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
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:54 am

usuaggie wrote:
cadestevenson wrote:Would any of you guys like to share your scores on MBE practice tests? I'd love to find out how I stack up. Thanks.


Barbri simulated: 135 raw
Barbri sfe: 80something% raw
Ncbe past exam: 169 scaled


Barbri simulated (a couple weeks ago, haven't looked at a single MBE question since): 156 raw.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:54 am

thrillerjesus wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
Reinhardt wrote:And if these questions are experimental, we probably shouldn't be talking about them??? Don't want to be a stick in the mud but don't want anyone to get in trouble.


i dont think we should be discussing this, exp or not...


Serious question: Does anyone think that "never discuss any of this in any form, ever, no matter what" shit is even enforceable? Really, noting that a strict scrutiny analysis was required on a 200 question application for a attorney license is a copyright violation?


no, certainly not enforceable under copyright (unless we had the exact questions and answer choices memorized). The only thing to be concerned about is that before you are admitted, the Bar can refuse to admit you for pretty much anything.

User avatar
Tangerine Gleam
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Tangerine Gleam » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:56 am

.

User avatar
funkyturds
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:32 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby funkyturds » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:57 am

Emma. wrote:
usuaggie wrote:
cadestevenson wrote:Would any of you guys like to share your scores on MBE practice tests? I'd love to find out how I stack up. Thanks.


Barbri simulated: 135 raw
Barbri sfe: 80something% raw
Ncbe past exam: 169 scaled


Barbri simulated (a couple weeks ago, haven't looked at a single MBE question since): 156 raw.


150 raw here. if we're all struggling like this, i think we're gonna be ok with the curve...

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:57 am

Tangerine Gleam wrote:
hlsperson1111 wrote:
chass wrote:Anyone have a q about a waiver of right to confront witness and waiver of hearsay for killing the victim? think they tried to introduce victims prior statements.


yeah i said waived both, like 99% sure that's wrong though


I actually think you may be right (I was not). Eithe way, I had never heard of this concept.


i think you waive confrontation where intent was to make witness not testify (not the case here), but intent doesnt matter where you make the witness unavailable so could still claim hearsay.

i said hearsay but waived confrontation clause, but for entirely different (and wrong) reasons.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:58 am

funkyturds wrote:
Emma. wrote:
usuaggie wrote:
cadestevenson wrote:Would any of you guys like to share your scores on MBE practice tests? I'd love to find out how I stack up. Thanks.


Barbri simulated: 135 raw
Barbri sfe: 80something% raw
Ncbe past exam: 169 scaled


Barbri simulated (a couple weeks ago, haven't looked at a single MBE question since): 156 raw.


150 raw here. if we're all struggling like this, i think we're gonna be ok with the curve...


Curve is not going to be greater than +12-15 broheim. im fuckt.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawdawg09 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:59 am

Tangerine Gleam wrote:
hlsperson1111 wrote:
chass wrote:Anyone have a q about a waiver of right to confront witness and waiver of hearsay for killing the victim? think they tried to introduce victims prior statements.


yeah i said waived both, like 99% sure that's wrong though


I actually think you may be right (I was not). Eithe way, I had never heard of this concept.


According to CMR, only confrontation waiver if you kill the witness. Never heard of a hearsay waiver?

cadestevenson
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:04 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cadestevenson » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:00 am

Nice improvement, Ken Jennings. I think my only improvement was going from 50 something in Evidence and property to 70-80 to match the rest of my scores.

Have you ever met Ken Jennings in person? I was surprised by how amazingly skinny he was. I guess that helped him perfect his jedi buzzer tricks.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:01 am

Emma. wrote:
chass wrote:Anyone have a q about a waiver of right to confront witness and waiver of hearsay for killing the victim? think they tried to introduce victims prior statements.


Oh yeah, I'm trying to block that one out. Purely getting, I said it was not a waiver of either because no proof that the intent to kill was to prevent testimony.


According to CMR it was no forfeit for the confrontation clause, since that would have to be to stop him testifying. I guess it would have been a waiver of hearsay under the Statement Offered Against Party Procuring exception. I actually got screwed there by knowing a little CA evidence, where this exception is narrower.

cadestevenson
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:04 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cadestevenson » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:03 am

I actually took an NCBE released exam this morning, MBE online test 3. Scored 170 scaled. If only my real MBE were that high.

jasontaylor9944
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 4:56 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby jasontaylor9944 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:05 am

I'm gonna tell you guys this right now. I was close between choosing BarBri or Themis. It came down to price and I chose Themis. I have the BarBri App and have taken the BarBri practice MBE exams and I have taken the Themis MBEs and MBE exams. The Themis ones were WAAAAAAY harder and tested a wide variety of obscure stuff that I saw today and remembered. If only BarBri could combine their essay/memorization crap with Themis MBE, there might actually be a real bar company out there. Anyone else using Themis feel like today's MBE there's a good amount of stuff you have seen before?

User avatar
usuaggie
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby usuaggie » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:09 am

What about the car one with the tools missing. Owed 3k still. Stat of limitations expired but he wrote and offered to pay 2300

cadestevenson
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:04 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cadestevenson » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:12 am

How, in god's name, is the mean MBE raw score around 130? Are the plurality of bar takers from the south or something? Epstein's joke, not mine.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawdawg09 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:13 am

cadestevenson wrote:How, in god's name, is the mean MBE raw score around 130? Are the plurality of bar takers from the south or something? Epstein's joke, not mine.


The rumor was that Barbri MBE questions were way harder than the real thing? I don't know about that at all.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:16 am

usuaggie wrote:What about the car one with the tools missing. Owed 3k still. Stat of limitations expired but he wrote and offered to pay 2300


Yeah but I thought it had to be accepted...

Great, I was wrong, but according to my notes it would only be enforceable up to the $2300...
Last edited by Old Gregg on Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

chass
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:14 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby chass » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:16 am

lawdawg09 wrote:
Tangerine Gleam wrote:
hlsperson1111 wrote:
chass wrote:Anyone have a q about a waiver of right to confront witness and waiver of hearsay for killing the victim? think they tried to introduce victims prior statements.


yeah i said waived both, like 99% sure that's wrong though


I actually think you may be right (I was not). Eithe way, I had never heard of this concept.


According to CMR, only confrontation waiver if you kill the witness. Never heard of a hearsay waiver?


Maybe they were inferring hearsay exception for procuring declarants unavailability?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:17 am

Maybe they were inferring hearsay exception for procuring declarants unavailability?


Agreed, but what confused me was the applicable hearsay exception in the question didn't hinge on unavailability.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:20 am

Tangerine Gleam wrote:What about where expert said treatise was shit but jury was nonetheless allowed to read it?


I said inadmissible, but I read on autoadmit that judge took judicial notice so I really don't know.

chass
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:14 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby chass » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:20 am

Also one where the farmer agreed to sell all his crops at the end of the season to a buyer and the buyer discovered halfway thru the season that farmer was not growing the crops. Think the facts said it was impossible to plant the crops at that point and asked what could the buyer do.

User avatar
funkyturds
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:32 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby funkyturds » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:20 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
Maybe they were inferring hearsay exception for procuring declarants unavailability?


Agreed, but what confused me was the applicable hearsay exception in the question didn't hinge on unavailability.


My understanding is that Procuring Unavailability is its own hearsay exception, so it doesn't have to hinge on anything else. E.g., if you stop someone from testifying, fair to let other side to use out of court statements.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:22 am

chass wrote:Also one where the farmer agreed to sell all his crops at the end of the season to a buyer and the buyer discovered halfway thru the season that farmer was not growing the crops. Think the facts said it was impossible to plant the crops at that point and asked what could the buyer do.


i said breach and buyer could sue for damages immediately, but i think i was wrong.

just dont think there was any way seller could have performed by K date (K explicitly asked for output of all crops produced on seller's land.

cadestevenson
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:04 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cadestevenson » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:23 am

Did you guys pick the same answer choices for two or more of the Con law questions? Were there really 4 (or more) questions about the dormant commerce clause?

No more discussion of contents for me. Good luck tomorrow.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:24 am

usuaggie wrote:What about the car one with the tools missing. Owed 3k still. Stat of limitations expired but he wrote and offered to pay 2300


Agreed. Probably wrong though.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:25 am

Tangerine Gleam wrote:The K was for "all crops grown on farmer's land next season" (or whatever). He didn't actually promise to grow anything, right?


he promised to give all crops he grew on his land.

i felt like that meant he didnt have to give crops if he didnt grow any, but no answer choice reflected that.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:25 am

The third party beneficiary (private school)'s rights hadn't vested in that money from the advertising contract, right? They hadn't manifested assent, despite being notified of the assignment?

The landlord only had an action against the original tenant and the second assignee, right, not the middle one?

For the flooded motor factory, was that just duty to perform on time that was discharged, did impracticability give them the opportunity to divide their output...
Last edited by Emma. on Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BuddyHoller and 13 guests