California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[ph14]

Finally got around to doing the simulated MBE. My worst subjects were torts and contracts and my best was evidence.

[LSATNightmares]

Finally got around to doing the simulated MBE. My worst subjects were torts and contracts and my best was evidence.

You're my twin. I blame the fact that Torts and Contracts were first and so I forgot a lot.

[ph14]

Finally got around to doing the simulated MBE. My worst subjects were torts and contracts and my best was evidence.

You're my twin. I blame the fact that Torts and Contracts were first and so I forgot a lot.

I'll adopt that excuse as well .

[LawDog86]

Guess ill be retaking in feb. Got my simulated mbe results.

And how did you do?

Didn't even break 100. I got an 89 which is around bottom 10%. Worse than my diagnostic. I actually got stupider over time.

I know barbri questions are supposed to be harder, but an 89 wont make up the difference no matter how you view it.

Been there. My advice to you is not to be discouraged. Make the mistakes while studying and refine your methods for test day. MBE's were not my strong point while studying for the CBX. Like you, I had a sub 100 score on the simulated MBE during BarBri. Look at the results as diagnosing your weak subjects, then refine them from there. Like everything with studying for the bar, you'll have victorious moments and moments that feel like major setbacks. This happened to me throughout the course on all 3 parts (essays, MBE's and PT's). Fortunately, I only had to take the CBX once.

Look at your MBE score as an opportunity to improve. With just about 1 month to go, you have more than enough time to get your weaker subjects up to speed. Don't sweat it, just put the work in and understand the strategies of the questions. Remember that they can only test so much law in so many different ways. You'd be surprised how much the questions don't change from test to test. Hope this helped.

[CalBar2014]

I hate that I have to learn CA CP even tho it's never been tested and likely won't be on the test. What a waste of time.

CA CP=CA Civil Pro?

I was stressing over this today-bar secrets guy said that they have to test CA CP or it would be like they are conceding the subject given that the mbe will have CP next administration. Also, everyone is saying how CA evidence is definitely going to be tested. Are we going to the lucky ones who get a CA civ pro and CA evidence exam?

I wanted to check in on this. I'm taking the Cal Bar but didn't buy BarBri this time around (passed another state a few years ago). Has California Civil Procedure actually never been tested (i.e. the actual civil procedure rules like the FRCP)? And if not, have they only tested FRCP and the Constitutional issues?

I had no idea the MBE will start having Civil Procedure starting Feb. 2015. That changes the game a bit.

[071816]

I hate that I have to learn CA CP even tho it's never been tested and likely won't be on the test. What a waste of time.

CA CP=CA Civil Pro?

I was stressing over this today-bar secrets guy said that they have to test CA CP or it would be like they are conceding the subject given that the mbe will have CP next administration. Also, everyone is saying how CA evidence is definitely going to be tested. Are we going to the lucky ones who get a CA civ pro and CA evidence exam?

I wanted to check in on this. I'm taking the Cal Bar but didn't buy BarBri this time around (passed another state a few years ago). Has California Civil Procedure actually never been tested (i.e. the actual civil procedure rules like the FRCP)? And if not, have they only tested FRCP and the Constitutional issues?

I had no idea the MBE will start having Civil Procedure starting Feb. 2015. That changes the game a bit.

CA Civil Procedure has not yet been tested. FRCP has definitely been tested though.

[jd20132013]

out of cuiriosity, how's the MBE going to work once they add Civil Procedure? Will they have 7 subjects or will one drop out?

The former would really, really suck.

[lmr]

out of cuiriosity, how's the MBE going to work once they add Civil Procedure? Will they have 7 subjects or will one drop out?

The former would really, really suck.

From above the law quoting Kaplan...

"To accommodate for the addition of the new section and keep the test the same length, several questions will be shaved from each of the current sections – so instead of six sections with 31-33 questions each, the MBE will have seven sections with 27-28 questions each."

I think civ pro is easier for mbe-since they are taking away from contracts and property should make test easier for many imo.

[pkt63]

One of the things that is frustrating me the most with the essays is that the calls of the question are usually quite specific, but then, according to Barbri at least, you have to go way outside the call of the question to answer the question properly. For instance, on the Crim Law essay I did today, it asked if the D could be found guilty of a. 1st degree murder or b. 2nd degree murder. The barbri rubric gave 7 points for discussing manslaughter, yet the reasons the D here wasn't guilty of 2d degree murder wasn't because it would otherwise qualify but was reduced to manslaughter, and there were no facts that made it obvious they were fishing for manslaughter to be discussed. Should I just ignore the questions entirely?

A further example on that same question is about right to counsel at a photo lineup. Even though you never have a right to counsels at a photo lineup since it is not a "critical stage of prosecution", barbri devoted 4 more points to the applicant completely changing the facts they gave us and saying, "but if this HAD been an illegal lineup…" and going into independent source. yet, on another essay I just wrote, they made a special note of saying "the applicant gets no points…" for discussing the Statute of Frauds defense to contract formation. Presumably since the fact pattern started by saying that the lease was validly executed in writing.

So I have no idea when I am supposed to change the facts to allow me to "show off" more knowledge that the fact pattern calls for or how far I am supposed to go in ignoring the call of the question and just cramming in as much law and analysis as I can even though what it asks specifically excludes the information (the way the definition of second degree murder specifically excludes manslaughter). I do usually have extra time. I guess I shouldn't be too upset because I still got "passing" scores, but it still leaves me unsure of how to perform as best as possible in the future. Previous bar passers experience this frustration and find a way past it?

[adonai]

One of the things that is frustrating me the most with the essays is that the calls of the question are usually quite specific, but then, according to Barbri at least, you have to go way outside the call of the question to answer the question properly. For instance, on the Crim Law essay I did today, it asked if the D could be found guilty of a. 1st degree murder or b. 2nd degree murder. The barbri rubric gave 7 points for discussing manslaughter, yet the reasons the D here wasn't guilty of 2d degree murder wasn't because it would otherwise qualify but was reduced to manslaughter, and there were no facts that made it obvious they were fishing for manslaughter to be discussed. Should I just ignore the questions entirely?

A further example on that same question is about right to counsel at a photo lineup. Even though you never have a right to counsels at a photo lineup since it is not a "critical stage of prosecution", barbri devoted 4 more points to the applicant completely changing the facts they gave us and saying, "but if this HAD been an illegal lineup…" and going into independent source. yet, on another essay I just wrote, they made a special note of saying "the applicant gets no points…" for discussing the Statute of Frauds defense to contract formation. Presumably since the fact pattern started by saying that the lease was validly executed in writing.

So I have no idea when I am supposed to change the facts to allow me to "show off" more knowledge that the fact pattern calls for or how far I am supposed to go in ignoring the call of the question and just cramming in as much law and analysis as I can even though what it asks specifically excludes the information (the way the definition of second degree murder specifically excludes manslaughter). I do usually have extra time. I guess I shouldn't be too upset because I still got "passing" scores, but it still leaves me unsure of how to perform as best as possible in the future. Previous bar passers experience this frustration and find a way past it?

Keep in mind that barbri's model answers are answers that would score 100 or around that. You can't get them all, and sometimes very acute discretion is needed to get those hard to get points. But as I posted before, some of these issues are very subjective and its frustrating to know when to address them and when not to. I noticed that even barbri doesn't address those "irrelevant" issues in other similar essays.

[james11]

One of the things that is frustrating me the most with the essays is that the calls of the question are usually quite specific, but then, according to Barbri at least, you have to go way outside the call of the question to answer the question properly. For instance, on the Crim Law essay I did today, it asked if the D could be found guilty of a. 1st degree murder or b. 2nd degree murder. The barbri rubric gave 7 points for discussing manslaughter, yet the reasons the D here wasn't guilty of 2d degree murder wasn't because it would otherwise qualify but was reduced to manslaughter, and there were no facts that made it obvious they were fishing for manslaughter to be discussed. Should I just ignore the questions entirely?

A further example on that same question is about right to counsel at a photo lineup. Even though you never have a right to counsels at a photo lineup since it is not a "critical stage of prosecution", barbri devoted 4 more points to the applicant completely changing the facts they gave us and saying, "but if this HAD been an illegal lineup…" and going into independent source. yet, on another essay I just wrote, they made a special note of saying "the applicant gets no points…" for discussing the Statute of Frauds defense to contract formation. Presumably since the fact pattern started by saying that the lease was validly executed in writing.

So I have no idea when I am supposed to change the facts to allow me to "show off" more knowledge that the fact pattern calls for or how far I am supposed to go in ignoring the call of the question and just cramming in as much law and analysis as I can even though what it asks specifically excludes the information (the way the definition of second degree murder specifically excludes manslaughter). I do usually have extra time. I guess I shouldn't be too upset because I still got "passing" scores, but it still leaves me unsure of how to perform as best as possible in the future. Previous bar passers experience this frustration and find a way past it?

Keep in mind that barbri's model answers are answers that would score 100 or around that. You can't get them all, and sometimes very acute discretion is needed to get those hard to get points. But as I posted before, some of these issues are very subjective and its frustrating to know when to address them and when not to. I noticed that even barbri doesn't address those "irrelevant" issues in other similar essays.

I totally agree with your frustration re the models.

[turbotong]

So for the essay-only subjects (e.g., agency, CA procedure) - is there any point to reading the CMR? Or is it best just to work off of the lecture handouts? The CMR feels redundant or too detailed for an essay...

[s1m4]

So for the essay-only subjects (e.g., agency, CA procedure) - is there any point to reading the CMR? Or is it best just to work off of the lecture handouts? The CMR feels redundant or too detailed for an essay...

Personally for me I read the CMR because I find that getting the information a few times from numerous sources helps me solidify it. Think about what works for your though - if you are more a visual learner, then sticking to one outline and just trying to think about where everything lies on the outline may be a wiser decision.

I think that the lecture outline has everything you need to know for the essays -- looking @ baressays, you can tell that a lot of nondetailed essays passed with high grades.

[eng2law]

One of the things that is frustrating me the most with the essays is that the calls of the question are usually quite specific, but then, according to Barbri at least, you have to go way outside the call of the question to answer the question properly. For instance, on the Crim Law essay I did today, it asked if the D could be found guilty of a. 1st degree murder or b. 2nd degree murder. The barbri rubric gave 7 points for discussing manslaughter, yet the reasons the D here wasn't guilty of 2d degree murder wasn't because it would otherwise qualify but was reduced to manslaughter, and there were no facts that made it obvious they were fishing for manslaughter to be discussed. Should I just ignore the questions entirely?

A further example on that same question is about right to counsel at a photo lineup. Even though you never have a right to counsels at a photo lineup since it is not a "critical stage of prosecution", barbri devoted 4 more points to the applicant completely changing the facts they gave us and saying, "but if this HAD been an illegal lineup…" and going into independent source. yet, on another essay I just wrote, they made a special note of saying "the applicant gets no points…" for discussing the Statute of Frauds defense to contract formation. Presumably since the fact pattern started by saying that the lease was validly executed in writing.

So I have no idea when I am supposed to change the facts to allow me to "show off" more knowledge that the fact pattern calls for or how far I am supposed to go in ignoring the call of the question and just cramming in as much law and analysis as I can even though what it asks specifically excludes the information (the way the definition of second degree murder specifically excludes manslaughter). I do usually have extra time. I guess I shouldn't be too upset because I still got "passing" scores, but it still leaves me unsure of how to perform as best as possible in the future. Previous bar passers experience this frustration and find a way past it?

+1. Couldn't agree more.

[hyc9598]

So for the essay-only subjects (e.g., agency, CA procedure) - is there any point to reading the CMR? Or is it best just to work off of the lecture handouts? The CMR feels redundant or too detailed for an essay...

So mbe=cmr, ca specific=lecture handout only?

[hyc9598]

Dumb question, but why is the CA bar exam much more difficult than the others?

I think the reason why ca opened flood gate is because it was affected by spanish heritage...

[dtl]

Arg just found out I can't bring my laptop since it is 17.5 inches. Time to find one to borrow.

You would think with all the peripherals they let you bring - keyboards, book stands, laptop risers, mice, etc - they would not limit laptop size quite so much!

[turbotong]

So for the essay-only subjects (e.g., agency, CA procedure) - is there any point to reading the CMR? Or is it best just to work off of the lecture handouts? The CMR feels redundant or too detailed for an essay...

So mbe=cmr, ca specific=lecture handout only?

The official response from Barbri today was to rely on CMR

[lmr]

so i guess we wasted our time filling in those lecture handouts? Is that what barbri is saying..I hardly refer to my lecture notes for MBE subjects-cmr is actually shorter for a lot of the non-mbe subjects than the lecture handouts.

[Lasers]

how do you people memorize the CA distinctions in evidence/PR/civpro, etc.?

my eyes gloss over and i can't give two fucks.

i'm gonna fail all the essays. and when i say that, i'm not joking. i know the law generally. i know no rule statements.

[eng2law]

how do you people memorize the CA distinctions in evidence/PR/civpro, etc.?

my eyes gloss over and i can't give two fucks.

i'm gonna fail all the essays. and when i say that, i'm not joking. i know the law generally. i know no rule statements.

I actually knew Evidence and Civ Pro pretty well before I started prep. Now with these bloody CA distinctions, I am thoroughly confused, and I forgot what I used to know.

[LSATNightmares]

Arg just found out I can't bring my laptop since it is 17.5 inches. Time to find one to borrow.

You would think with all the peripherals they let you bring - keyboards, book stands, laptop risers, mice, etc - they would not limit laptop size quite so much!

Wow, that's horrible. Sorry to hear. I'm also frustrated with the size of the laptop stands. I have to use one due to neck problems, but they have a size limit that is forcing me to buy a new one for the exam. They don't come that cheap.

[JJDancer]

Arg just found out I can't bring my laptop since it is 17.5 inches. Time to find one to borrow.

You would think with all the peripherals they let you bring - keyboards, book stands, laptop risers, mice, etc - they would not limit laptop size quite so much!

Wow, that's horrible. Sorry to hear. I'm also frustrated with the size of the laptop stands. I have to use one due to neck problems, but they have a size limit that is forcing me to buy a new one for the exam. They don't come that cheap.

Do you know a link where I can find out more about what's allowed in terms of aids like this? Thanks!

[2807]

how do you people memorize the CA distinctions in evidence/PR/civpro, etc.?

my eyes gloss over and i can't give two fucks.

i'm gonna fail all the essays. and when i say that, i'm not joking. i know the law generally. i know no rule statements.

A good place to find succinct rule statements are the answers/explanations to multiple choice practice q's.

Hope that helps.

[james11]

how do you people memorize the CA distinctions in evidence/PR/civpro, etc.?

my eyes gloss over and i can't give two fucks.

i'm gonna fail all the essays. and when i say that, i'm not joking. i know the law generally. i know no rule statements.

A good place to find succinct rule statements are the answers/explanations to multiple choice practice q's.

Hope that helps.

You don't have to know the rule statements down at this point. When I passed this last Feb I pretty much copied rule statements on essays that score 70+ and also copied rule statements from model answers. I put these rule statements on flashcards and memorized like CRAZY the last two weeks. The last two weeks are essential for memorizing rule statements.