2017 February California Bar Exam

maxmartin
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby maxmartin » Tue May 16, 2017 4:46 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:Here's my breakdown. Failed on the re-read:

WRITTEN First Read Second Read Operative Score

Essay 1 65 60 62.5
Essay 2 55 60 57.5
Essay 3 55 55 55
Essay 4 60 60 60
Essay 5 70 60 65
Essay 6 60 60 60
PTA 60 55 57.5
PTB 65 65 65

Raw Written: 605
Scaled Written: 1371.0350
Scaled MBE: 1469

Total Scaled Score: 1405.3228

MBE Scores:
Civ Pro: 51.5
Con Law: 77.7
Contracts: 76.2
Crim Law: 43.2
Evidence: 86.1
Real Prop: 84.9
Torts: 57.6

I SUCK. I'm reviewing Crim law/procedure right now. See you over on the July 2017 Board.

SICK CA examiners have this ridiculous rule to average two read. Why can't they just use the high score from the two reads? Jurisdiction like TX passes re-readers almost 100%.

LockBox
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby LockBox » Tue May 16, 2017 4:47 pm

This for all of you 2x+ failers out there, as well as anyone taking the July 2017 exam...

As of today, you have the rest of this week and 9 full weeks left before the administration. As you know, failing this exam sucks so my recommendation would be to leave nothing to chance. I have seen people come within 20, 10 or even a few points of passing - only to retake and fail by a larger margin. You're back at ground zero.

But that's not really true. You have a leg up on all of the examinees who are starting their prep now. Although I don't like looking at statistics (because they don't determine anything), if you have failed you're at a considerable disadvantage in terms of passing next time. I was in your shoes (failed by about 70 points both times) but then passed on #3.

My general advice is to hold yourself accountable. I did this via an excel sheet. I had a tab for MBE and one for essays (I passed the PT's both times but still reviewed independently).

I reduced my study aids. I used adaptibar, a bar tutor (solely for grading - no instruction, BLL etc), a bar essays account and a word doc.

Generally, my theme was NLT 2 x 50 per day: meaning, Not less than 2 essays fully written per day and not less than 50 MBE's per day.

For every third or fourth essay, I submitted it for grading. I kept a tally of all the essays I wrote and the grades I received on the essays (ranged from 50/55's to scoring a few 70+'s a couple of weeks in). It was frustrating - taking this thing twice is no guarantee to success.

On the MBE's I only used adaptibar (some don't like it - fine, but it worked for me). I started with 50 MBE's in the individual subjects, then when I completed that, I looked at my scores. Thereafter, I would do 10 MBE's in my lowest percentage subject, followed by 20 in the bottom three lowest subjects then 20 from all seven. In theory, I would be working more questions on my weaker subject(s) than the others and, once those became stronger and others became weaker it would shift.

On the essays, I would FULLY write out 2 essays per day, read both bar released answers and then look at low/high scoring examples on baressays.

Overall, I kept one word doc where I wrote down succinct rule statements for every rule I came across. This was my only source of review. No outlines, no lectures. I learned by failing on my essays/MBE, recording the rules, then going over them over and over.

Come July, I crushed it and felt good leaving the exam hall.

Note: I didn't work a single weekend day. I studied from 9am - 5/6pm M-F. I stopped working out (my preference) and really tried to internalize everything.

My last bit of advice is this - don't count on the new breakdown/2-day format get you to think that it will auto pass you, or even that more people will pass. I know the advice here indicates that with greater MBE emphasis, those who scored better on the MBE will fair better. I would advise not thinking like this. Don't take it for granted, get to work yesterday, and come November you won't feel like you do right now.

Take this week if you need to, to organize and regroup. But my thoughts are you need to be engaged in this now more than ever. It's not a breeze, although it appears to be for some. This has an impact on your livelihood. Treat it with the respect it deserves.

Good luck.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1770
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby a male human » Tue May 16, 2017 4:48 pm

maxmartin wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:Here's my breakdown. Failed on the re-read:

WRITTEN First Read Second Read Operative Score

Essay 1 65 60 62.5
Essay 2 55 60 57.5
Essay 3 55 55 55
Essay 4 60 60 60
Essay 5 70 60 65
Essay 6 60 60 60
PTA 60 55 57.5
PTB 65 65 65

Raw Written: 605
Scaled Written: 1371.0350
Scaled MBE: 1469

Total Scaled Score: 1405.3228

MBE Scores:
Civ Pro: 51.5
Con Law: 77.7
Contracts: 76.2
Crim Law: 43.2
Evidence: 86.1
Real Prop: 84.9
Torts: 57.6

I SUCK. I'm reviewing Crim law/procedure right now. See you over on the July 2017 Board.

SICK CA examiners have this ridiculous rule to average two read. Why can't they just use the high score from the two reads? Jurisdiction like TX passes re-readers almost 100%.


You make it sound like the CA state bar wants to let more people in :lol: :lol:

maxmartin
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby maxmartin » Tue May 16, 2017 4:57 pm

a male human wrote:
maxmartin wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:Here's my breakdown. Failed on the re-read:

WRITTEN First Read Second Read Operative Score

Essay 1 65 60 62.5
Essay 2 55 60 57.5
Essay 3 55 55 55
Essay 4 60 60 60
Essay 5 70 60 65
Essay 6 60 60 60
PTA 60 55 57.5
PTB 65 65 65

Raw Written: 605
Scaled Written: 1371.0350
Scaled MBE: 1469

Total Scaled Score: 1405.3228

MBE Scores:
Civ Pro: 51.5
Con Law: 77.7
Contracts: 76.2
Crim Law: 43.2
Evidence: 86.1
Real Prop: 84.9
Torts: 57.6

I SUCK. I'm reviewing Crim law/procedure right now. See you over on the July 2017 Board.

SICK CA examiners have this ridiculous rule to average two read. Why can't they just use the high score from the two reads? Jurisdiction like TX passes re-readers almost 100%.


You make it sound like the CA state bar wants to let more people in :lol: :lol:

It just makes me angry. I failed 2016 July edition, because the second read of PTB is 5 points lower than the first read. And I missed the cut by less than 10 points.

dredd16
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:36 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby dredd16 » Tue May 16, 2017 5:07 pm

maxmartin wrote:
a male human wrote:
maxmartin wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:Here's my breakdown. Failed on the re-read:

WRITTEN First Read Second Read Operative Score

Essay 1 65 60 62.5
Essay 2 55 60 57.5
Essay 3 55 55 55
Essay 4 60 60 60
Essay 5 70 60 65
Essay 6 60 60 60
PTA 60 55 57.5
PTB 65 65 65

Raw Written: 605
Scaled Written: 1371.0350
Scaled MBE: 1469

Total Scaled Score: 1405.3228

MBE Scores:
Civ Pro: 51.5
Con Law: 77.7
Contracts: 76.2
Crim Law: 43.2
Evidence: 86.1
Real Prop: 84.9
Torts: 57.6

I SUCK. I'm reviewing Crim law/procedure right now. See you over on the July 2017 Board.

SICK CA examiners have this ridiculous rule to average two read. Why can't they just use the high score from the two reads? Jurisdiction like TX passes re-readers almost 100%.


You make it sound like the CA state bar wants to let more people in :lol: :lol:

It just makes me angry. I failed 2016 July edition, because the second read of PTB is 5 points lower than the first read. And I missed the cut by less than 10 points.


That sucks, maxmartin, but it's possible that one grader may see your essay/PT at a 60 and another at a 65.

But for one grader to see InterAlia1961's essay at 70 and another at a 60, that's a HUGE discrepancy in my opinion.

70 pretty much means you've spotted every single issue and written halfway decent analysis.

60 means you've spotted all the major issues and missed one or two minor issues and your analysis was a somewhat lackluster.

50 means you've missed major issues.

When a grader looks at your essay really quickly based on issue spotting, you are immediately placed in either the 50/60/70 categories. Then they will spend a tad more time looking at your analysis and stuff to bump you either up or down 5 points.

For one grader give a 70 and another a 60 is pretty puzzling in my opinion. Not impossible of course, but nevertheless troublesome.

User avatar
Guchster
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:38 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Guchster » Tue May 16, 2017 5:08 pm

dredd16 wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:Here's my breakdown. Failed on the re-read:

WRITTEN First Read Second Read Operative Score


Essay 5 70 60 65



This just goes to show that as much as we can try to predict our scores/self-grade with a Barbri rubric/hire a former CA bar grader for a tutor to evaluate our scores in practice, sometimes it's just simple bad luck that your essay was given to one bar grader who was especially hard vs. another one who was especially more lenient.

All you can do is pick yourself back up and leave no room for error in the other areas in order to prevent another re-read.


I'm almost insulted by the fact they need to wait to the California Supreme Court to order a study to figure out what's wrong with this scam of an exam when they were letting more egregious crap like this happen and let that determine almost 70% of one's final score.

I get that writing needs to be assessed to determine whether someone is qualified to practice law, but when there is so much divergence in a score, why the hell were these swindlers making that the basis for way over half of the final exam score?

dredd16
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:36 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby dredd16 » Tue May 16, 2017 5:16 pm

Guchster wrote:
dredd16 wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:Here's my breakdown. Failed on the re-read:

WRITTEN First Read Second Read Operative Score


Essay 5 70 60 65



This just goes to show that as much as we can try to predict our scores/self-grade with a Barbri rubric/hire a former CA bar grader for a tutor to evaluate our scores in practice, sometimes it's just simple bad luck that your essay was given to one bar grader who was especially hard vs. another one who was especially more lenient.

All you can do is pick yourself back up and leave no room for error in the other areas in order to prevent another re-read.


I'm almost insulted by the fact they need to wait to the California Supreme Court to order a study to figure out what's wrong with this scam of an exam when they were letting more egregious crap like this happen and let that determine almost 70% of one's final score.

I get that writing needs to be assessed to determine whether someone is qualified to practice law, but when there is so much divergence in a score, why the hell were these swindlers making that the basis for way over half of the final exam score?


Well now, essays and MBEs are 50/50. So the state bar has sort of "fixed" the problem that a subjective grader may greatly affect a bar taker's score.

The problem now is that the CA law school deans are arguing that the cut score should not be 144, but be closer to a state like New York which is ~135.

The counterpoint is that even though NY's cut MBE score is ~135, their required UBE score is 266 and many states have higher required UBE scores like WA (270), OR (274), CO (276), and AK (280).

I highly doubt that the CA state bar will change the cut score.

maxmartin
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby maxmartin » Tue May 16, 2017 5:23 pm

dredd16 wrote:
Guchster wrote:
dredd16 wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:Here's my breakdown. Failed on the re-read:

WRITTEN First Read Second Read Operative Score


Essay 5 70 60 65



This just goes to show that as much as we can try to predict our scores/self-grade with a Barbri rubric/hire a former CA bar grader for a tutor to evaluate our scores in practice, sometimes it's just simple bad luck that your essay was given to one bar grader who was especially hard vs. another one who was especially more lenient.

All you can do is pick yourself back up and leave no room for error in the other areas in order to prevent another re-read.


I'm almost insulted by the fact they need to wait to the California Supreme Court to order a study to figure out what's wrong with this scam of an exam when they were letting more egregious crap like this happen and let that determine almost 70% of one's final score.

I get that writing needs to be assessed to determine whether someone is qualified to practice law, but when there is so much divergence in a score, why the hell were these swindlers making that the basis for way over half of the final exam score?


Well now, essays and MBEs are 50/50. So the state bar has sort of "fixed" the problem that a subjective grader may greatly affect a bar taker's score.

The problem now is that the CA law school deans are arguing that the cut score should not be 144, but be closer to a state like New York which is ~135.

The counterpoint is that even though NY's cut MBE score is ~135, their required UBE score is 266 and many states have higher required UBE scores like WA (270), OR (274), CO (276), and AK (280).

I highly doubt that the CA state bar will change the cut score.

I think they won't change it for this coming July. I think they at least what to see what does the pass rate look like under 50/50. If it is still horribly low, they may change it in the future exams.

dredd16
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:36 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby dredd16 » Tue May 16, 2017 5:35 pm

maxmartin wrote:
dredd16 wrote:
Guchster wrote:
dredd16 wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:Here's my breakdown. Failed on the re-read:

WRITTEN First Read Second Read Operative Score


Essay 5 70 60 65



This just goes to show that as much as we can try to predict our scores/self-grade with a Barbri rubric/hire a former CA bar grader for a tutor to evaluate our scores in practice, sometimes it's just simple bad luck that your essay was given to one bar grader who was especially hard vs. another one who was especially more lenient.

All you can do is pick yourself back up and leave no room for error in the other areas in order to prevent another re-read.


I'm almost insulted by the fact they need to wait to the California Supreme Court to order a study to figure out what's wrong with this scam of an exam when they were letting more egregious crap like this happen and let that determine almost 70% of one's final score.

I get that writing needs to be assessed to determine whether someone is qualified to practice law, but when there is so much divergence in a score, why the hell were these swindlers making that the basis for way over half of the final exam score?


Well now, essays and MBEs are 50/50. So the state bar has sort of "fixed" the problem that a subjective grader may greatly affect a bar taker's score.

The problem now is that the CA law school deans are arguing that the cut score should not be 144, but be closer to a state like New York which is ~135.

The counterpoint is that even though NY's cut MBE score is ~135, their required UBE score is 266 and many states have higher required UBE scores like WA (270), OR (274), CO (276), and AK (280).

I highly doubt that the CA state bar will change the cut score.

I think they won't change it for this coming July. I think they at least what to see what does the pass rate look like under 50/50. If it is still horribly low, they may change it in the future exams.


Just my personal opinion, but I highly doubt they will ever change the score.

If you isolate statistics to just only ABA accredited schools, then the pass rate is not as atrocious as the overall pass rate.

When you add in the non-ABA accredited but CA accredited and all the other miscellany categories, then the rate drastically drops down. Most likely, the bar will just chalk it up to the quality of students that are present in non-ABA schools.

Aydog
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 2:45 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Aydog » Tue May 16, 2017 6:03 pm

dredd16 wrote:
maxmartin wrote:
dredd16 wrote:
Guchster wrote:
dredd16 wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:Here's my breakdown. Failed on the re-read:

WRITTEN First Read Second Read Operative Score


Essay 5 70 60 65



This just goes to show that as much as we can try to predict our scores/self-grade with a Barbri rubric/hire a former CA bar grader for a tutor to evaluate our scores in practice, sometimes it's just simple bad luck that your essay was given to one bar grader who was especially hard vs. another one who was especially more lenient.

All you can do is pick yourself back up and leave no room for error in the other areas in order to prevent another re-read.


I'm almost insulted by the fact they need to wait to the California Supreme Court to order a study to figure out what's wrong with this scam of an exam when they were letting more egregious crap like this happen and let that determine almost 70% of one's final score.

I get that writing needs to be assessed to determine whether someone is qualified to practice law, but when there is so much divergence in a score, why the hell were these swindlers making that the basis for way over half of the final exam score?


Well now, essays and MBEs are 50/50. So the state bar has sort of "fixed" the problem that a subjective grader may greatly affect a bar taker's score.

The problem now is that the CA law school deans are arguing that the cut score should not be 144, but be closer to a state like New York which is ~135.

The counterpoint is that even though NY's cut MBE score is ~135, their required UBE score is 266 and many states have higher required UBE scores like WA (270), OR (274), CO (276), and AK (280).

I highly doubt that the CA state bar will change the cut score.

I think they won't change it for this coming July. I think they at least what to see what does the pass rate look like under 50/50. If it is still horribly low, they may change it in the future exams.


Just my personal opinion, but I highly doubt they will ever change the score.

If you isolate statistics to just only ABA accredited schools, then the pass rate is not as atrocious as the overall pass rate.

When you add in the non-ABA accredited but CA accredited and all the other miscellany categories, then the rate drastically drops down. Most likely, the bar will just chalk it up to the quality of students that are present in non-ABA schools.



I wouldn't say that , there aren't that many California only accredited students as online only students. It was 45% for first timers from CA ABA schools that's nothing to glow about. ABA scores are also in a major decline, look up Hastings law

I passsed the bar this February as one of the 15% as California accredited repeaters

dredd16
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:36 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby dredd16 » Tue May 16, 2017 6:29 pm

Aydog wrote:
dredd16 wrote:
Just my personal opinion, but I highly doubt they will ever change the score.

If you isolate statistics to just only ABA accredited schools, then the pass rate is not as atrocious as the overall pass rate.

When you add in the non-ABA accredited but CA accredited and all the other miscellany categories, then the rate drastically drops down. Most likely, the bar will just chalk it up to the quality of students that are present in non-ABA schools.


I wouldn't say that, there aren't that many California only accredited students as online only students. It was 45% for first timers from CA ABA schools that's nothing to glow about. ABA scores are also in a major decline, look up Hastings law

I passsed the bar this February as one of the 15% as California accredited repeaters


Congrats on passing!

I'm not saying that there hasn't been a decline. I'm merely offering counter-arguments that the bar might throw around to not lower the cut score. The pass rate for ABA schools (CA and out of state) for first timers back in July 2016 was 60%. Overall first timers in July 2016 was 56%. Those compare very differently to the overall pass rate in July 2016 of 43%.

Now you may think that the pass rate should be 75%+. But it's clear that the CA bar is intended to be the hardest and if the pass rate was 75%, then it would pretty much match the pass rate of most other states and therefore not be the hardest bar.

PassedFeb2017
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby PassedFeb2017 » Tue May 16, 2017 10:02 pm

Mod edit: nope

dredd16
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:36 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby dredd16 » Tue May 16, 2017 10:09 pm

PassedFeb2017 wrote:After multi-attempts, I finally passed!! You can too!! Thank goodness for this forum that kept me sane.
Get my tutor services here: nah


No offense, but did you work on developing your bar tutor website/tutoring materials even before finding out that you passed the bar? Seems like it based on your site's blog posts.

That's quite imprudent given that you didn't know if you passed or not at that time.

PassedFeb2017
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby PassedFeb2017 » Tue May 16, 2017 10:14 pm

Actually it proves my point. Please don't spread your negativity on this board for people who honestly need help. And actually, the posts were in development. Obviously putting the website up BEFORE results would be wrong. Just be positive.

PassedFeb2017
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby PassedFeb2017 » Tue May 16, 2017 10:18 pm

and to add, your sort of comments are exactly why good natured people like myself don't want to spend the money for a website to try and help people. I'm clearly not going to live off of a few clients. I actually already have a full-time job with a 401K and health insurance. I still felt strongly about helping others. I got so screwed by numerous tutors. And clearly with the pass rate, the bar prep programs are lying. I'm just providing people with another option. Go tell off the villains. Not the people who are actually on your side.

Mod edit: user has been banned for spamming prep services

dredd16
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:36 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby dredd16 » Tue May 16, 2017 10:28 pm

PassedFeb2017 wrote:Actually it proves my point. Please don't spread your negativity on this board for people who honestly need help. And actually, the posts were in development. Obviously putting the website up BEFORE results would be wrong. Just be positive.


I know that many people on this board need help passing the bar, which is why I made my own detailed post giving substantive tips and advice to people on how to pass the bar http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=277682.

I also read your background (working class background, various minimum wage jobs, etc) and I acknowledge that we all need to make a living somehow one way or another.

But to just pass the bar and not a full week later advertise your tutoring services for $3,500 is pretty messed up. What separates you from any other tutor/prep program out there? Sure, it's a free market and people can do whatever they want. But don't come to TLS to advertise your services in an attempt to prey on certain people who have failed the bar multiple times and are grasping for any sort of advice from someone who passed the bar.

This post isn't just about you, but also other bar tutors out there who don't seem to have any other qualifications beyond just passing the CA bar and maybe doing well in a couple classes in law school. People need to do more vetting on who they hire as a tutor.

And if you're so confident in your own tutoring pedigree, why hide behind an alias email?

gymtanlaw
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby gymtanlaw » Wed May 17, 2017 12:21 am

Wow, I could not hold back from posting! $3,500 for bar tutoring from someone who passed the bar a mere few days ago. I passed the CA Bar Exam a few days ago, with an MBE score above a 150, and passed the FL Bar in July 2015, but that no way makes me or anyone who just passed the Bar prepared to be a tutor. To all who are consider getting a tutor, make sure you make an informed decision as to who you go with. My tutor/ course instructor spends months and months dissecting the hornbooks and treatises the examiners use to write the exam to create outlines, essay rules, etc... He also goes and takes the MBE in various states to always be current with the questions being asked. My tutor charged $1,300 more than PassedFeb2017 is charging for his tutoring. If you didn't pass and are considering a specialized course other than the commercial bar companies, please make an informed decision and find a tutor who lives and breathes the bar exam. I think its great that PassedFeb2017 aspires to be a bar tutor, but it takes a long time before you can charge $3,500 for a course. Once he reaches the level of knowing the exact pulse of the CA bar exam, then $3,500 will be merited. As a fellow Feb 2017 passer I would be embarrassed to charge those prices for my bar advice.

As a general question: Why does everyone always recommend Adaptibar? I found the Best Multis program was much better for MBEs. The questions were more on point, the explanations are flawless and more in depth, and the Civ Pro questions were more accurate than what you see on test day. I've used both and hands down preferred Best Multis.

ur_hero
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ur_hero » Wed May 17, 2017 12:36 am

Yeah, $3,500 for a tutor is a huge investment. And this one seems particularly risky.

To be honest, there looks like there's some solid advice on the website but I'd be skeptical about paying a flat-fee for untested tutoring services. I'm sure some people will buy his materials regardless, so hopefully we'll find he's got some great stuff and that could then establish his reputation.

ur_hero
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ur_hero » Wed May 17, 2017 12:40 am

gymtanlaw wrote:Wow, I could not hold back from posting! $3,500 for bar tutoring from someone who passed the bar a mere few days ago. I passed the CA Bar Exam a few days ago, with an MBE score above a 150, and passed the FL Bar in July 2015, but that no way makes me or anyone who just passed the Bar prepared to be a tutor. To all who are consider getting a tutor, make sure you make an informed decision as to who you go with. My tutor/ course instructor spends months and months dissecting the hornbooks and treatises the examiners use to write the exam to create outlines, essay rules, etc... He also goes and takes the MBE in various states to always be current with the questions being asked. My tutor charged $1,300 more than PassedFeb2017 is charging for his tutoring. If you didn't pass and are considering a specialized course other than the commercial bar companies, please make an informed decision and find a tutor who lives and breathes the bar exam. I think its great that PassedFeb2017 aspires to be a bar tutor, but it takes a long time before you can charge $3,500 for a course. Once he reaches the level of knowing the exact pulse of the CA bar exam, then $3,500 will be merited. As a fellow Feb 2017 passer I would be embarrassed to charge those prices for my bar advice.

As a general question: Why does everyone always recommend Adaptibar? I found the Best Multis program was much better for MBEs. The questions were more on point, the explanations are flawless and more in depth, and the Civ Pro questions were more accurate than what you see on test day. I've used both and hands down preferred Best Multis.


Re Adaptibar vs BestMultis: I don't think it's that popular yet, hence not that many people have tried it (let alone both to compare the two - neither is cheap!).

dredd16
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:36 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby dredd16 » Wed May 17, 2017 12:48 am

gymtanlaw wrote: As a general question: Why does everyone always recommend Adaptibar? I found the Best Multis program was much better for MBEs. The questions were more on point, the explanations are flawless and more in depth, and the Civ Pro questions were more accurate than what you see on test day. I've used both and hands down preferred Best Multis.


Everyone always recommends Adaptibar because they're actual MBE questions that have been used previously. That is the closest to the source as you are going to get.

People have said the explanations for Adaptibar have been lacking, but I've found them to be adequate.

Although, I did feel at the time when I was leaving the test on Wednesday that Adaptibar was too "easy" and did not wholly prepare me for the brutal MBE of today. I left asking myself whether I should have done some MBE questions from Kaplan.

Although I passed, I still feel the same way about Adaptibar. But I think Adaptibar is still a crucial part of anyone's bar prep because it will help you learn the nuances/situations of the law that the NCBE has tested in the past. The NCBE is more likely to test the same exact things that they have tested before, but just in a different form. It was just that the fact patterns in the MBEs have gotten a lot more complicated in my opinion despite testing the same exact concepts.

User avatar
Guchster
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:38 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Guchster » Wed May 17, 2017 1:03 am

All I'm going to say is that anyone looking for a tutor SHOULD STRONGLY STRONGLY STRONGLY (did I mention strongly) think about using a recommended bar tutor that was a former bar exam grader and not some rando who managed to just pass the bar (especially since we who passed have no idea how we did).

You don't have the luxury of taking a gamble with who your exam results. This process is too expensive, painful, traumatic and humiliating to unnecessarily do it more times than you need to. Your tutor should have strong references and come recommended by others.

But if you have nothing better to do over the next year and several thousand dollars to blow, feel free to take a chance and hope for the best.

Npret
Posts: 1065
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Npret » Wed May 17, 2017 1:10 am

PassedFeb2017 wrote:Actually it proves my point. Please don't spread your negativity on this board for people who honestly need help. And actually, the posts were in development. Obviously putting the website up BEFORE results would be wrong. Just be positive.

My negativity tells me that you will probably be banned for looking for clients in this thread.

maxmartin
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby maxmartin » Wed May 17, 2017 1:24 am

dredd16 wrote:
gymtanlaw wrote: As a general question: Why does everyone always recommend Adaptibar? I found the Best Multis program was much better for MBEs. The questions were more on point, the explanations are flawless and more in depth, and the Civ Pro questions were more accurate than what you see on test day. I've used both and hands down preferred Best Multis.


Everyone always recommends Adaptibar because they're actual MBE questions that have been used previously. That is the closest to the source as you are going to get.

People have said the explanations for Adaptibar have been lacking, but I've found them to be adequate.

Although, I did feel at the time when I was leaving the test on Wednesday that Adaptibar was too "easy" and did not wholly prepare me for the brutal MBE of today. I left asking myself whether I should have done some MBE questions from Kaplan.

Although I passed, I still feel the same way about Adaptibar. But I think Adaptibar is still a crucial part of anyone's bar prep because it will help you learn the nuances/situations of the law that the NCBE has tested in the past. The NCBE is more likely to test the same exact things that they have tested before, but just in a different form. It was just that the fact patterns in the MBEs have gotten a lot more complicated in my opinion despite testing the same exact concepts.

Everyone always recommends Adaptibar because Adptibar has a successful marketing strategy。 LOL everyone wants a free 20 or 30 dollars. There are much cheaper alternatives with the same effects.

gymtanlaw
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby gymtanlaw » Wed May 17, 2017 1:30 am

dredd16 wrote:
gymtanlaw wrote: As a general question: Why does everyone always recommend Adaptibar? I found the Best Multis program was much better for MBEs. The questions were more on point, the explanations are flawless and more in depth, and the Civ Pro questions were more accurate than what you see on test day. I've used both and hands down preferred Best Multis.


Everyone always recommends Adaptibar because they're actual MBE questions that have been used previously. That is the closest to the source as you are going to get.

People have said the explanations for Adaptibar have been lacking, but I've found them to be adequate.

Although, I did feel at the time when I was leaving the test on Wednesday that Adaptibar was too "easy" and did not wholly prepare me for the brutal MBE of today. I left asking myself whether I should have done some MBE questions from Kaplan.

Although I passed, I still feel the same way about Adaptibar. But I think Adaptibar is still a crucial part of anyone's bar prep because it will help you learn the nuances/situations of the law that the NCBE has tested in the past. The NCBE is more likely to test the same exact things that they have tested before, but just in a different form. It was just that the fact patterns in the MBEs have gotten a lot more complicated in my opinion despite testing the same exact concepts.


I think ur_hero is right, that its probably because not that many people have tried it yet, because it is newer than Adaptibar. It isn't as marketed either. BestMultis also uses MBE, however for Civ Pro there have only ever been released less than 50 questions which both Adaptibar and BestMultis come up with their own for the subject. I felt BestMultis had better Civ Pro questions and much better explanations throughout.

angiesmirnoff
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 1:29 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby angiesmirnoff » Wed May 17, 2017 1:41 am

Guys..... :cry:

I received my scores, and they just show what a lottery it is... I ran out of time on Essay #2 since I did Essay 3 and Essay 1 first.

If the first grader gave me a 70 instead of a 60 on the First Read for PTA, I would have passed!!!
They did give it to me on second read, but the score was averaged.

Noticed how I performed worse than others on Contracts but still passed the MBEs.
What a shame... I could have been celebrating a win of this lottery now. Every exam is so different, and how well you perform now seems to have nothing to do with the next 'game' of essays and PTs and MBEs.

Crushed. Totally crushed.

I also feel like the July test is a suicide - all the recent graduates are going in for the kill.
And I am working full-time now. What should I do - retake, or wait it out until next winter?

1st read 2nd read Averaged Grade
Essay 1: 90 80 85
Essay 2: 50 50 50
Essay 3: 65 60 62.5
Essay 4: 60 60 60
Essay 5: 55 55 55
Essay 6: 65 70 67.5

PTA: 60 70 65
PTB: 55 55 55

Scaled Written: 1417.13
Scaled MBE: 1454.00

Total Scaled Score: 1430.0345



MBE Percentile Rank:
Civ Pro: 63.6
ConLaw: 84.8
Contracts: 27.1
Crim Law: 64.4
Evidence: 79.0
Real Property: 90.8
Torts: 46.9


Local: 67.8
National: 77.4



This nightmare is not over yet....

What a lottery.... I can tell by the scores, especially by the discrepancies in the first read and the second reads!!!!!!!!! A higher score on Essay 6 and on PTA ON THE FIRST READ would have passed me, which means that YOUR DESTINY DEPENDS ON THE MOOD OF THE GRADER, REALLY!!!!!! HOW IS THAT FAIR? There's a huge difference between a 60 and a 70 score on a PT!!!! For the same work written!

:(((




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Leprechaun and 11 guests