2018 July California Bar

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:17 am

barprepforca wrote:Can someone explain to me why the performance renders the mailbox rule inert in this question?

Two salesmen, who lived in different suburbs twenty miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen--one for a pharmaceutical company and the other for a widget manufacturer. The pharmaceutical salesman wrote the widget salesman by United States mail on Friday, October 8:

I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club and will buy your Sujocki for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand.

Sincerely,

[signed] the pharmaceutical salesman

The widget salesman replied by mail the following day:

I accept your offer, and promise to deliver the bike as you specified.

Sincerely,

[signed] the widget salesman

This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by the pharmaceutical salesman until November 10. The pharmaceutical salesman had bought another Sujocki bike from a different friend for $1,050 a few hours before.

The friend saw the widget salesman at the Interurban Country Club on November 11 and said: "I sold my Sujocki to the pharmaceutical salesman yesterday for $1,050. Would you consider selling me yours for $950?" The widget salesman replied: "I'll let you know in a few days."

On November 12, the widget salesman took his Sujocki to the pharmaceutical salesman's residence; he arrived at 11:15 a.m. The pharmaceutical salesman was asleep and did not answer the ringing doorbell until 12:15 p.m. The pharmaceutical salesman then rejected the widget salesman's bike on the ground that he had already bought someone else's bike.

In a lawsuit by the widget salesman against the pharmaceutical salesman for breach of contract, what would the court probably decide regarding the widget salesman's letter of October 9?

A The letter bound both parties to a unilateral contract as soon as the widget salesman mailed it.
B Mailing of the letter by the widget salesman did not, of itself, prevent a subsequent, effective revocation by the pharmaceutical salesman of his offer.
C The letter bound both parties to a bilateral contract, but only when received by the pharmaceutical salesman on November 10.
D Regardless of whether the pharmaceutical salesman's offer had proposed a unilateral or a bilateral contract, the letter was an effective acceptance upon receipt, if not upon dispatch.

Answer: B is correct. The widget salesman's letter was not an appropriate method of acceptance because the pharmaceutical salesman's letter offer requested performance; thus, the mailbox rule would not apply to make the acceptance effective upon dispatch, and the pharmaceutical salesman's offer remained freely revocable.


The mailbox rule does not apply when the offer specifies the method of acceptance. The offeror, as master of his offer, can condition acceptance however he wants. The mailbox rule is merely a 'gap filler' when an offer is otherwise absent as to acceptance, and as such, it yields to contrary offeror intent.

In your example, the offeror stated that the only way to accept his offer would be via delivery/performance (i.e., it was a unilateral contract). Therefore, the mailbox rule yields to the offeror's condition, and it doesn't apply.

barprepforca

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby barprepforca » Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:15 am

estefanchanning wrote:
barprepforca wrote:Can someone explain to me why the performance renders the mailbox rule inert in this question?

Two salesmen, who lived in different suburbs twenty miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen--one for a pharmaceutical company and the other for a widget manufacturer. The pharmaceutical salesman wrote the widget salesman by United States mail on Friday, October 8:

I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club and will buy your Sujocki for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand.

Sincerely,

[signed] the pharmaceutical salesman

The widget salesman replied by mail the following day:

I accept your offer, and promise to deliver the bike as you specified.

Sincerely,

[signed] the widget salesman

This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by the pharmaceutical salesman until November 10. The pharmaceutical salesman had bought another Sujocki bike from a different friend for $1,050 a few hours before.

The friend saw the widget salesman at the Interurban Country Club on November 11 and said: "I sold my Sujocki to the pharmaceutical salesman yesterday for $1,050. Would you consider selling me yours for $950?" The widget salesman replied: "I'll let you know in a few days."

On November 12, the widget salesman took his Sujocki to the pharmaceutical salesman's residence; he arrived at 11:15 a.m. The pharmaceutical salesman was asleep and did not answer the ringing doorbell until 12:15 p.m. The pharmaceutical salesman then rejected the widget salesman's bike on the ground that he had already bought someone else's bike.

In a lawsuit by the widget salesman against the pharmaceutical salesman for breach of contract, what would the court probably decide regarding the widget salesman's letter of October 9?

A The letter bound both parties to a unilateral contract as soon as the widget salesman mailed it.
B Mailing of the letter by the widget salesman did not, of itself, prevent a subsequent, effective revocation by the pharmaceutical salesman of his offer.
C The letter bound both parties to a bilateral contract, but only when received by the pharmaceutical salesman on November 10.
D Regardless of whether the pharmaceutical salesman's offer had proposed a unilateral or a bilateral contract, the letter was an effective acceptance upon receipt, if not upon dispatch.

Answer: B is correct. The widget salesman's letter was not an appropriate method of acceptance because the pharmaceutical salesman's letter offer requested performance; thus, the mailbox rule would not apply to make the acceptance effective upon dispatch, and the pharmaceutical salesman's offer remained freely revocable.


The mailbox rule does not apply when the offer specifies the method of acceptance. The offeror, as master of his offer, can condition acceptance however he wants. The mailbox rule is merely a 'gap filler' when an offer is otherwise absent as to acceptance, and as such, it yields to contrary offeror intent.

In your example, the offeror stated that the only way to accept his offer would be via delivery/performance (i.e., it was a unilateral contract). Therefore, the mailbox rule yields to the offeror's condition, and it doesn't apply.


Thanks! your explanation makes a lot of sense. I get that unilateral promises are ones that can only be accepted by full performance but I always have a lot of trouble actually recognizing them in questions. I wish there was a way to just hammer it down easily but I’ll keep answering questions these last few days and keep at it!

itsyerboythundercat

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:29 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby itsyerboythundercat » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:29 pm

can someone give a ballpark in re: to what %age would be passing on MBE and what scores would be needed for essays/ PT? just ball park is fine..i know ever exam / session is different . thanks folks!

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 2010
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:34 pm

itsyerboythundercat wrote:can someone give a ballpark in re: to what %age would be passing on MBE and what scores would be needed for essays/ PT? just ball park is fine..i know ever exam / session is different . thanks folks!

You can try plugging in different numbers here: https://one-timers.com/one-timers-bar-exam-calculator/

Generally, raw scores of 60-65 on each essay and PT and 65% correct on MBE would put you on track to pass.

LASTTIMESACHARM

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:12 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby LASTTIMESACHARM » Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:28 pm

I did the OPE 3 this morning and scored 83%. I remembered some of the questions from studying. SO this definitely cannot be accurate. I also heard ncbe OPEs are easier than what is tested now.

Any one else have a similar problem? or heard whether OPEs are still good to use?

itsyerboythundercat

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:29 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby itsyerboythundercat » Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:47 pm

a male human wrote:
itsyerboythundercat wrote:can someone give a ballpark in re: to what %age would be passing on MBE and what scores would be needed for essays/ PT? just ball park is fine..i know ever exam / session is different . thanks folks!

You can try plugging in different numbers here: https://one-timers.com/one-timers-bar-exam-calculator/

Generally, raw scores of 60-65 on each essay and PT and 65% correct on MBE would put you on track to pass.


thanks! appreciate your insight throughout these past few weeks/ months . magic sheets have been a tremendous resource.

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 2010
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:01 pm

itsyerboythundercat wrote:
a male human wrote:
itsyerboythundercat wrote:can someone give a ballpark in re: to what %age would be passing on MBE and what scores would be needed for essays/ PT? just ball park is fine..i know ever exam / session is different . thanks folks!

You can try plugging in different numbers here: https://one-timers.com/one-timers-bar-exam-calculator/

Generally, raw scores of 60-65 on each essay and PT and 65% correct on MBE would put you on track to pass.


thanks! appreciate your insight throughout these past few weeks/ months . magic sheets have been a tremendous resource.

Awesome, glad to have been a resource for you. Best of luck.

KBJ2011

New
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:18 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby KBJ2011 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:11 pm

estefanchanning wrote:
barprepforca wrote:Can someone explain to me why the performance renders the mailbox rule inert in this question?

Two salesmen, who lived in different suburbs twenty miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen--one for a pharmaceutical company and the other for a widget manufacturer. The pharmaceutical salesman wrote the widget salesman by United States mail on Friday, October 8:

I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club and will buy your Sujocki for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand.

Sincerely,

[signed] the pharmaceutical salesman

The widget salesman replied by mail the following day:

I accept your offer, and promise to deliver the bike as you specified.

Sincerely,

[signed] the widget salesman

This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by the pharmaceutical salesman until November 10. The pharmaceutical salesman had bought another Sujocki bike from a different friend for $1,050 a few hours before.

The friend saw the widget salesman at the Interurban Country Club on November 11 and said: "I sold my Sujocki to the pharmaceutical salesman yesterday for $1,050. Would you consider selling me yours for $950?" The widget salesman replied: "I'll let you know in a few days."

On November 12, the widget salesman took his Sujocki to the pharmaceutical salesman's residence; he arrived at 11:15 a.m. The pharmaceutical salesman was asleep and did not answer the ringing doorbell until 12:15 p.m. The pharmaceutical salesman then rejected the widget salesman's bike on the ground that he had already bought someone else's bike.

In a lawsuit by the widget salesman against the pharmaceutical salesman for breach of contract, what would the court probably decide regarding the widget salesman's letter of October 9?

A The letter bound both parties to a unilateral contract as soon as the widget salesman mailed it.
B Mailing of the letter by the widget salesman did not, of itself, prevent a subsequent, effective revocation by the pharmaceutical salesman of his offer.
C The letter bound both parties to a bilateral contract, but only when received by the pharmaceutical salesman on November 10.
D Regardless of whether the pharmaceutical salesman's offer had proposed a unilateral or a bilateral contract, the letter was an effective acceptance upon receipt, if not upon dispatch.

Answer: B is correct. The widget salesman's letter was not an appropriate method of acceptance because the pharmaceutical salesman's letter offer requested performance; thus, the mailbox rule would not apply to make the acceptance effective upon dispatch, and the pharmaceutical salesman's offer remained freely revocable.


The mailbox rule does not apply when the offer specifies the method of acceptance. The offeror, as master of his offer, can condition acceptance however he wants. The mailbox rule is merely a 'gap filler' when an offer is otherwise absent as to acceptance, and as such, it yields to contrary offeror intent.

In your example, the offeror stated that the only way to accept his offer would be via delivery/performance (i.e., it was a unilateral contract). Therefore, the mailbox rule yields to the offeror's condition, and it doesn't apply.


To clarify, because this is something I've been trying to understand as well:

"If you paint my house, I'll give you 1,000 dollars" = Unilateral contract, irrevocable upon beginning of performance but not irrevocable upon verbal acceptance/promise because a contract has not been formed yet.

"If you agree to paint my house, I'll give you 1,000 dollars" = Bilateral contract, irrevocable upon verbal acceptance/promise and subject to mailbox rule

That sound right?

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:32 pm

KBJ2011 wrote:
estefanchanning wrote:
barprepforca wrote:Can someone explain to me why the performance renders the mailbox rule inert in this question?

Two salesmen, who lived in different suburbs twenty miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen--one for a pharmaceutical company and the other for a widget manufacturer. The pharmaceutical salesman wrote the widget salesman by United States mail on Friday, October 8:

I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club and will buy your Sujocki for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand.

Sincerely,

[signed] the pharmaceutical salesman

The widget salesman replied by mail the following day:

I accept your offer, and promise to deliver the bike as you specified.

Sincerely,

[signed] the widget salesman

This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by the pharmaceutical salesman until November 10. The pharmaceutical salesman had bought another Sujocki bike from a different friend for $1,050 a few hours before.

The friend saw the widget salesman at the Interurban Country Club on November 11 and said: "I sold my Sujocki to the pharmaceutical salesman yesterday for $1,050. Would you consider selling me yours for $950?" The widget salesman replied: "I'll let you know in a few days."

On November 12, the widget salesman took his Sujocki to the pharmaceutical salesman's residence; he arrived at 11:15 a.m. The pharmaceutical salesman was asleep and did not answer the ringing doorbell until 12:15 p.m. The pharmaceutical salesman then rejected the widget salesman's bike on the ground that he had already bought someone else's bike.

In a lawsuit by the widget salesman against the pharmaceutical salesman for breach of contract, what would the court probably decide regarding the widget salesman's letter of October 9?

A The letter bound both parties to a unilateral contract as soon as the widget salesman mailed it.
B Mailing of the letter by the widget salesman did not, of itself, prevent a subsequent, effective revocation by the pharmaceutical salesman of his offer.
C The letter bound both parties to a bilateral contract, but only when received by the pharmaceutical salesman on November 10.
D Regardless of whether the pharmaceutical salesman's offer had proposed a unilateral or a bilateral contract, the letter was an effective acceptance upon receipt, if not upon dispatch.

Answer: B is correct. The widget salesman's letter was not an appropriate method of acceptance because the pharmaceutical salesman's letter offer requested performance; thus, the mailbox rule would not apply to make the acceptance effective upon dispatch, and the pharmaceutical salesman's offer remained freely revocable.


The mailbox rule does not apply when the offer specifies the method of acceptance. The offeror, as master of his offer, can condition acceptance however he wants. The mailbox rule is merely a 'gap filler' when an offer is otherwise absent as to acceptance, and as such, it yields to contrary offeror intent.

In your example, the offeror stated that the only way to accept his offer would be via delivery/performance (i.e., it was a unilateral contract). Therefore, the mailbox rule yields to the offeror's condition, and it doesn't apply.


To clarify, because this is something I've been trying to understand as well:

"If you paint my house, I'll give you 1,000 dollars" = Unilateral contract, irrevocable upon beginning of performance but not irrevocable upon verbal acceptance/promise because a contract has not been formed yet.

"If you agree to paint my house, I'll give you 1,000 dollars" = Bilateral contract, irrevocable upon verbal acceptance/promise and subject to mailbox rule

That sound right?


Yes.

applicant15

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:18 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby applicant15 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:19 pm

Any essay predictions? And if so, based on what source?

lostinca

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby lostinca » Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:47 pm

Hey Guys,

Was hoping one of you could help me with two issues I am currently facing. Past few days I've been really brushing up on my MBE practice questions, but two areas in particular continue to give me issues, even though I know & understand the BLL.

1. Contracts- For some reason I can almost never tell what specific issue is being tested. Outside of formation questions its a complete crapshoot. Any tips or ideas to understand what is being specifically tested within a question so I can apply the right law.

2- Con law- This is quite possibly my worst area, and never can apply the correct rule. I almost can never take the hypothetical law or statute, and correlate it to the rule within Con law.

Is there anything specific that you guys do in these areas? Any tips would be immensely appreciated :!:

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 2010
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:03 pm

lostinca wrote:Hey Guys,

Was hoping one of you could help me with two issues I am currently facing. Past few days I've been really brushing up on my MBE practice questions, but two areas in particular continue to give me issues, even though I know & understand the BLL.

1. Contracts- For some reason I can almost never tell what specific issue is being tested. Outside of formation questions its a complete crapshoot. Any tips or ideas to understand what is being specifically tested within a question so I can apply the right law.

2- Con law- This is quite possibly my worst area, and never can apply the correct rule. I almost can never take the hypothetical law or statute, and correlate it to the rule within Con law.

Is there anything specific that you guys do in these areas? Any tips would be immensely appreciated :!:

The facts trigger elements of the rules you have memorized, which trigger which issues to talk about. Do a bunch of Contracts essays and review the answers, and you will see which facts trigger which issues.

See if running down these checklist and flowchart help for K: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n2id627o6ncap ... s.pdf?dl=0

Con Law can be tough also... What do you mean by hypothetical law or statute? Like when a city issues an ordinance? Usually it's testing First Amendment, so just run through the facial issues (prior restraint, overbreadth, vagueness, unfettered discretion). It's also good to know the standards of review (SS, IS, RB) for each type of regulation.

LASTTIMESACHARM

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:12 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby LASTTIMESACHARM » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:06 pm

lostinca wrote:Hey Guys,

Was hoping one of you could help me with two issues I am currently facing. Past few days I've been really brushing up on my MBE practice questions, but two areas in particular continue to give me issues, even though I know & understand the BLL.

1. Contracts- For some reason I can almost never tell what specific issue is being tested. Outside of formation questions its a complete crapshoot. Any tips or ideas to understand what is being specifically tested within a question so I can apply the right law.

2- Con law- This is quite possibly my worst area, and never can apply the correct rule. I almost can never take the hypothetical law or statute, and correlate it to the rule within Con law.

Is there anything specific that you guys do in these areas? Any tips would be immensely appreciated :!:



something that helped me a lot on Con Law to the point where I get really high scores on that subject is the Emanuals Strategies and Tactics book. The outline In the con law section really breaks it down for you. Also contracts section isn't bad either. Its kind of late to order the book in actual physical format but I know amazon has the kindle version that you can access right away.

User avatar
BlueLaw11

Bronze
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:14 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby BlueLaw11 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:11 pm

Does anyone know how to change your Examplify password? Will we need it the day of the exam? Hoping to avoid memorizing a string of random numbers (on top of everything else) if possible :|

User avatar
MBernard

New
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:25 pm

BlueLaw11 wrote:Does anyone know how to change your Examplify password? Will we need it the day of the exam? Hoping to avoid memorizing a string of random numbers (on top of everything else) if possible :|


No, you cannot change the examplify password. If you try to change it a message will generate stating the institution forbids password change at this time. I'm not totally positive on this but I think for exam day you will be given a specific password for both the morning and afternoon session (similar to how when you took and uploaded the mock exam you used a password generated by examplify as opposed to your regular password). That's how it worked also for the last bar exam I took (from what I recall) so I think the only thing you'll need will be your applicant ID which is printed on your admission ticket.

psg190

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 5:19 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby psg190 » Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:32 pm

Honest question for any retakers out there who either (1) felt they would inevitably fail going into the exam or (2) felt that they had failed after completing the exam. When did you start studying again?

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:59 pm

MBernard wrote:
BlueLaw11 wrote:Does anyone know how to change your Examplify password? Will we need it the day of the exam? Hoping to avoid memorizing a string of random numbers (on top of everything else) if possible :|


No, you cannot change the examplify password. If you try to change it a message will generate stating the institution forbids password change at this time. I'm not totally positive on this but I think for exam day you will be given a specific password for both the morning and afternoon session (similar to how when you took and uploaded the mock exam you used a password generated by examplify as opposed to your regular password). That's how it worked also for the last bar exam I took (from what I recall) so I think the only thing you'll need will be your applicant ID which is printed on your admission ticket.


Yeah, I don't understand why your password is complicated? CA Bar emails you a pre-generated password. So unless you changed it and made it more complicated (in which case, that's on you), then it shouldn't be complicated.

Also, Examplify should remain logged in to your account. Any 'exam password' will be provided by the proctors.

User avatar
BlueLaw11

Bronze
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:14 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby BlueLaw11 » Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:04 pm

estefanchanning wrote:
MBernard wrote:
BlueLaw11 wrote:Does anyone know how to change your Examplify password? Will we need it the day of the exam? Hoping to avoid memorizing a string of random numbers (on top of everything else) if possible :|


No, you cannot change the examplify password. If you try to change it a message will generate stating the institution forbids password change at this time. I'm not totally positive on this but I think for exam day you will be given a specific password for both the morning and afternoon session (similar to how when you took and uploaded the mock exam you used a password generated by examplify as opposed to your regular password). That's how it worked also for the last bar exam I took (from what I recall) so I think the only thing you'll need will be your applicant ID which is printed on your admission ticket.


Yeah, I don't understand why your password is complicated? CA Bar emails you a pre-generated password. So unless you changed it and made it more complicated (in which case, that's on you), then it shouldn't be complicated.

Also, Examplify should remain logged in to your account. Any 'exam password' will be provided by the proctors.


Had a friend who took it a few years ago, said she forgot her password and had to handwrite the exam. Checking to be sure.

Also, noticing that the exam doesn't allow pencil sharpeners... should we take like 20 pre-sharpened pencils then? Seems like a silly rule

xonimi

New
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:59 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby xonimi » Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:28 pm

BlueLaw11 wrote:
estefanchanning wrote:
MBernard wrote:
BlueLaw11 wrote:Does anyone know how to change your Examplify password? Will we need it the day of the exam? Hoping to avoid memorizing a string of random numbers (on top of everything else) if possible :|


No, you cannot change the examplify password. If you try to change it a message will generate stating the institution forbids password change at this time. I'm not totally positive on this but I think for exam day you will be given a specific password for both the morning and afternoon session (similar to how when you took and uploaded the mock exam you used a password generated by examplify as opposed to your regular password). That's how it worked also for the last bar exam I took (from what I recall) so I think the only thing you'll need will be your applicant ID which is printed on your admission ticket.


Yeah, I don't understand why your password is complicated? CA Bar emails you a pre-generated password. So unless you changed it and made it more complicated (in which case, that's on you), then it shouldn't be complicated.

Also, Examplify should remain logged in to your account. Any 'exam password' will be provided by the proctors.


Had a friend who took it a few years ago, said she forgot her password and had to handwrite the exam. Checking to be sure.

Also, noticing that the exam doesn't allow pencil sharpeners... should we take like 20 pre-sharpened pencils then? Seems like a silly rule


The password should be your birthday - MM/DD/YYYY. That's what mine is. As for pencils, yeah I bought a pack of pre-sharpened pencils from staples so I'll be taking those.

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 2010
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:39 pm

Speaking of pencils, I brought slightly pre-DULLED pencils for the MBE because it makes bubbling easier.

User avatar
BlueLaw11

Bronze
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:14 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby BlueLaw11 » Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:52 pm

a male human wrote:Speaking of pencils, I brought slightly pre-DULLED pencils for the MBE because it makes bubbling easier.


That's a good suggestion, thanks!

barprepforca

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby barprepforca » Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:54 pm

Just got an email from the CA Bar that said that the new MacBooks, purchased as of July 12 of this year will not be eligible for Examplify. I would be so furious if this happened to me, and thankful I have an older version.

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 2010
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:57 pm

barprepforca wrote:Just got an email from the CA Bar that said that the new MacBooks, purchased as of July 12 of this year will not be eligible for Examplify. I would be so furious if this happened to me, and thankful I have an older version.

That is some grade-A bullshit they're pulling this late.

Well, I always knew Windows was best (and my laptop is still the one I got for law school in 2010), but still...

LASTTIMESACHARM

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:12 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby LASTTIMESACHARM » Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:22 pm

I just recently bought a new MacBook as the one I had was ancient. Last one I had was a MacBook Pro but I opted to just get air because I figured I really only need it for the exam. I use PCs at work. THANK GOODNESS because its the Pros they are not allowing which sucks because they were so much more expensive than the air. I truly feel for those who bought them.

xonimi

New
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:59 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby xonimi » Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:53 pm

My MBE scores have dropped a lot these past couple of days. I just did a 50 question mixed set on Adaptibar and got 60%. Anyone else have a similar problem?



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Neilt001 and 22 guests