2019 July California Bar

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

New
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Pema » Thu May 16, 2019 12:30 pm

hastingsgal wrote:
Pema wrote:
chickenb00b wrote:Hi! I'm an CA essay grader for a major bar prep company. We're trained by those who were past bar exam graders. Additionally, I also have experience with many of the supplements, including Critical Flash, Adaptibar, SmartBarPrep, Barbri conviser, (the one page supplement that I can't seem to remember the name off the top of my head), Emanuel MBEs (Tactics and Strats(?)), etc. etc.

Since I'm waiting for the bar study season to start in late May, I thought I'd offer some opinion/suggestion/advice here. If you have any questions (and there are no dumb ones), or need guidance, then ask and I'll offer my opinion.

I do ask that you quote this so I can see the notification and respond. Good luck studying folks!!!


I asked a Q earlier, but I don't see it posted.
I'm reading essay answers from CA Bar site, Barbri and baressays.com. For Con Law Q with a call that says WHAT ARGUMENTS CAN P MAKE UNDER EP AND DP? The CA Bar and Barbri answers don't discuss Standing/Justiciability, 11th, 10th. Baressays answers-90% do for the same Q.

For Contracts Call: Can P recover from D? + the facts state P and D entered into a written K for...(all terms present) - CA Bar and Barbri responses-no formation or SOF discussion. Baressays answers 90% discuss formation + SOF for the same Q.

I believe a big part of the CA bar Q's are the limiting factors. They are testing discernment and materiality by limiting the call (sometimes very subtly).
That said, they suck you in to discussing non material items because the (juicy) facts beg for it, while the call doesn't. Is this your experience? I ask 1) because I think they mark you down for lack of discernment and the inability to recognize material v immaterial facts (per call) and 2) I run out of time and can't afford to address standing and formation (and other preliminary considerations) if not at issue. Thanks.


I think standing and formation are standard for these types of questions almost all the time. Even if they aren't necessary for some of the questions, you certainly will not lose points for mentioning them. The barbri answers aren't real or graded, so hard to say whether they write the way the bar examiners want. The CA Bar answers are the best in the state, and sometimes the state wants you to see different approaches to the same question (I think).

BarEssays is usually the most reliable for thinking about something like this. When you see people write standing and formation and they got scores of 65+ you know that it may have helped and certainly did not hurt.



I understand your point on tradition, but how do we know those 65's would not have been 70's if they used discernment?
I just looked up the essay instructions:
“Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts in question, to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns. + “Your answer should be complete, but you should not volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem.


It seems discernment is critical. As such, if the facts state "P and D entered into a valid written contract," writing on formation and SOF is a failure - "to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns." + it does this as well: "volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem."

Same with Standing in many instances. Just my opinion. I need to shave of a few minutes since I'm run out of time. Anything will help. Thanks.

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 2098
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Thu May 16, 2019 12:32 pm

One advantage of S&T is that you can actually learn something from the author's explanations. Each subject gets an introductory primer also.

hastingsgal

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 2:08 am

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby hastingsgal » Thu May 16, 2019 10:00 pm

Pema wrote:
hastingsgal wrote:
Pema wrote:
chickenb00b wrote:Hi! I'm an CA essay grader for a major bar prep company. We're trained by those who were past bar exam graders. Additionally, I also have experience with many of the supplements, including Critical Flash, Adaptibar, SmartBarPrep, Barbri conviser, (the one page supplement that I can't seem to remember the name off the top of my head), Emanuel MBEs (Tactics and Strats(?)), etc. etc.

Since I'm waiting for the bar study season to start in late May, I thought I'd offer some opinion/suggestion/advice here. If you have any questions (and there are no dumb ones), or need guidance, then ask and I'll offer my opinion.

I do ask that you quote this so I can see the notification and respond. Good luck studying folks!!!


I asked a Q earlier, but I don't see it posted.
I'm reading essay answers from CA Bar site, Barbri and baressays.com. For Con Law Q with a call that says WHAT ARGUMENTS CAN P MAKE UNDER EP AND DP? The CA Bar and Barbri answers don't discuss Standing/Justiciability, 11th, 10th. Baressays answers-90% do for the same Q.

For Contracts Call: Can P recover from D? + the facts state P and D entered into a written K for...(all terms present) - CA Bar and Barbri responses-no formation or SOF discussion. Baressays answers 90% discuss formation + SOF for the same Q.

I believe a big part of the CA bar Q's are the limiting factors. They are testing discernment and materiality by limiting the call (sometimes very subtly).
That said, they suck you in to discussing non material items because the (juicy) facts beg for it, while the call doesn't. Is this your experience? I ask 1) because I think they mark you down for lack of discernment and the inability to recognize material v immaterial facts (per call) and 2) I run out of time and can't afford to address standing and formation (and other preliminary considerations) if not at issue. Thanks.


I think standing and formation are standard for these types of questions almost all the time. Even if they aren't necessary for some of the questions, you certainly will not lose points for mentioning them. The barbri answers aren't real or graded, so hard to say whether they write the way the bar examiners want. The CA Bar answers are the best in the state, and sometimes the state wants you to see different approaches to the same question (I think).

BarEssays is usually the most reliable for thinking about something like this. When you see people write standing and formation and they got scores of 65+ you know that it may have helped and certainly did not hurt.



I understand your point on tradition, but how do we know those 65's would not have been 70's if they used discernment?
I just looked up the essay instructions:
“Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts in question, to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns. + “Your answer should be complete, but you should not volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem.


It seems discernment is critical. As such, if the facts state "P and D entered into a valid written contract," writing on formation and SOF is a failure - "to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns." + it does this as well: "volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem."

Same with Standing in many instances. Just my opinion. I need to shave of a few minutes since I'm run out of time. Anything will help. Thanks.


Because you will also see 75s and 80s on BarEssays that talk about formation and standing. It's just not something the graders will deduct points for. If you talk about a con law issue in a contracts question (and I saw some essays on BarEssays that did things like this), then yes that would get you a low score.

Pema

New
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Pema » Fri May 17, 2019 11:06 am

hastingsgal wrote:
Pema wrote:
hastingsgal wrote:
Pema wrote:
chickenb00b wrote:Hi! I'm an CA essay grader for a major bar prep company. We're trained by those who were past bar exam graders. Additionally, I also have experience with many of the supplements, including Critical Flash, Adaptibar, SmartBarPrep, Barbri conviser, (the one page supplement that I can't seem to remember the name off the top of my head), Emanuel MBEs (Tactics and Strats(?)), etc. etc.

Since I'm waiting for the bar study season to start in late May, I thought I'd offer some opinion/suggestion/advice here. If you have any questions (and there are no dumb ones), or need guidance, then ask and I'll offer my opinion.

I do ask that you quote this so I can see the notification and respond. Good luck studying folks!!!


I asked a Q earlier, but I don't see it posted.
I'm reading essay answers from CA Bar site, Barbri and baressays.com. For Con Law Q with a call that says WHAT ARGUMENTS CAN P MAKE UNDER EP AND DP? The CA Bar and Barbri answers don't discuss Standing/Justiciability, 11th, 10th. Baressays answers-90% do for the same Q.

For Contracts Call: Can P recover from D? + the facts state P and D entered into a written K for...(all terms present) - CA Bar and Barbri responses-no formation or SOF discussion. Baressays answers 90% discuss formation + SOF for the same Q.

I believe a big part of the CA bar Q's are the limiting factors. They are testing discernment and materiality by limiting the call (sometimes very subtly).
That said, they suck you in to discussing non material items because the (juicy) facts beg for it, while the call doesn't. Is this your experience? I ask 1) because I think they mark you down for lack of discernment and the inability to recognize material v immaterial facts (per call) and 2) I run out of time and can't afford to address standing and formation (and other preliminary considerations) if not at issue. Thanks.



I think standing and formation are standard for these types of questions almost all the time. Even if they aren't necessary for some of the questions, you certainly will not lose points for mentioning them. The barbri answers aren't real or graded, so hard to say whether they write the way the bar examiners want. The CA Bar answers are the best in the state, and sometimes the state wants you to see different approaches to the same question (I think).

BarEssays is usually the most reliable for thinking about something like this. When you see people write standing and formation and they got scores of 65+ you know that it may have helped and certainly did not hurt.



I understand your point on tradition, but how do we know those 65's would not have been 70's if they used discernment?
I just looked up the essay instructions:
“Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts in question, to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns. + “Your answer should be complete, but you should not volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem.


It seems discernment is critical. As such, if the facts state "P and D entered into a valid written contract," writing on formation and SOF is a failure - "to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns." + it does this as well: "volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem."

Same with Standing in many instances. Just my opinion. I need to shave of a few minutes since I'm run out of time. Anything will help. Thanks.


Because you will also see 75s and 80s on BarEssays that talk about formation and standing. It's just not something the graders will deduct points for. If you talk about a con law issue in a contracts question (and I saw some essays on BarEssays that did things like this), then yes that would get you a low score.


Timing is my biggest problem in practice. I'll have to make it brief and gratuitous then. 2 or 3 of those types of issues and I can't finish writing on the material issues. In fact, I'm going to start a new thread on timing v issue spotting v rule-element memorization v analysis.

chickenb00b

New
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:58 am

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby chickenb00b » Sun May 19, 2019 3:16 am

Pema wrote:I believe a big part of the CA bar Q's are the limiting factors. They are testing discernment and materiality by limiting the call (sometimes very subtly).
That said, they suck you in to discussing non material items because the (juicy) facts beg for it, while the call doesn't. Is this your experience? I ask 1) because I think they mark you down for lack of discernment and the inability to recognize material v immaterial facts (per call) and 2) I run out of time and can't afford to address standing and formation (and other preliminary considerations) if not at issue. Thanks.


I'll try to answer as well as I can. If you discussed both material and immaterial facts, it's fine--as long as material facts were in fact discussed. However, too much immaterial facts might suggest to me that 1) you're not recognizing how to analyze the problem, or 2) you're really nervous and think spitting out anything and everything is the right move.

Issue spotting is, and has always been, triggered by facts, or a combination of facts. It might be simple (A and B contracted to buy apples), or more complicated (A asked B for apples at 2$ each, B didn't respond but sent apples to A anyways. A thought they were free and don't pay), or more... (A made B an offer to buy apples. Two days later A bought it from C. The next day B ships the usual amount to A. A argues offer lapsed. B argues it was never revoked; two days is not a reasonable time; A never made B aware that he bought it from C; A never said it was conditional on prior to his purchase of other apples.). Based on your example, if the facts say that there's already a contract formed, then all you need to say is 1) issue is X; 2) X requires an enforceable contract; 3) enforceable contract exist based on facts.

But in short, yes the ability to spot material issues and facts is important. I tell all my students to imagine yourself as a real lawyer. A client comes in and tells you there's an enforceable contract and that it was later breached, brings you a copy of the contract, that's been used for 10 years by the client and the opposing party. Your first move is to analyze offer acceptance and consideration and bill your client 30 hours for it?

Pema

New
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Pema » Sun May 19, 2019 3:42 pm

chickenb00b wrote:
Pema wrote:I believe a big part of the CA bar Q's are the limiting factors. They are testing discernment and materiality by limiting the call (sometimes very subtly).
That said, they suck you in to discussing non material items because the (juicy) facts beg for it, while the call doesn't. Is this your experience? I ask 1) because I think they mark you down for lack of discernment and the inability to recognize material v immaterial facts (per call) and 2) I run out of time and can't afford to address standing and formation (and other preliminary considerations) if not at issue. Thanks.


I'll try to answer as well as I can. If you discussed both material and immaterial facts, it's fine--as long as material facts were in fact discussed. However, too much immaterial facts might suggest to me that 1) you're not recognizing how to analyze the problem, or 2) you're really nervous and think spitting out anything and everything is the right move.

Issue spotting is, and has always been, triggered by facts, or a combination of facts. It might be simple (A and B contracted to buy apples), or more complicated (A asked B for apples at 2$ each, B didn't respond but sent apples to A anyways. A thought they were free and don't pay), or more... (A made B an offer to buy apples. Two days later A bought it from C. The next day B ships the usual amount to A. A argues offer lapsed. B argues it was never revoked; two days is not a reasonable time; A never made B aware that he bought it from C; A never said it was conditional on prior to his purchase of other apples.). Based on your example, if the facts say that there's already a contract formed, then all you need to say is 1) issue is X; 2) X requires an enforceable contract; 3) enforceable contract exist based on facts.

But in short, yes the ability to spot material issues and facts is important. I tell all my students to imagine yourself as a real lawyer. A client comes in and tells you there's an enforceable contract and that it was later breached, brings you a copy of the contract, that's been used for 10 years by the client and the opposing party. Your first move is to analyze offer acceptance and consideration and bill your client 30 hours for it?



"Based on your example, if the facts say that there's already a contract formed, then all you need to say is 1) issue is X; 2) X requires an enforceable contract; 3) enforceable contract exist based on facts."

Thanks for the response. Makes sense and saves time.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JakeTappers, johngotti, marco1, SailorCupcake, sleeplessindc, twinfinn and 56 guests