robinhoodOO wrote:InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:So I've been listening to the Barbri lectures on my commutes to and from work, and I'm about halfway through the CA civ pro lecture. Apparently CA civ pro has never actually been tested on any exam. How much time are you guys gonna devote to memorizing any of it?
now I hope I dont decrease my score on the july 2015 by telling everyone in the world this, but....
yes it has been tested. february 2009 question 5. Its funny, almost EVERYWHERE on the internet says it hasnt been tested, and all of my bar review "professors" I have had over the years said its never been tested..
Its funny I am able to notice subtle nuances like this and I still failed this exam twice. Makes me think its all luck. According to the news, I think its just a matter of getting an essay grader who isnt drunk.
Thanks, good to know.
Speaking of CA distinctions, how important are the CA evidence distinctions? Barbri has a decent amount of lecture time devoted to it.
no idea dude. honestly at this point... even after taking this exam twice already the essay portion of the exam still is a complete mystery to me. some people say you "dont even need to know the law AT ALL" to score high on the essay portion it and that your score is determined by "how you use the facts" in your analysis. One guy who told me this was getting consistent scores of 80 on practice essays and passed. he looked me in the eyes directly and said "you need to know ZERO law to score high on the essays"
I smell bullshit.
I don't consider myself an expert, but here my two cents on those comments based on my experience. I've taken two bar exams, California and NY over the past year, and passed first-time. I don't consider myself an extremely smart person or one of those people who just gets it, and there is no question I had to work my ass off. I can tell you one thing for sure, "you need to know ZERO law to score high on the essays," is simply false; and the last time I checked, the only way you can do sufficient analysis is knowing the law. That said, if you haven't practiced a sufficient amount of essays (50 or so essays) going into the exam, the law you do know will be relatively useless. The same issues and sub-issues are tested repeatedly, and if you don't practice, you are doing yourself a huge disservice. I recall last year the weekend before CA i was going through the last few practice essays I hadn't done in the Barbri book, and one of the evidence questions ended up mirroring the one we got on the exam. Thus, I already knew exactly all the weird hearsay exceptions they were looking for, which was a huge advantage. In fact the common thread in my study methods for California and NY, beside memorization, was going through as many past essays as possible and at the very least outlining/issue spotting.
Also, you can't get around studying subjects. Everything is important, because at the end of the day on test day you are going to forget stuff, even the stuff you studied hard, because of nerves, and so you need a decent handle on everything to at least write something down. On CA I had to make up a few rule statements here or there, and I definitely missed issues on a few of the essays, and my essays did not look like the models, but its all about doing "decent" across the board--and the same went for NY. The bottom line is practice is one of the most important things, analysis is key because that's where you actually show you studied and you understand it, and don't underestimate any one part of the exam, i.e. the performance exam.
I'm sure repeaters would agree, you don't want to get to the third Friday in November and think, well I could have done this. Give 110%, you have around 6 weeks left and it goes by in a flash.