2018 July California Bar

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:15 pm

JoeSeperac wrote:Here is a graph of the CA July pass rates from 1995 to 2017 as compared to the national MBE mean. As you can see, the CA pass rates move more smoothly than the MBE mean, so hopefully any decline follows that behavior. You have to love the 63% pass rate in 1997 with an MBE mean of 143.9 versus the 62% pass rate in 2008 despite the ridiculously high MBE mean of 145.6

Image

Nice graph!

User avatar
Auxilio

Silver
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:51 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby Auxilio » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:05 am

Did anyone else just get an email saying the admittance ticket for the First year law student examination is ready?

I don't remember (and can't imagine why I would have) signed up for that, but in my paranoid fear I'm now worried if there was some problem with my app.

User avatar
Auxilio

Silver
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:51 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby Auxilio » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:36 pm

Auxilio wrote:Did anyone else just get an email saying the admittance ticket for the First year law student examination is ready?

I don't remember (and can't imagine why I would have) signed up for that, but in my paranoid fear I'm now worried if there was some problem with my app.



Nevermind, now they sent an email to disregard first one

lnu1992

New
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby lnu1992 » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:51 am

Does anyone know if California releases its passing percentage before results are released?

I-object

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby I-object » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:52 pm

Exam Questions (Fact Patterns) have been posted.

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:56 pm

lnu1992 wrote:Does anyone know if California releases its passing percentage before results are released?

Press release comes out around the time results are released to candidates, give or take a few mins.

JakeTappers

New
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:57 pm

I-object wrote:Exam Questions (Fact Patterns) have been posted.


Does any website (free) analyze these quickly? So I can torture myself some more?

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:01 pm

JakeTappers wrote:
I-object wrote:Exam Questions (Fact Patterns) have been posted.


Does any website (free) analyze these quickly? So I can torture myself some more?

I believe BarSecrets will do it soon.

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:22 pm

Ugh I don't even remember what I wrote.

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:56 pm

Thank you so much for letting us know the essays were posted.

I am absolutely awaiting Bar Secrets to post its analyses. Though I don't remember everything I wrote, I remember a lot of it. But for me, I'm more concerned about the MBEs and Performance Test than the essays. I would LOVE to see a model answer for the PT. I hardly remember what I wrote for the PT because I was writing like a damn maniac lol.

If anyone happens to see when Bar Secrets posts, please kindly inform us here!

Thank you.

User avatar
MBernard

New
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:40 pm

Thanks for the heads up! If it’s not a hassle can someone post the link to the bar secrets analysis when its available? I have a good idea of the issues I hit on the exam, definitely would be interested in checking out what the answers look like.

scard

New
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:34 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby scard » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:06 pm

Why do you care? It’s not like they complete each essay analysis in an hour timeframe with the stress of their future hanging in the balance knowing that there are other parts of the exam that may be worse or harder than the present one they are working on.

User avatar
Atmosphere

Silver
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby Atmosphere » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:37 pm

scard wrote:Why do you care? It’s not like they complete each essay analysis in an hour timeframe with the stress of their future hanging in the balance knowing that there are other parts of the exam that may be worse or harder than the present one they are working on.

User avatar
MBernard

New
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:41 pm

scard wrote:Why do you care? It’s not like they complete each essay analysis in an hour timeframe with the stress of their future hanging in the balance knowing that there are other parts of the exam that may be worse or harder than the present one they are working on.


Security or peace of mind is my reason. My expectation is that likely the practitioners or professors who are debriefing the essays are attempting to do a thorough job and therefore it might be useful for me to see how well my own analysis tracks their model answer (in my futile attempt to guesstimate how I scored).

I certainly don't think that missing an issue that they've (BarSecrets or anyone else) spotted is fatal and you're entirely correct that doing the exam under time constraints is a different beast. Anyone who is intellectually honest probably would agree that the time constraints create stress and increase the error chance.

Just something to pass time with if anything else.

JakeTappers

New
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:33 am

I just watched the first video and don't remember going through it how they do with repudiation and withdrawal, etc. More like here's a contract, here's a counteroffer, etc. But I guess it's probably been too long for this to be very useful at this point.

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:40 am

I wish I knew about BarSecrets before! I actually think their analysis was very helpful for the Contracts Essay. They recognize that you would not be able to discuss all of the issues they explain in their video. They also recognize that there were different approaches as to how you can analyze this essay. But I wish I was watching them before the bar. And I wish I did the 2015 contracts essay because it was the same!

They are spot on with their analysis. @Jaketappers: Counteroffer and offers are irrelevant because as the video explained, the facts tell you that there was a valid written contract. That means the bar examiners don't want you to discuss and analysis formation other than recognizing that the contract was already formed. That means we are passed formation, counteroffer and offers are formation.

JohnnieSockran

Bronze
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 1:07 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby JohnnieSockran » Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:23 pm

mathandthelaw wrote:I wish I knew about BarSecrets before! I actually think their analysis was very helpful for the Contracts Essay. They recognize that you would not be able to discuss all of the issues they explain in their video. They also recognize that there were different approaches as to how you can analyze this essay. But I wish I was watching them before the bar. And I wish I did the 2015 contracts essay because it was the same!

They are spot on with their analysis. @Jaketappers: Counteroffer and offers are irrelevant because as the video explained, the facts tell you that there was a valid written contract. That means the bar examiners don't want you to discuss and analysis formation other than recognizing that the contract was already formed. That means we are passed formation, counteroffer and offers are formation.


Previous CBX taker here. I want to say that for questions like these I still wrote 1 quick sentence, acknowledging that there is a valid written contract, therefore I will not discuss formation (offer, acceptance, consideration)... and then went into the prompt. I'm sure even if you didn't do that, it probably doesn't hurt you.

Going into a long drawn out explanation more than 1-2 sentences probably would hurt you since it wastes time and it is specifically addressed, so graders could ding you for not seeing that the contract was valid.

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:44 pm

JohnnieSockran wrote:
mathandthelaw wrote:I wish I knew about BarSecrets before! I actually think their analysis was very helpful for the Contracts Essay. They recognize that you would not be able to discuss all of the issues they explain in their video. They also recognize that there were different approaches as to how you can analyze this essay. But I wish I was watching them before the bar. And I wish I did the 2015 contracts essay because it was the same!

They are spot on with their analysis. @Jaketappers: Counteroffer and offers are irrelevant because as the video explained, the facts tell you that there was a valid written contract. That means the bar examiners don't want you to discuss and analysis formation other than recognizing that the contract was already formed. That means we are passed formation, counteroffer and offers are formation.


Previous CBX taker here. I want to say that for questions like these I still wrote 1 quick sentence, acknowledging that there is a valid written contract, therefore I will not discuss formation (offer, acceptance, consideration)... and then went into the prompt. I'm sure even if you didn't do that, it probably doesn't hurt you.

Going into a long drawn out explanation more than 1-2 sentences probably would hurt you since it wastes time and it is specifically addressed, so graders could ding you for not seeing that the contract was valid.


Yup, agree with you, all that is needed is 1 quick sentence acknowledging there is a valid written K, and I did write a sentence regarding that. I never said I didn't discuss formation at all, look at what I said in bold above. But I'm saying that discussing the actual contract formation is incorrect. Moreover, I just remembered this is UCC and the facts would not give rise to a counteroffer here anyway, conditional acceptance instead. All still irrelevant.

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:00 pm

They seem pretty sure that the farmer would win over the customer...ugh. I don't remember exactly what I wrote but I remember saying this can go either way depending on how the court sees it...fml

User avatar
Auxilio

Silver
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:51 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby Auxilio » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:04 pm

estefanchanning wrote:They seem pretty sure that the farmer would win over the customer...ugh. I don't remember exactly what I wrote but I remember saying this can go either way depending on how the court sees it...fml


I can't remember much of what I wrote except going back at the end and deciding that for repudiation to be proper it had to be written. I can't watch the video for a few more hours but was that right?

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:09 pm

Auxilio wrote:
estefanchanning wrote:They seem pretty sure that the farmer would win over the customer...ugh. I don't remember exactly what I wrote but I remember saying this can go either way depending on how the court sees it...fml


I can't remember much of what I wrote except going back at the end and deciding that for repudiation to be proper it had to be written. I can't watch the video for a few more hours but was that right?


Yup. Nice job. I totally forgot that repudiation had to be in writing.

What a mess that my legal career might depend on whether or not I remembered that anticipatory repudiation had to be in writing. Fucking aye. :roll:

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:21 pm

estefanchanning wrote:
Auxilio wrote:
estefanchanning wrote:They seem pretty sure that the farmer would win over the customer...ugh. I don't remember exactly what I wrote but I remember saying this can go either way depending on how the court sees it...fml


I can't remember much of what I wrote except going back at the end and deciding that for repudiation to be proper it had to be written. I can't watch the video for a few more hours but was that right?


Yup. Nice job. I totally forgot that repudiation had to be in writing.

What a mess that my legal career might depend on whether or not I remembered that anticipatory repudiation had to be in writing. Fucking aye. :roll:


Are you guys sure? I thought further assurances have to be in writing per UCC, but I don't think anticipatory repudiations have to be in writing?

I put that it was more likely that Stan would win because he didn't anticipatorily repudiate and the further assurances request by Best did not give reasonable time. I forgot to say that further assurances need to be a writing. I said that Best likely was the one who breached by refusing to accept delivery and going with someone else. One the other hand, I recognized that one could argue Best asked for further assurances (albeit giving him only three days) and Stan not responding until June 10 could potentially be an anticipatory repudiation. I just thought Stan was more likely to win.

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:28 pm

mathandthelaw wrote:
estefanchanning wrote:
Auxilio wrote:
estefanchanning wrote:They seem pretty sure that the farmer would win over the customer...ugh. I don't remember exactly what I wrote but I remember saying this can go either way depending on how the court sees it...fml


I can't remember much of what I wrote except going back at the end and deciding that for repudiation to be proper it had to be written. I can't watch the video for a few more hours but was that right?


Yup. Nice job. I totally forgot that repudiation had to be in writing.

What a mess that my legal career might depend on whether or not I remembered that anticipatory repudiation had to be in writing. Fucking aye. :roll:


Are you guys sure? I thought further assurances have to be in writing per UCC, but I don't think anticipatory repudiations have to be in writing?

I put that it was more likely that Stan would win because he didn't anticipatorily repudiate and the further assurances request by Best did not give reasonable time. I forgot to say that further assurances need to be a writing. I said that Best likely was the one who breached by refusing to accept delivery and going with someone else. One the other hand, I recognized that one could argue Best asked for further assurances (albeit giving him only three days) and Stan not responding until June 10 could potentially be an anticipatory repudiation. I just thought Stan was more likely to win.


Omg you're right. I think actually that's what I argued too. asdhjkasdj I can't remember what I wrote, but I think that was why I was going back and forth...I also remember saying something along the lines that, even if further assurances were valid, Stan had 'reasonable time' to reply to reply to them.

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:35 pm

estefanchanning wrote:
mathandthelaw wrote:
estefanchanning wrote:
Auxilio wrote:
estefanchanning wrote:They seem pretty sure that the farmer would win over the customer...ugh. I don't remember exactly what I wrote but I remember saying this can go either way depending on how the court sees it...fml


I can't remember much of what I wrote except going back at the end and deciding that for repudiation to be proper it had to be written. I can't watch the video for a few more hours but was that right?


Yup. Nice job. I totally forgot that repudiation had to be in writing.

What a mess that my legal career might depend on whether or not I remembered that anticipatory repudiation had to be in writing. Fucking aye. :roll:


Are you guys sure? I thought further assurances have to be in writing per UCC, but I don't think anticipatory repudiations have to be in writing?

I put that it was more likely that Stan would win because he didn't anticipatorily repudiate and the further assurances request by Best did not give reasonable time. I forgot to say that further assurances need to be a writing. I said that Best likely was the one who breached by refusing to accept delivery and going with someone else. One the other hand, I recognized that one could argue Best asked for further assurances (albeit giving him only three days) and Stan not responding until June 10 could potentially be an anticipatory repudiation. I just thought Stan was more likely to win.


Omg you're right. I think actually that's what I argued too. asdhjkasdj I can't remember what I wrote, but I think that was why I was going back and forth...I also remember saying something along the lines that, even if further assurances were valid, Stan had 'reasonable time' to reply to reply to them.


Then you did great on that part of the essay, estefanchanning!

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:38 pm

Thank you, I appreciate the voice of support.

I guess I'm really anxious because I remember walking out of the bar thinking contracts was my worst essay because I didn't type that much, especially in comparison to my other essays. I thought it was very clear-cut, and damages were simple. I literally probably spent 30 minutes on it. (not bragging at all, i'm just saying it makes me feel like I didn't properly analyze the essay)



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: White Dwarf and 6 guests