Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[Evaly]

Do we all have the same graded property essay? I have a question about the essay where Andy conveys Blackacre to Beth and Chris (I'm in CA btw).

I'm in CA and that's the one I had.

I caught pretty much everything except for the restriction on alienation thing (which I understand now) and the adverse possession stuff. I didn't discuss adverse possession because I thought all of this happened within the 1970s, so I assumed the statutory period had not run and so adverse possession didn't even really cross my mind. In the model answer it says "Since his ouster occurred in 1978, it has been 32 years that he has possessed the property." It says In 1975, Andy by written deed conveyed Blackacre to Beth and Chris and then in 1978 Chris and Andy learned of the conveyance to Frank. Are we just supposed to assume that we are assessing everything now as of 2014? It doesn't say that anywhere, but I guess I'm retarded for not assuming it...

eta: I just thought about this a bit more and I have confirmed that, yes, I am retarded for not assuming this. So nevermind on my question I guess.

I also didn't do much on the AP because strangely I never learned the concept of ouster. So without ouster logically I couldn't go into depth about AP even though all those AP related facts were screaming at me. While doing the essay I also struggled with "are we in 2014 or 1970s" but again the amount of facts about AP made me throw in a paragraph or two about AP.

I am starting to think forget coherent logic on essays, just make sure I write out the issues that use up all the facts.

[071816]

Do we all have the same graded property essay? I have a question about the essay where Andy conveys Blackacre to Beth and Chris (I'm in CA btw).

I'm in CA and that's the one I had.

I caught pretty much everything except for the restriction on alienation thing (which I understand now) and the adverse possession stuff. I didn't discuss adverse possession because I thought all of this happened within the 1970s, so I assumed the statutory period had not run and so adverse possession didn't even really cross my mind. In the model answer it says "Since his ouster occurred in 1978, it has been 32 years that he has possessed the property." It says In 1975, Andy by written deed conveyed Blackacre to Beth and Chris and then in 1978 Chris and Andy learned of the conveyance to Frank. Are we just supposed to assume that we are assessing everything now as of 2014? It doesn't say that anywhere, but I guess I'm retarded for not assuming it...

eta: I just thought about this a bit more and I have confirmed that, yes, I am retarded for not assuming this. So nevermind on my question I guess.

I also didn't do much on the AP because strangely I never learned the concept of ouster. So without ouster logically I couldn't go into depth about AP even though all those AP related facts were screaming at me. While doing the essay I also struggled with "are we in 2014 or 1970s" but again the amount of facts about AP made me throw in a paragraph or two about AP.

I am starting to think forget coherent logic on essays, just make sure I write out the issues that use up all the facts.

Yea. I have to remember that bar essays are different because pretty much every single sentence is significant (definitely not the same with law school essays), so I guess the dates should have triggered AP in my mind but they just didn't. Strangely enough I did discuss ouster though, just not in the context of AP.

[puttycake]

I caught pretty much everything except for the restriction on alienation thing (which I understand now) and the adverse possession stuff. I didn't discuss adverse possession because I thought all of this happened within the 1970s, so I assumed the statutory period had not run and so adverse possession didn't even really cross my mind. In the model answer it says "Since his ouster occurred in 1978, it has been 32 years that he has possessed the property." It says In 1975, Andy by written deed conveyed Blackacre to Beth and Chris and then in 1978 Chris and Andy learned of the conveyance to Frank. Are we just supposed to assume that we are assessing everything now as of 2014? It doesn't say that anywhere, but I guess I'm retarded for not assuming it...

eta: I just thought about this a bit more and I have confirmed that, yes, I am retarded for not assuming this. So nevermind on my question I guess.

You may be retarded for it, but so am I. They didn't say that it was modern day, so lacking any information, I assumed it was not 2014. That was really frustrating, but I guess we know it now.

[Gotti]

Is it just me, or is this a really stupid question:

In response to an increasing trend in car thefts in a downtown neighborhood in a state’s capital city, the state legislature enacted a statute requiring that cars parked on the street must be no further than thirty feet from streetlights in that neighborhood. In creating the statute, the legislature hoped to reduce property crime after a study showed that criminal acts are less likely to occur in well-lit or highly populated areas. The neighborhood targeted by this statute comprised the international district, so nearly 90% of people affected by the statute were of various ethnic minorities. A group of residents affected by the statute filed suit in federal court, arguing that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court struck down the statute on the basis that the statute was not substantially related to the state’s interest in preventing property crimes.
Did the court correctly analyze the statute?
A. Yes, because the statute, as written, targeted a specific neighborhood inhabited by members of ethnic minorities.
B. Yes, because the statute, as applied, disproportionately affected ethnic minorities.
C. No, because the legislature enacted the statute to alleviate crime in the neighborhood.
D. No, because the statute was not the least restrictive means to reduce crime in the neighborhood.

The correct answer is C, but it has no wording about rational basis--it just isn't intuitive to me.

Also, there was a question prompt that identified the strict scrutiny standard as the state having to show that its law was "important" to a government interest. This is making me lose faith in the strength of Themis's questions...

and ALSO, in one of my 34 question sets, they asked 3 of the same exact questions twice.

[WonkyPanda]

Is it just me, or is this a really stupid question:

In response to an increasing trend in car thefts in a downtown neighborhood in a state’s capital city, the state legislature enacted a statute requiring that cars parked on the street must be no further than thirty feet from streetlights in that neighborhood. In creating the statute, the legislature hoped to reduce property crime after a study showed that criminal acts are less likely to occur in well-lit or highly populated areas. The neighborhood targeted by this statute comprised the international district, so nearly 90% of people affected by the statute were of various ethnic minorities. A group of residents affected by the statute filed suit in federal court, arguing that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court struck down the statute on the basis that the statute was not substantially related to the state’s interest in preventing property crimes.
Did the court correctly analyze the statute?
A. Yes, because the statute, as written, targeted a specific neighborhood inhabited by members of ethnic minorities.
B. Yes, because the statute, as applied, disproportionately affected ethnic minorities.
C. No, because the legislature enacted the statute to alleviate crime in the neighborhood.
D. No, because the statute was not the least restrictive means to reduce crime in the neighborhood.

The correct answer is C, but it has no wording about rational basis--it just isn't intuitive to me.

Also, there was a question prompt that identified the strict scrutiny standard as the state having to show that its law was "important" to a government interest. This is making me lose faith in the strength of Themis's questions...

and ALSO, in one of my 34 question sets, they asked 3 of the same exact questions twice.

I think what they're trying to get at is that because this is an EPC claim, you immediately consider the scrutiny test. Knowing what you know, it should automatically be a RB test.

Thus, you just want something that is rationally related to a legitimate interest. A and B are clearly wrong because there's no indication of racial intent here. D is wrong because RB doesn't call for a least restrictive means.

Also, there was a question prompt that identified the strict scrutiny standard as the state having to show that its law was "important" to a government interest. This is making me lose faith in the strength of Themis's questions...

Was it a First Amendment issue?

[Gotti]

I think what they're trying to get at is that because this is an EPC claim, you immediately consider the scrutiny test. Knowing what you know, it should automatically be a RB test.

Thus, you just want something that is rationally related to a legitimate interest. A and B are clearly wrong because there's no indication of racial intent here. D is wrong because RB doesn't call for a least restrictive means.

Also, there was a question prompt that identified the strict scrutiny standard as the state having to show that its law was "important" to a government interest. This is making me lose faith in the strength of Themis's questions...

Was it a First Amendment issue?

So I understand that C is right as a process of elimination, but I really think that because they are trying to get at the fact that the court used the wrong test, the correct answer should have some indication of the correct test ("legitimate" or "rational").

It wasn't a First Amendment issue, it was about fundamental parental rights. The answer choice said "important" state interest but then the explanation of the answer said that the answer was correct because the standard is "compelling" state interest under strict scrutiny. Here's the question:

A state statute requires the permanent removal from parental custody of any child who has suffered "child abuse." That term is defined to include "corporal punishment of any sort." A father very gently spanks his six-year old son on the buttocks whenever he believes that spanking is necessary to enforce discipline on him. Such a spanking occurs not more than once a month and has never physically harmed the child. The state files suit under the statute to terminate the father's parental rights solely because of these spankings. The father defends only on the ground that the statute in question is unconstitutional as applied to his admitted conduct. In light of the nature of the rights involved, which of the following is the most probable burden of persuasion on this constitutional issue?

A. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to the father is necessary to vindicate an important state interest.
B. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to the father is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
C. The father has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to him is not necessary to vindicate an important state interest.
D. The father has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to him is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Answer choice A is correct. In a question involving fundamental rights, such as parental rights, any state action will be held to strict scrutiny. The government must prove that it has a compelling state interest, the law is narrowly tailored to further this interest, and there are no less restrictive means to achieve the interest. Answer choice B is incorrect because it inaccurately applies the rational basis test to a situation involving a fundamental right. Answer choice C is incorrect because although it attempts to capture the strict scrutiny test, it shifts the burden improperly onto the father. Answer choice D is incorrect because it improperly shifts the burden onto the father and applies the rational basis test to a fundamental right analysis.

[puttycake]

It wasn't a First Amendment issue, it was about fundamental parental rights. The answer choice said "important" state interest but then the explanation of the answer said that the answer was correct because the standard is "compelling" state interest under strict scrutiny. Here's the question:

Yep, that one frustrated me, too.

[WonkyPanda]

Is it just me, or is this a really stupid question:

In response to an increasing trend in car thefts in a downtown neighborhood in a state’s capital city, the state legislature enacted a statute requiring that cars parked on the street must be no further than thirty feet from streetlights in that neighborhood. In creating the statute, the legislature hoped to reduce property crime after a study showed that criminal acts are less likely to occur in well-lit or highly populated areas. The neighborhood targeted by this statute comprised the international district, so nearly 90% of people affected by the statute were of various ethnic minorities. A group of residents affected by the statute filed suit in federal court, arguing that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court struck down the statute on the basis that the statute was not substantially related to the state’s interest in preventing property crimes.
Did the court correctly analyze the statute?
A. Yes, because the statute, as written, targeted a specific neighborhood inhabited by members of ethnic minorities.
B. Yes, because the statute, as applied, disproportionately affected ethnic minorities.
C. No, because the legislature enacted the statute to alleviate crime in the neighborhood.
D. No, because the statute was not the least restrictive means to reduce crime in the neighborhood.

The correct answer is C, but it has no wording about rational basis--it just isn't intuitive to me.

Also, there was a question prompt that identified the strict scrutiny standard as the state having to show that its law was "important" to a government interest. This is making me lose faith in the strength of Themis's questions...

and ALSO, in one of my 34 question sets, they asked 3 of the same exact questions twice.

I think what they're trying to get at is that because this is an EPC claim, you immediately consider the scrutiny test. Knowing what you know, it should automatically be a RB test.

Thus, you just want something that is rationally related to a legitimate interest. A and B are clearly wrong because there's no indication of racial intent here. D is wrong because RB doesn't call for a least restrictive means.

Also, there was a question prompt that identified the strict scrutiny standard as the state having to show that its law was "important" to a government interest. This is making me lose faith in the strength of Themis's questions...

Was it a First Amendment issue?

Ya, I do agree that the answer is framed rather oddly. I remember pausing on that specific causation, too, because it involves this weird logical leap to get to the right answer. It's really an answer that is hammered down by the other answers being flat wrong.

Per parental rights: ah, ya, clearly seems to be a typo.

[Gotti]

Yeah I'm not saying I didn't get the right answers but like I said, it does make me lose faith in the strength of the questions. And the fact that the parental rights one preceded the discrimination one made me pause and think "well, maybe they got the test wrong like they did in the other question...?" because the answer choice required that weird leap.

[Apple Tree]

I have a question about the constitutionality test for public forum: when they say it has to leave alternative channels of communication open, do they mean in public form or in the whole city?

[Apple Tree]

I caught pretty much everything except for the restriction on alienation thing (which I understand now) and the adverse possession stuff. I didn't discuss adverse possession because I thought all of this happened within the 1970s, so I assumed the statutory period had not run and so adverse possession didn't even really cross my mind. In the model answer it says "Since his ouster occurred in 1978, it has been 32 years that he has possessed the property." It says In 1975, Andy by written deed conveyed Blackacre to Beth and Chris and then in 1978 Chris and Andy learned of the conveyance to Frank. Are we just supposed to assume that we are assessing everything now as of 2014? It doesn't say that anywhere, but I guess I'm retarded for not assuming it...

eta: I just thought about this a bit more and I have confirmed that, yes, I am retarded for not assuming this. So nevermind on my question I guess.

You may be retarded for it, but so am I. They didn't say that it was modern day, so lacking any information, I assumed it was not 2014. That was really frustrating, but I guess we know it now.

Same here. I said they'll have to wait to see if it's AP. Never crossed my mind we are not in the 70s anymore haha.

[Apple Tree]

Also, I'd just like to say that the California community property system sucks!

[swfangirl]

My essay grader definitely actually just misread most of my essay. I'll state sentiment A. And then she'll say "that's not true, A". I ran my stuff past an honest friend or two who agreed. I'm a little disappointed in the quality of the grading, here.

[Lasers]

haven't even done the property essay yet.

gotta catch up. i'll probably turn it in tomorrow. i need to learn mortgages tonight, lulz.

[WonkyPanda]

My essay grader definitely actually just misread most of my essay. I'll state sentiment A. And then she'll say "that's not true, A". I ran my stuff past an honest friend or two who agreed. I'm a little disappointed in the quality of the grading, here.

The sad thing is I don't expect that to be much different than actual essay graders.

[hous]

Is it just me, or is this a really stupid question:

In response to an increasing trend in car thefts in a downtown neighborhood in a state’s capital city, the state legislature enacted a statute requiring that cars parked on the street must be no further than thirty feet from streetlights in that neighborhood. In creating the statute, the legislature hoped to reduce property crime after a study showed that criminal acts are less likely to occur in well-lit or highly populated areas. The neighborhood targeted by this statute comprised the international district, so nearly 90% of people affected by the statute were of various ethnic minorities. A group of residents affected by the statute filed suit in federal court, arguing that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court struck down the statute on the basis that the statute was not substantially related to the state’s interest in preventing property crimes.
Did the court correctly analyze the statute?
A. Yes, because the statute, as written, targeted a specific neighborhood inhabited by members of ethnic minorities.
B. Yes, because the statute, as applied, disproportionately affected ethnic minorities.
C. No, because the legislature enacted the statute to alleviate crime in the neighborhood.
D. No, because the statute was not the least restrictive means to reduce crime in the neighborhood.

The correct answer is C, but it has no wording about rational basis--it just isn't intuitive to me.

Also, there was a question prompt that identified the strict scrutiny standard as the state having to show that its law was "important" to a government interest. This is making me lose faith in the strength of Themis's questions...

and ALSO, in one of my 34 question sets, they asked 3 of the same exact questions twice.

C isn't a great answer, but its most certainly the best. I don't think there is anything wrong with the question.

Now the SS question about an important governmental interest sounds suspect. I don't recall reading that one though.

[Bronx Bum]

Guys, as someone who took Themis last year, do not...and I mean DO NOT concern yourselves too much with what your essay grader gives you or says. Treat it more as a "ok I want to do a good job bc another person is going to read it."

Last year I took ny and nj. My nj grader seemed to actually read it. The ny grader Basically cut and pasted the ny model answer. A lot of those graders (I can't speak for all of them) *seem* (bc I really don't know) like they don't grade it to the same standard as real bar graders. A lot of them are practitioners doing essay grading on the side. It's helpful but they are definitely busy people and aren't going to be as focused as a real bar grader.

At the end of New York, I was getting perfect scores for Themis lol. But people don't get it. In New York, essays are graded from 1-10. A guy who was like a ny supervisor came into our school explained how essays are graded. He said 80% of the people get a 5 (which is a 4.5-5.49). It's very rare to get a 6 and even rarer to get a 7,8 and he's never seen a 9 or 10.
(This is all before it's curved and converted to out of 100)

Point is, don't think you can mess up one and make it up on another by getting a 6 or a 7. Bar essays have a very tight curve. That's why a lot of my con law gunner friends were signing up for the February retake. They were going on and on in the crim essays about irrelevant stuff like 2nd amendment. Just stick to the basic concise points. So write what you need for that 5 and don't sacrifice other essays.

Themis doesn't really teach you that by their grading. Sorry for grammar I'm on phone.

[lawyerwannabe]

Have people completely abandoned reading the long outlines? It seems like such a time sink and an amount of information I will definitely not be able to retain for the bar itself . . .

[klbisho4]

I have a question about the constitutionality test for public forum: when they say it has to leave alternative channels of communication open, do they mean in public form or in the whole city?

From what I understand with public forums, they don't have to allow you to protest in their building, but they must allow you to protest on their steps or outside the building. In regards to city restrictions, they may restrict as long as they offer you somewhere else to protest in a reasonable time, place, and manner.

[klbisho4]

I think what they're trying to get at is that because this is an EPC claim, you immediately consider the scrutiny test. Knowing what you know, it should automatically be a RB test.

Thus, you just want something that is rationally related to a legitimate interest. A and B are clearly wrong because there's no indication of racial intent here. D is wrong because RB doesn't call for a least restrictive means.

Also, there was a question prompt that identified the strict scrutiny standard as the state having to show that its law was "important" to a government interest. This is making me lose faith in the strength of Themis's questions...

Was it a First Amendment issue?

So I understand that C is right as a process of elimination, but I really think that because they are trying to get at the fact that the court used the wrong test, the correct answer should have some indication of the correct test ("legitimate" or "rational").

It wasn't a First Amendment issue, it was about fundamental parental rights. The answer choice said "important" state interest but then the explanation of the answer said that the answer was correct because the standard is "compelling" state interest under strict scrutiny. Here's the question:

A state statute requires the permanent removal from parental custody of any child who has suffered "child abuse." That term is defined to include "corporal punishment of any sort." A father very gently spanks his six-year old son on the buttocks whenever he believes that spanking is necessary to enforce discipline on him. Such a spanking occurs not more than once a month and has never physically harmed the child. The state files suit under the statute to terminate the father's parental rights solely because of these spankings. The father defends only on the ground that the statute in question is unconstitutional as applied to his admitted conduct. In light of the nature of the rights involved, which of the following is the most probable burden of persuasion on this constitutional issue?

A. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to the father is necessary to vindicate an important state interest.
B. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to the father is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
C. The father has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to him is not necessary to vindicate an important state interest.
D. The father has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to him is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Answer choice A is correct. In a question involving fundamental rights, such as parental rights, any state action will be held to strict scrutiny. The government must prove that it has a compelling state interest, the law is narrowly tailored to further this interest, and there are no less restrictive means to achieve the interest. Answer choice B is incorrect because it inaccurately applies the rational basis test to a situation involving a fundamental right. Answer choice C is incorrect because although it attempts to capture the strict scrutiny test, it shifts the burden improperly onto the father. Answer choice D is incorrect because it improperly shifts the burden onto the father and applies the rational basis test to a fundamental right analysis.

I haven't seen that question yet, but I had 2 that stated the law wrong in the answer so I didn't pick it. It turned out to be the right answer, and just like yours the explanation stated it as if the answer had stated the law correctly. I also had the same question show up twice during a set of PQ's.

My Themis rep called me the other day to check in and I told him how I had scored 45% on their Con Law, and went in later to Adaptibar and scored 70%. He told me to "Stop doing Adaptibar because I guarantee you right now we both use the same released questions and it won't help you more. Stick to one study program and to our shit that we give you and you'll be fine". Adaptibar doesn't have typos and I find it really helpful so I'm going to keep using it.

You just gotta remember that the Bar's answers won't have typos and they will be more straightforward. And if a question is worded oddly, they will either toss it, or give credit for more than 1 answer.

[Tanicius]

My essay grader definitely actually just misread most of my essay. I'll state sentiment A. And then she'll say "that's not true, A". I ran my stuff past an honest friend or two who agreed. I'm a little disappointed in the quality of the grading, here.

Mine said my rule statement was not a complete sentence and said to be more careful about typos on the real thing. I looked back at the entire paragraph and every sentence was a complete sentence.

[puttycake]

Have people completely abandoned reading the long outlines? It seems like such a time sink and an amount of information I will definitely not be able to retain for the bar itself . . .

I read the whole long outline. Sometimes, you just can remember odd stuff when something triggers the memory.

I definitely don't try to memorize the long outlines.

[Evaly]

My grader did a much better job on the second essay than on the first. On the first essay she had only cursory comments and she said I missed a major issue when it was obviously the second bolded and underlined item I discussed.

On the second essay she carefully went through everything I wrote and even reformatted my essay to show me a better way to organize the paragraphs. I found her comments to be really useful. The scoring on the other hand is completely arbitrary. She gave me the same score on both essays although her comments indicate that she thinks I did a much better job on the second essay.

[duskfall]

Is it just me, or is this a really stupid question:

In response to an increasing trend in car thefts in a downtown neighborhood in a state’s capital city, the state legislature enacted a statute requiring that cars parked on the street must be no further than thirty feet from streetlights in that neighborhood. In creating the statute, the legislature hoped to reduce property crime after a study showed that criminal acts are less likely to occur in well-lit or highly populated areas. The neighborhood targeted by this statute comprised the international district, so nearly 90% of people affected by the statute were of various ethnic minorities. A group of residents affected by the statute filed suit in federal court, arguing that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court struck down the statute on the basis that the statute was not substantially related to the state’s interest in preventing property crimes.
Did the court correctly analyze the statute?
A. Yes, because the statute, as written, targeted a specific neighborhood inhabited by members of ethnic minorities.
B. Yes, because the statute, as applied, disproportionately affected ethnic minorities.
C. No, because the legislature enacted the statute to alleviate crime in the neighborhood.
D. No, because the statute was not the least restrictive means to reduce crime in the neighborhood.

The correct answer is C, but it has no wording about rational basis--it just isn't intuitive to me.

Also, there was a question prompt that identified the strict scrutiny standard as the state having to show that its law was "important" to a government interest. This is making me lose faith in the strength of Themis's questions...

and ALSO, in one of my 34 question sets, they asked 3 of the same exact questions twice.

first, the right answer sometimes will not be "intuitive" to you. If this were the case, everyone would be getting the right answer. You get to C because all the other answers are incorrect. Off the bat, I wouldn't have read A and B because i know the Court f'ed up on striking the statute. After reading D, I would know C is the correct answer because D puts an unnecessary burden on the government.

[Prime]

There is an actual law professor named Johnny Rex Buckles......

Just noticed that myself. Looks strangely like an older version of the guy who runs the STCL bookstore..