trial court had fucked up on ordering dissolution when a corp deviates greatly from its purpose. it was because the trial court didn't consider that most or all of the problems had been resolved and that equity doesn't seek to punish, equity is only supposed to prevent harms. with the harm gone, the equitable remedy is now unnecessary. so i wrote that SIA could be dissolved for deviating from its purpose, but that if it were able to resolve its issues it would be able to save itself.

7) another way to look at it is that, as the trustee of the charitable trust (its own assets), SIA had duties to the beneficiaries of the trust to carry out the purpose of the trust. SIA failed its duty by becoming an ATM for its directors. violating those duties means courts can impose equitable remedies

8) so for #1, for each item I analyzed if that duty had been breached and then just mentioned random equitable remedies

wrote down to the last second and left a sentence unfinished.


Sooo, how'd you use all those statutes in the beginning? :(

Also, that sounds awesome, what you just said. Wish I wrote that.

Another
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:16 pm

.

Postby Another » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:34 am

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
softey
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:03 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby softey » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:35 am

If you cant hear me, please raise your hand.
Last edited by softey on Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

thrillerjesus
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:43 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby thrillerjesus » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:35 am

mrpickles wrote:
I did Pereira, then started Van Camp - and said, but there's not salary here in facts, so uhhh. Shit.


That is almost literally what I wrote for Van Camp.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:35 am

And what I was saying is that if you think its normal for law students to wear the gear to the bar exam and you think its normal to show off by posting grades on fb,


I don't think it's normal at all. I hate it.

diddlydooda
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby diddlydooda » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:36 am

i love this forum

Gloriaha
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Gloriaha » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:37 am

deadlinguo wrote:anyone else try answering the PT like this or similarly?

1) SIA is a nonprofit corporation formed solely for the purpose of charity.

2) one of the cases says that the assets of a "nonprofit corporation formed solely for the purpose of charity" are a charitable trust.

3) corporation is the trustee of the charitable trust. when it fucks up, equity can come in and enjoin their behavior or force them to pay restitution.

4) the statutory provision for dissolution of a corporation provides that AG can ask for dissolution when corporation deviates so much from its purpose.

5) SIA deviated so much from its purpose when it became an acquiescent something something of its directors... basically when a corporation becomes its directors' bitch.

6) in the second case (the one where the corporation won the appeal and saved itself from dissolution), the AG had won at trial and had convinced the trial court to dissolve the corp because the corp had become its directors' bitch.

comparing SIA to the corp in the second case was how I answered #2.

even though the trial court was overturned on appeal, it wasn't because the trial court had fucked up on ordering dissolution when a corp deviates greatly from its purpose. it was because the trial court didn't consider that most or all of the problems had been resolved and that equity doesn't seek to punish, equity is only supposed to prevent harms. with the harm gone, the equitable remedy is now unnecessary. so i wrote that SIA could be dissolved for deviating from its purpose, but that if it were able to resolve its issues it would be able to save itself.

7) another way to look at it is that, as the trustee of the charitable trust (its own assets), SIA had duties to the beneficiaries of the trust to carry out the purpose of the trust. SIA failed its duty by becoming an ATM for its directors. violating those duties means courts can impose equitable remedies

8) so for #1, for each item I analyzed if that duty had been breached and then just mentioned random equitable remedies

wrote down to the last second and left a sentence unfinished.



Hey guys guess what! I got an 'A' in Torts!

lawdawg09
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawdawg09 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:37 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
And what I was saying is that if you think its normal for law students to wear the gear to the bar exam and you think its normal to show off by posting grades on fb,


I don't think it's normal at all. I hate it.


You do realize that the bar exam, for three days, is the biggest concentration of douchebags in the world?
Last edited by lawdawg09 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:37 am

anyone trying to study for the MBE tomorrow, but nothing is sticking and now you feel like you've forgotten everything?

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:37 am

lawdawg09 wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
And what I was saying is that if you think its normal for law students to wear the gear to the bar exam and you think its normal to show off by posting grades on fb,


I don't think it's normal at all. I hate it.


You do realize that the bar exam, for a three days, is the biggest concentration of douchebags in the world?


That's kind of the point I was trying to make. That I chose the wrong field/profession if this shit bothers me.

Kretzy
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Kretzy » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:39 am

randomdandom wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
i've never seen anyone post a grade on fb. you a stanford student?


No, no. I'm saying I'm sure it's not something Stanford students do by having gone to Stanford. I think it's a trait general to any law student at any law school. It's just in our nature to do these acts on some level.


And what I was saying is that if you think its normal for law students to wear the gear to the bar exam and you think its normal to show off by posting grades on fb, more than likely you are surrounded by people who do that sort of douchey thing and thats why i asked if you go to stanford.

I'm not trying to start anything or put you down or anyting like. I'm just saying its not normal and it isn't okay imho.


Like 150 of the kids in our class own that jacket. It's warm, it's comfortable. For a lot of us, it's the most comfortable warm sweatshirt-y thing we own that isn't a hoodie (which they basically say you can't wear).

The biggest douches in the exam room were the ones who wrote that fucking PT.

randomdandom
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:41 am

lawdawg09 wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
And what I was saying is that if you think its normal for law students to wear the gear to the bar exam and you think its normal to show off by posting grades on fb,


I don't think it's normal at all. I hate it.


You do realize that the bar exam, for a three days, is the biggest concentration of douchebags in the world?


good point. didn't think about it that way. I wonder if the douchebaggery-per-capita is worse in CA or NY (or any other state for that matter).




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BACsop, peger, sprinx and 5 guests