2017 February California Bar Exam

[barexaminerssuck27]

CONFIRMED!!!!!!!!

My bar tutor and bar prep have confirmed that it's only 119 MBE RAW to pass!!! It's not 128 RAW anymore!

So 119 MBE RAW will get you the 1440 to pass!! GREAT NEWS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WEAK AT MBES!!!!!!!! !

[InterAlia1961]

I hope you're right. That means you could miss 56 questions. I can identify 13 that I know for sure I missed. Five in CP alone. I'm a little more hopeful because of your insight. I'm currently fluctuating between failed it and nailed it. Today was failed it, but maybe tonight can be nailed it. Thanks.

[iartest]

How did your tutor receive this information?

CONFIRMED!!!!!!!!

My bar tutor and bar prep have confirmed that it's only 119 MBE RAW to pass!!! It's not 128 RAW anymore!

So 119 MBE RAW will get you the 1440 to pass!! GREAT NEWS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WEAK AT MBES!!!!!!!! !

[barexaminerssuck27]

How did your tutor receive this information?

CONFIRMED!!!!!!!!

My bar tutor and bar prep have confirmed that it's only 119 MBE RAW to pass!!! It's not 128 RAW anymore!

So 119 MBE RAW will get you the 1440 to pass!! GREAT NEWS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WEAK AT MBES!!!!!!!! !

Go to One-Timers Bar Prep's Facebook page. They replied to someone asking this question.

Here's the link:

https://www.facebook.com/One-Timers-Per ... NE&fref=nf

[ur_hero]

CONFIRMED!!!!!!!!

My bar tutor and bar prep have confirmed that it's only 119 MBE RAW to pass!!! It's not 128 RAW anymore!

So 119 MBE RAW will get you the 1440 to pass!! GREAT NEWS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WEAK AT MBES!!!!!!!! !

I mean...even if it's a lower raw score, isn't that the natural result of having more experimental questions? Seems each wrong answer would just bring your percentage correct down more? I haven't worked out the math or anything myself though so maybe it's better.

[InterAlia1961]

My attempt at math ended up with 123 out of 175 amounting to 70%, passing. If it's actually 119, all that much better. Although, I don't think I missed 56 questions. I can identify 12 that I remember the fact pattern and looked up. I know I missed those. Five in CP. I really have to go over removal jurisdiction more thoroughly. Crim pro, two for sure. Evidence, three for sure. Two in RP. There were a couple more that I thought were likely pre-test questions. I thought the afternoon session required greater concentration. There were many questions were there were two correct choices, and you had to find the most correct. I could hear a voice in my head saying, " A statement of law is better than a statement of fact," all afternoon. I changed a few answers more than once.

[ur_hero]

So, if the above is true/accurate, this actually looks slightly worse by the numbers.

Before: 128/190= .674 "passing".

Compared to now: 119/175 = .68 "passing".

[InterAlia1961]

So, if the above is true/accurate, this actually looks slightly worse by the numbers.

Before: 128/190= .674 "passing".

Compared to now: 119/175 = .68 "passing".

Yikes. In other news, I've figured out how to help the time go by: Sue somebody! No kidding. I've had enough of Waste Management. Watch this.

[ur_hero]

Yeah, I really hope the 25 experimental don't end up biting us hard. Difficult to say what the effect will be, but notwithstanding scaling adjustments - weaker MBE performance tends to result in lower pass rates.

[a male human]

The number of experimental questions isn't the bad part since you want to aim to get everything right anyway.

The big hit comes from the MBE (a series of 200 alphabet letters) determining HALF of your overall score, up from 35%. This is bad news for those who aren't good with objective MC questions.

But with the shorter exam, maybe you'll get results faster (say, October) and have more time to study if you end up not passing?

[LockBox]

I think people do themselves a real disservice when they try to "game" the system, or figure out the minimum required to pass. Yes, you may be strong/weak at MC and yes it may or may not have more relevance on whether you pass now than it did before. However, I whichever way it turns, I still think bar examinees should be focused on doing not less than 50 MBE's per day, ultimately hitting 2,000+ by game day. That includes review of essentially each question (the ones you got right to verify your knowledge/analysis was correct, and the ones you got wrong to learn the law or correct whatever error you made).

Obviously changes in the bar will prompt speculation about it and therefore everyone's chances of passing. Good luck to all in May.

[ur_hero]

Yes, I don't believe it has anything to do with preparation and didn't give it a second thought prior to the exam date. But hard to ignore it during my post-exam anxiety in anticipation of results, along with the other million and one things out of my control.

I know - I need to distract myself better.

[armenianBEAUTY]

Anyone have any advice re finding a paying job in CA while waiting for results? My school sends emails which are of no value to me (and you all here) since they all ask for bar membership. Any advice would be appreciated!

[a male human]

Anyone have any advice re finding a paying job in CA while waiting for results? My school sends emails which are of no value to me (and you all here) since they all ask for bar membership. Any advice would be appreciated!

Your first leads are your prior places of employment or summer internships. They already know what you can do, so you can cut in front of new applicants. Check in with them one at a time to see if they need any part-time or full-time help while you wait for results. If they have work, they will consider you. You may have to clarify that you're not trying to impose on them to make you an attorney if you pass (although they could if you both want to).

In the meantime, you can put on your resume that you sat for the bar and results are out in May. If someone interviews you, they'll say something like the offer is contingent on your passing. You may be able to work while results are pending.

If you can't find a position that directly matches what you want to be eventually, look for work related to the field you're in so you can put it as relevant experience. Now that you have time, you can craft a killer writing sample to submit with your applications. For example, find your own client/work (that does not require you to be an attorney) and/or draft a paper for a matter at a firm (careful of putting them in a position where it creates ethical issues of possessing work product for a pending matter that they didn't create--you're not their attorney yet).

These are all things I've personally done, so do what you will with this information. LMK what you think.

[LockBox]

Anyone have any advice re finding a paying job in CA while waiting for results? My school sends emails which are of no value to me (and you all here) since they all ask for bar membership. Any advice would be appreciated!

Your first leads are your prior places of employment or summer internships. They already know what you can do, so you can cut in front of new applicants. Check in with them one at a time to see if they need any part-time or full-time help while you wait for results. If they have work, they will consider you. You may have to clarify that you're not trying to impose on them to make you an attorney if you pass (although they could if you both want to).

In the meantime, you can put on your resume that you sat for the bar and results are out in May. If someone interviews you, they'll say something like the offer is contingent on your passing. You may be able to work while results are pending.

If you can't find a position that directly matches what you want to be eventually, look for work related to the field you're in so you can put it as relevant experience. Now that you have time, you can craft a killer writing sample to submit with your applications. For example, find your own client/work (that does not require you to be an attorney) and/or draft a paper for a matter at a firm (careful of putting them in a position where it creates ethical issues of possessing work product for a pending matter that they didn't create--you're not their attorney yet).

These are all things I've personally done, so do what you will with this information. LMK what you think.

I would second all of this. In addition, I would say reach out to colleagues that are already working who are at firms you wouldn't mind joining. Take them out to coffee and just try to get a sense of what their work is like. If you're personable and have a good connection, something will find its way to you. I would say that you should try to do something, even if it's volunteering at a clinic. Improve your chops while you're waiting for bar results in some way.

[ur_hero]

Had a dream last night where I was told by my firm basically "don't stress over whether or not you pass the bar this second time....you're good either way!"

It was good while it lasted...

[a male human]

Had a dream last night where I was told by my firm basically "don't stress over whether or not you pass the bar this second time....you're good either way!"

It was good while it lasted...

Is it better to have nightmares about failing and wake up with Schroedinger's results still uncollapsed, or have good dreams and then be kicked back to reality?

(I tried to put the "thinking face" emoji, but "[y]our message contains the following unsupported characters")

[ur_hero]

Had a dream last night where I was told by my firm basically "don't stress over whether or not you pass the bar this second time....you're good either way!"

It was good while it lasted...

Is it better to have nightmares about failing and wake up with Schroedinger's results still uncollapsed, or have good dreams and then be kicked back to reality?

(I tried to put the "thinking face" emoji, but "[y]our message contains the following unsupported characters")

Good question. Sweet relief followed by cold hard reality and subsequent limbo.....Or tragedy followed by relief and then more limbo. Hmm.

[armenianBEAUTY]

Thanks, guys!

[SlowLearner]

The essay and PT questions from Feb. 2017 have now been posted:

http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals ... ions_R.pdf

[InterAlia1961]

The essay and PT questions from Feb. 2017 have now been posted:

http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals ... ions_R.pdf

It's my understanding that when the essay questions and PTs are released, the graders have finished. I wasn't expecting them until sometime in mid-April. Is it possible they are two-weeks ahead of schedule? Maybe a lot fewer people took it this time around.

Looking at them again, I'm still sure I bombed the Corps essay and the Remedies essay. This is torture.

[Got'eem]

For the evidence essay, if I didn't mention impeachment, am I
going to lose a lot of points? 5/12 can't come soon enough

[InterAlia1961]

For the evidence essay, if I didn't mention impeachment, am I
going to lose a lot of points? 5/12 can't come soon enough

Someone, anyone, please tell me who was impeaching whom? As for Nurse Nellie, the question asked about the record, not her testimony. The record was admissible as a statement made for the purpose of medical treatment to show damages. No damages, no negligence suit. Where is the impeachment issue? I didn't say a word about impeachment because there were no facts to show that anyone's credibility was at issue. Two people saw a different colored light. That doesn't mean either of them are lying. I also didn't see a BER question. I didn't talk about it either because I didn't want to waste time discussing something that wasn't an issue when there were plenty of actual issues.

As for the Remedies essay, I still say Betty gets nothing. No fraud because it wasn't about the building itself, so it wasn't material.

I hate this.

[Got'eem]

One can argue ( i didnt) that P's testimony about D's offer to pay is used to contradict D's denial that she did offer to pay his med bills.

I just stated that it wasn't admissible because it was against public interest/policy due to it being an offer to pay medical bills.

[InterAlia1961]

One can argue ( i didnt) that P's testimony about D's offer to pay is used to contradict D's denial that she did offer to pay his med bills.

I just stated that it wasn't admissible because it was against public interest/policy due to it being an offer to pay medical bills.

That's what I argued as well. Can't use the offer to impeach her when what she's being impeached for isn't admissible in the first place. I do, however, see how someone could argue it for points. Don't sweat it. There are many ways to answer correctly. I argued that the offer to pay medical bills could be excised and the fact that she visited him could be admitted as an admission. I know, a stretch, but so is any impeachment argument.