2018 July California Bar

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
User avatar
MBernard

New
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:41 pm

One question I have is whether or not it’s possible to earn a 65 despite missing a salient or material issue. Barbri’s Scoring guide for their essay book (2016 edition) seems to show you could make up the lost points either via very thorough analysis of the other material issues and picking up points via ancillary issues that were awarded points. I’d be curious is anyone were to know if this were so (maybe there’s a returned essay that missed something important but still got a 65?).

I guess it might be possible to go through past graded essays to figure this one out but it seems like a lot of work haha.

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:32 am

MBernard wrote:One question I have is whether or not it’s possible to earn a 65 despite missing a salient or material issue. Barbri’s Scoring guide for their essay book (2016 edition) seems to show you could make up the lost points either via very thorough analysis of the other material issues and picking up points via ancillary issues that were awarded points. I’d be curious is anyone were to know if this were so (maybe there’s a returned essay that missed something important but still got a 65?).

I guess it might be possible to go through past graded essays to figure this one out but it seems like a lot of work haha.


Good question. Although I can't answer definitively obviously, based upon all of the past graded exams I've reviewed, I really think it depends on the essay. Some essays garner many many issues (like Evidence, Professional Responsibility, and Community Property I thought in J18), while others can be very pointed (such as the Contracts and Con Law in J18). I believe missing an issue in Professional Responsibility could still be a passing essay because there were so many issues to discuss, that I would have to think most people missed at least one issue, but spotted the others and had thorough analysis. I think though, for contracts, missing Anticipatory repudiation and/or further assurances would be detrimental and would make it hard to pass the essay. Again, these are my opinions.

I've read some essays I thought were good that were only given a 60 and they spotted all the material issues. But their rule statements were not that great. So it depends on the essay as a whole. But I think a grader who is generally very thorough and accurate in their rule statements and analysis can likely get away with missing an issue, so long as it wasn't the most important piece of the puzzle.

User avatar
MBernard

New
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

mathandthelaw wrote: Good question. Although I can't answer definitively obviously, based upon all of the past graded exams I've reviewed, I really think it depends on the essay. Some essays garner many many issues (like Evidence, Professional Responsibility, and Community Property I thought in J18), while others can be very pointed (such as the Contracts and Con Law in J18). I believe missing an issue in Professional Responsibility could still be a passing essay because there were so many issues to discuss, that I would have to think most people missed at least one issue, but spotted the others and had thorough analysis. I think though, for contracts, missing Anticipatory repudiation and/or further assurances would be detrimental and would make it hard to pass the essay. Again, these are my opinions.

I've read some essays I thought were good that were only given a 60 and they spotted all the material issues. But their rule statements were not that great. So it depends on the essay as a whole. But I think a grader who is generally very thorough and accurate in their rule statements and analysis can likely get away with missing an issue, so long as it wasn't the most important piece of the puzzle.


Thanks for the input! That certainly sounds reasonable and I tend to agree with your assessment. Good or bad, looking forward to having closure on this one.

barjamie8

New
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 1:56 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby barjamie8 » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:10 am

MBernard wrote:One question I have is whether or not it’s possible to earn a 65 despite missing a salient or material issue. Barbri’s Scoring guide for their essay book (2016 edition) seems to show you could make up the lost points either via very thorough analysis of the other material issues and picking up points via ancillary issues that were awarded points. I’d be curious is anyone were to know if this were so (maybe there’s a returned essay that missed something important but still got a 65?).

I guess it might be possible to go through past graded essays to figure this one out but it seems like a lot of work haha.


It depends on the essay. If you have a particular one in mind, did you look at the real 65s on BarEssays?

lnu1992

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby lnu1992 » Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:36 am

MBernard wrote:One question I have is whether or not it’s possible to earn a 65 despite missing a salient or material issue. Barbri’s Scoring guide for their essay book (2016 edition) seems to show you could make up the lost points either via very thorough analysis of the other material issues and picking up points via ancillary issues that were awarded points. I’d be curious is anyone were to know if this were so (maybe there’s a returned essay that missed something important but still got a 65?).

I guess it might be possible to go through past graded essays to figure this one out but it seems like a lot of work haha.



Has anyone reviewed the PT debrief? I got confused with the facts. The facts say on the morning of August 16, defendant found out via phone call that the company was going to acquire the other company. Mid day of August 16 defendant traded. Defendant later told the SEC that she did not know about the merger when she traded.

The bar secrets debrief said that defendant did not know of the merger at the time of trading.

My thought process was that defendant know of the acquisition. Not sure how much that differs from a merger. (I didn’t do great in corporations) but that was a big hurdle for me to get past in the PT. I think I brought up a lot of similar facts that I used in the second half.

I was 99.9% sure that defendant knew of the merger prior to trading based on her phone call on august 16. Thoughts???

User avatar
Atmosphere

Silver
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby Atmosphere » Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:09 am

lnu1992 wrote:
MBernard wrote:One question I have is whether or not it’s possible to earn a 65 despite missing a salient or material issue. Barbri’s Scoring guide for their essay book (2016 edition) seems to show you could make up the lost points either via very thorough analysis of the other material issues and picking up points via ancillary issues that were awarded points. I’d be curious is anyone were to know if this were so (maybe there’s a returned essay that missed something important but still got a 65?).

I guess it might be possible to go through past graded essays to figure this one out but it seems like a lot of work haha.



Has anyone reviewed the PT debrief? I got confused with the facts. The facts say on the morning of August 16, defendant found out via phone call that the company was going to acquire the other company. Mid day of August 16 defendant traded. Defendant later told the SEC that she did not know about the merger when she traded.

The bar secrets debrief said that defendant did not know of the merger at the time of trading.

My thought process was that defendant know of the acquisition. Not sure how much that differs from a merger. (I didn’t do great in corporations) but that was a big hurdle for me to get past in the PT. I think I brought up a lot of similar facts that I used in the second half.

I was 99.9% sure that defendant knew of the merger prior to trading based on her phone call on august 16. Thoughts???


I 100% remember her knowing about the merger beforehand wyf

User avatar
Atmosphere

Silver
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby Atmosphere » Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:19 am

lnu1992 wrote:
MBernard wrote:One question I have is whether or not it’s possible to earn a 65 despite missing a salient or material issue. Barbri’s Scoring guide for their essay book (2016 edition) seems to show you could make up the lost points either via very thorough analysis of the other material issues and picking up points via ancillary issues that were awarded points. I’d be curious is anyone were to know if this were so (maybe there’s a returned essay that missed something important but still got a 65?).

I guess it might be possible to go through past graded essays to figure this one out but it seems like a lot of work haha.



Has anyone reviewed the PT debrief? I got confused with the facts. The facts say on the morning of August 16, defendant found out via phone call that the company was going to acquire the other company. Mid day of August 16 defendant traded. Defendant later told the SEC that she did not know about the merger when she traded.

The bar secrets debrief said that defendant did not know of the merger at the time of trading.

My thought process was that defendant know of the acquisition. Not sure how much that differs from a merger. (I didn’t do great in corporations) but that was a big hurdle for me to get past in the PT. I think I brought up a lot of similar facts that I used in the second half.

I was 99.9% sure that defendant knew of the merger prior to trading based on her phone call on august 16. Thoughts???


From what I understand, she received the call from darmond notifying her of the Merger on the morning of the 16th, and bought the stock on the afternoon of the 16th - which sort of implies that she knew about the merger. All that happened was that she lied to the SEC when she was asked by them whether she knew about the merger when making the trade. This falls in with the argument I made....but I definitely briefly talked about appropriate discipline damn it

User avatar
MBernard

New
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:29 am

Atmosphere wrote:
lnu1992 wrote:
MBernard wrote:One question I have is whether or not it’s possible to earn a 65 despite missing a salient or material issue. Barbri’s Scoring guide for their essay book (2016 edition) seems to show you could make up the lost points either via very thorough analysis of the other material issues and picking up points via ancillary issues that were awarded points. I’d be curious is anyone were to know if this were so (maybe there’s a returned essay that missed something important but still got a 65?).

I guess it might be possible to go through past graded essays to figure this one out but it seems like a lot of work haha.



Has anyone reviewed the PT debrief? I got confused with the facts. The facts say on the morning of August 16, defendant found out via phone call that the company was going to acquire the other company. Mid day of August 16 defendant traded. Defendant later told the SEC that she did not know about the merger when she traded.

The bar secrets debrief said that defendant did not know of the merger at the time of trading.

My thought process was that defendant know of the acquisition. Not sure how much that differs from a merger. (I didn’t do great in corporations) but that was a big hurdle for me to get past in the PT. I think I brought up a lot of similar facts that I used in the second half.

I was 99.9% sure that defendant knew of the merger prior to trading based on her phone call on august 16. Thoughts???


From what I understand, she received the call from darmond notifying her of the Merger on the morning of the 16th, and bought the stock on the afternoon of the 16th - which sort of implies that she knew about the merger. All that happened was that she lied to the SEC when she was asked by them whether she knew about the merger when making the trade. This falls in with the argument I made....but I definitely briefly talked about appropriate discipline damn it


I remember this. Didn’t watch the vid but I’m pretty sure I remember what was going on.

You are both correct she received a call from Darmond before she purchased the stock in the afternoon. However, she nonetheless has an excuse to avoid the finding of moral turpitude. The excuse was that she was insufficiently attentive to what Darmond was telling her because she was on pain medication (she recently had an operation I think). Therefore, despite the phone call from Darmond she nonetheless had excuse because she took the pain killers which had clouded her mind. Plus, the other thing was that she had committed to buying the stock way in advance (at least that was what she said).

Pretty sure that was the excuse argument she had going in her favor. Bar Secrets probably was using those facts in their argument that she had no knowledge.

User avatar
Atmosphere

Silver
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby Atmosphere » Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:35 am

MBernard wrote:
Atmosphere wrote:
lnu1992 wrote:
MBernard wrote:One question I have is whether or not it’s possible to earn a 65 despite missing a salient or material issue. Barbri’s Scoring guide for their essay book (2016 edition) seems to show you could make up the lost points either via very thorough analysis of the other material issues and picking up points via ancillary issues that were awarded points. I’d be curious is anyone were to know if this were so (maybe there’s a returned essay that missed something important but still got a 65?).

I guess it might be possible to go through past graded essays to figure this one out but it seems like a lot of work haha.



Has anyone reviewed the PT debrief? I got confused with the facts. The facts say on the morning of August 16, defendant found out via phone call that the company was going to acquire the other company. Mid day of August 16 defendant traded. Defendant later told the SEC that she did not know about the merger when she traded.

The bar secrets debrief said that defendant did not know of the merger at the time of trading.

My thought process was that defendant know of the acquisition. Not sure how much that differs from a merger. (I didn’t do great in corporations) but that was a big hurdle for me to get past in the PT. I think I brought up a lot of similar facts that I used in the second half.

I was 99.9% sure that defendant knew of the merger prior to trading based on her phone call on august 16. Thoughts???


From what I understand, she received the call from darmond notifying her of the Merger on the morning of the 16th, and bought the stock on the afternoon of the 16th - which sort of implies that she knew about the merger. All that happened was that she lied to the SEC when she was asked by them whether she knew about the merger when making the trade. This falls in with the argument I made....but I definitely briefly talked about appropriate discipline damn it


I remember this. Didn’t watch the vid but I’m pretty sure I remember what was going on.

You are both correct she received a call from Darmond before she purchased the stock in the afternoon. However, she nonetheless has an excuse to avoid the finding of moral turpitude. The excuse was that she was insufficiently attentive to what Darmond was telling her because she was on pain medication (she recently had an operation I think). Therefore, despite the phone call from Darmond she nonetheless had excuse because she took the pain killers which had clouded her mind. Plus, the other thing was that she had committed to buying the stock way in advance (at least that was what she said).

Pretty sure that was the excuse argument she had going in her favor. Bar Secrets probably was using those facts in their argument that she had no knowledge.


This is exactly what I argued in mine, thanks mbernard. I didn’t watch the full barsecrets video so I had a mild panic attack

lnu1992

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby lnu1992 » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:11 pm

Atmosphere wrote:
MBernard wrote:
Atmosphere wrote:
lnu1992 wrote:
MBernard wrote:One question I have is whether or not it’s possible to earn a 65 despite missing a salient or material issue. Barbri’s Scoring guide for their essay book (2016 edition) seems to show you could make up the lost points either via very thorough analysis of the other material issues and picking up points via ancillary issues that were awarded points. I’d be curious is anyone were to know if this were so (maybe there’s a returned essay that missed something important but still got a 65?).

I guess it might be possible to go through past graded essays to figure this one out but it seems like a lot of work haha.



Has anyone reviewed the PT debrief? I got confused with the facts. The facts say on the morning of August 16, defendant found out via phone call that the company was going to acquire the other company. Mid day of August 16 defendant traded. Defendant later told the SEC that she did not know about the merger when she traded.

The bar secrets debrief said that defendant did not know of the merger at the time of trading.

My thought process was that defendant know of the acquisition. Not sure how much that differs from a merger. (I didn’t do great in corporations) but that was a big hurdle for me to get past in the PT. I think I brought up a lot of similar facts that I used in the second half.

I was 99.9% sure that defendant knew of the merger prior to trading based on her phone call on august 16. Thoughts???


From what I understand, she received the call from darmond notifying her of the Merger on the morning of the 16th, and bought the stock on the afternoon of the 16th - which sort of implies that she knew about the merger. All that happened was that she lied to the SEC when she was asked by them whether she knew about the merger when making the trade. This falls in with the argument I made....but I definitely briefly talked about appropriate discipline damn it


I remember this. Didn’t watch the vid but I’m pretty sure I remember what was going on.

You are both correct she received a call from Darmond before she purchased the stock in the afternoon. However, she nonetheless has an excuse to avoid the finding of moral turpitude. The excuse was that she was insufficiently attentive to what Darmond was telling her because she was on pain medication (she recently had an operation I think). Therefore, despite the phone call from Darmond she nonetheless had excuse because she took the pain killers which had clouded her mind. Plus, the other thing was that she had committed to buying the stock way in advance (at least that was what she said).

Pretty sure that was the excuse argument she had going in her favor. Bar Secrets probably was using those facts in their argument that she had no knowledge.


This is exactly what I argued in mine, thanks mbernard. I didn’t watch the full barsecrets video so I had a mild panic attack



THANK YOU!!!! I feel a lot better about my answer then. I feel like I may have written a passing PT. We are almost there! 17 days!

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:51 pm

I argued similarly to my colleagues above.

For the first prong, regarding having an excuse, I argued that it was Darmond, not her, who admitted to the contents of the phone conversation. And in her plea deal, she never agreed with Darmond, she just didn't dispute Darmond was wrong or right. She just said she personally was not aware of its truthfulness because her memory was feigned during the time of the phone conversation. She was also following the company for a long time, and two sites had recommended purchasing stock. She had intended to purchase the stock already and did not rely on nonpublic information. She relied instead on public information. Watkins is different than Chadwick because no lack of memory or public information was in play, even if the State Bar can use the guilty plea as facts that could impeach a later testimony.

For the second prong, regarding what is considered candor, due to the fact that she had been on medication and does not recall definitively at the time of the State Bar hearing what was said in the conversation, she did not lie. A lack of memory is not clear and convincing evidence of lack of candor, and in that a plea agreement, it is silent as to whether she relied on what Darmond said to purchase the stock, which would be insider trader. She believes, as stated in the hearing, even if she is wrong about what actually happened, that she relied on her prior knowledge and not what Darmond said at the time she purchased the stock. All of this creates a reasonable inference of innocence and does not meet the reasonableness standard.

In both, as you can see, I argued she had substantial evidence of a lack of memory via specific medications.

Because I got so deep into the facts on both prongs and cited the two cases in depth, I didn't have time to conclude. Luckily I had headings and intros. We'll see how tough they grade. I definitely feel better about this one than I did after I wrote it.

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 319
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:35 pm

Did anyone else pee themselves a little when they got the email from the bar today?

What'sUP?

New
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby What'sUP? » Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:05 pm

mathandthelaw wrote:I argued similarly to my colleagues above.

For the first prong, regarding having an excuse, I argued that it was Darmond, not her, who admitted to the contents of the phone conversation. And in her plea deal, she never agreed with Darmond, she just didn't dispute Darmond was wrong or right. She just said she personally was not aware of its truthfulness because her memory was feigned during the time of the phone conversation. She was also following the company for a long time, and two sites had recommended purchasing stock. She had intended to purchase the stock already and did not rely on nonpublic information. She relied instead on public information. Watkins is different than Chadwick because no lack of memory or public information was in play, even if the State Bar can use the guilty plea as facts that could impeach a later testimony.

For the second prong, regarding what is considered candor, due to the fact that she had been on medication and does not recall definitively at the time of the State Bar hearing what was said in the conversation, she did not lie. A lack of memory is not clear and convincing evidence of lack of candor, and in that a plea agreement, it is silent as to whether she relied on what Darmond said to purchase the stock, which would be insider trader. She believes, as stated in the hearing, even if she is wrong about what actually happened, that she relied on her prior knowledge and not what Darmond said at the time she purchased the stock. All of this creates a reasonable inference of innocence and does not meet the reasonableness standard.

In both, as you can see, I argued she had substantial evidence of a lack of memory via specific medications.

Because I got so deep into the facts on both prongs and cited the two cases in depth, I didn't have time to conclude. Luckily I had headings and intros. We'll see how tough they grade. I definitely feel better about this one than I did after I wrote it.


@math. That sounds like a great analysis. It all rings familiar. It was tough -- a pressure cooker for time for sure.

User avatar
santoki

Silver
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby santoki » Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:01 pm

estefanchanning wrote:Did anyone else pee themselves a little when they got the email from the bar today?


no pee, just some poop

barprepforca

New
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby barprepforca » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:01 pm

I saw that email and felt like the Bluth family must have after that doctor kept yanking their chain.

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:40 pm

santoki wrote:
estefanchanning wrote:Did anyone else pee themselves a little when they got the email from the bar today?


no pee, just some poop


I was thinking, out of ALL days the State Bar could have sent the email out, they chose today. By far the scariest thing so far was to see an email from them.

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:56 pm

What'sUP? wrote:
mathandthelaw wrote:I argued similarly to my colleagues above.

For the first prong, regarding having an excuse, I argued that it was Darmond, not her, who admitted to the contents of the phone conversation. And in her plea deal, she never agreed with Darmond, she just didn't dispute Darmond was wrong or right. She just said she personally was not aware of its truthfulness because her memory was feigned during the time of the phone conversation. She was also following the company for a long time, and two sites had recommended purchasing stock. She had intended to purchase the stock already and did not rely on nonpublic information. She relied instead on public information. Watkins is different than Chadwick because no lack of memory or public information was in play, even if the State Bar can use the guilty plea as facts that could impeach a later testimony.

For the second prong, regarding what is considered candor, due to the fact that she had been on medication and does not recall definitively at the time of the State Bar hearing what was said in the conversation, she did not lie. A lack of memory is not clear and convincing evidence of lack of candor, and in that a plea agreement, it is silent as to whether she relied on what Darmond said to purchase the stock, which would be insider trader. She believes, as stated in the hearing, even if she is wrong about what actually happened, that she relied on her prior knowledge and not what Darmond said at the time she purchased the stock. All of this creates a reasonable inference of innocence and does not meet the reasonableness standard.

In both, as you can see, I argued she had substantial evidence of a lack of memory via specific medications.

Because I got so deep into the facts on both prongs and cited the two cases in depth, I didn't have time to conclude. Luckily I had headings and intros. We'll see how tough they grade. I definitely feel better about this one than I did after I wrote it.


@math. That sounds like a great analysis. It all rings familiar. It was tough -- a pressure cooker for time for sure.


Thank you! I'm glad you find that my analysis sounds familiar. Bar Secrets agrees with us. I just hope I coherently communicated all of these points on paper as I did in my head. I just wished I could have concluded: Therefore, the State Bar should not find Watkins committed moral turpitude, and thus which such a finding, she should not be disbarred. I requested it in the beginning but as we all know in legal writing you make your request in the beginning and then conclude re-asking for the request at the end. Mine just had an unfinished look to it.

I was typing like a maniac to try to finish despite having 1 hour and 45 minutes to complete. I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking that time was such a difficult aspect of this PT.

bacillusanthracis

New
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:30 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby bacillusanthracis » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:33 pm

estefanchanning wrote:Did anyone else pee themselves a little when they got the email from the bar today?


Ha-ha---no, but I did last time after the February exam.

It has that scary "Results" word in the first sentence, so you see it before you even open the email.

Anyway, it's very generous of them to finally give us a firm date for results, even though November 16th seemed like the most probable date to begin with.

2.5 weeks. Yay.

davidgreco

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:42 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby davidgreco » Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:51 pm

Has anyone heard of the various Bar Prep Courses publishing or sharing passing rates for their students?

I run a small prep course to help repeaters improve their MBE and writing scores and was curious if other organizations were sharing passing rates publicly. Our pass rate to date is 93% for our students but we're a newer program so don't have the same recognition as Barbri or Kaplan. We're located in San Diego if you want to check us out and we're not offering live streaming class options - http://www.bar-md.com/

scard

New
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:34 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby scard » Thu Nov 01, 2018 11:44 am

davidgreco wrote:Has anyone heard of the various Bar Prep Courses publishing or sharing passing rates for their students?

I run a small prep course to help repeaters improve their MBE and writing scores and was curious if other organizations were sharing passing rates publicly. Our pass rate to date is 93% for our students but we're a newer program so don't have the same recognition as Barbri or Kaplan. We're located in San Diego if you want to check us out and we're not offering live streaming class options - http://www.bar-md.com/


This suspiciously looks as if you are simply here to advertise your prep course in the form of a guise of asking about which prep course shares pass rate to see if you are in line with them... then you boast about your alleged pass rate, where your located, and your website.

You are not curious about anything. You are simply posting to advertise. We’re law students, not stupid. Next time, just come right out with your advertisement instead of trying to be sneaky. It will go a lot further.

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 319
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Thu Nov 01, 2018 11:52 am

scard wrote:
davidgreco wrote:Has anyone heard of the various Bar Prep Courses publishing or sharing passing rates for their students?

I run a small prep course to help repeaters improve their MBE and writing scores and was curious if other organizations were sharing passing rates publicly. Our pass rate to date is 93% for our students but we're a newer program so don't have the same recognition as Barbri or Kaplan. We're located in San Diego if you want to check us out and we're not offering live streaming class options - http://www.bar-md.com/


This suspiciously looks as if you are simply here to advertise your prep course in the form of a guise of asking about which prep course shares pass rate to see if you are in line with them... then you boast about your alleged pass rate, where your located, and your website.

You are not curious about anything. You are simply posting to advertise. We’re law students, not stupid. Next time, just come right out with your advertisement instead of trying to be sneaky. It will go a lot further.


Yeah...also for your prices I could hire 2 private tutors.

diatribe

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:04 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby diatribe » Thu Nov 01, 2018 9:29 pm

davidgreco wrote:Has anyone heard of the various Bar Prep Courses publishing or sharing passing rates for their students?

I run a small prep course to help repeaters improve their MBE and writing scores and was curious if other organizations were sharing passing rates publicly. Our pass rate to date is 93% for our students but we're a newer program so don't have the same recognition as Barbri or Kaplan. We're located in San Diego if you want to check us out and we're not offering live streaming class options - http://www.bar-md.com/


love the "featured on Yelp" thing, considering that means you made a yelp page. The company started in late 2016 so only 3 scored bar examinations (Feb 17, July 17, Feb 18) have taken place during your company's existence. Also (allegedly) 93% from a company with 7 yelp reviews and only 3 total bar exams means you've probably only had a total of 14 or 15 people enroll over those 3 bar exams combined. That would mean 13/14 passed overall or 14/15 passed overall. But that also means the first two bar exams could have had 0 pass or all of them pass, unless you're alleging a consistent 93% pass rate each time

scard

New
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:34 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby scard » Thu Nov 01, 2018 10:22 pm

diatribe wrote:
davidgreco wrote:Has anyone heard of the various Bar Prep Courses publishing or sharing passing rates for their students?

I run a small prep course to help repeaters improve their MBE and writing scores and was curious if other organizations were sharing passing rates publicly. Our pass rate to date is 93% for our students but we're a newer program so don't have the same recognition as Barbri or Kaplan. We're located in San Diego if you want to check us out and we're not offering live streaming class options - http://www.bar-md.com/


love the "featured on Yelp" thing, considering that means you made a yelp page. The company started in late 2016 so only 3 scored bar examinations (Feb 17, July 17, Feb 18) have taken place during your company's existence. Also (allegedly) 93% from a company with 7 yelp reviews and only 3 total bar exams means you've probably only had a total of 14 or 15 people enroll over those 3 bar exams combined. That would mean 13/14 passed overall or 14/15 passed overall. But that also means the first two bar exams could have had 0 pass or all of them pass, unless you're alleging a consistent 93% pass rate each time


He would have as to have atleast 35/36 pass to get 97% or any ratio of that fraction. Also fails to address what out of his many pricing options has that pass rate? Whether it’s the full course? Or just the few essay gradings? Fails to mention if that applies to all enrollees or just the ones that completed 100% of a certain course...

User avatar
santoki

Silver
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby santoki » Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:12 am

starting to not get much sleep every night thinking I failed...this is much worse than studying

User avatar
MBernard

New
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:19 am

santoki wrote:starting to not get much sleep every night thinking I failed...this is much worse than studying


Exact opposite for me. My irrational optimism has kicked in and I’ve convinced myself I passed. Expect a sharp reversal the night before results drop haha.

Really hoping I did though, have a job offer I’m very interested in which is contingent on my passing as well as family I don’t want to let down. Praying we all make it.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests