THIS POST IS A RESPONSE TO A COMMENT ON THIS BLOG ENTRY.
Q: Brandon writes, "I just wanted to say that I REALLY appreciate you posting your input on passing the bar. I myself am I repeat taker of the California bar (failed July 2011) and am looking to re-take it in Feb. This time around I, like you, work full-time and I have a 7 week old daughter. So, I was hoping that you might be able to provide a little more insight on what you did in order to pass due to time constraints along with some of the tips you got from the tutoring you received in regard to essay writing. I hope I am not asking too much. Any comments will be greatly appreciated! Thanks again!"
Hi, Brandon. :)
I'm sorry it's taken me a bit to get back with you (work has been a never-ending series of fires to put out lately). Alas, here's my response.
I. MAKE AS MUCH TIME AS YOU CAN FOR STUDYING.
Having a baby, I imagine, brings the difficulty of studying to a real head. To be very candid, what I did when I came home from work every day was study. Well, technically, I spent about 1 hour transitioning from "I'm finally home" to "aw, crap; I have to study." This meant changing into comfy clothes and eating something. I also cuddled with my roommate's dog for about 20 minutes. But after that, I hit the books hard. Seriously, I did it until I fell asleep. Every night. I only took 1 full day off, and that was to participate in a work thing.
If you have a spouse who can help with the baby as well as parents who don't mind staying over to help her/him out, I would really try to get them to do so. Beg. Bargain. Do whatever you can.
One of my friends told me to "be really selfish" for once in my life. This is what it took. I even held off moving in with the boyfriend and found a place to rent for the studying period so that I would have no distractions (it was a room in a house, but that's all I could afford).
I know that this might not be helpful... I sure hope it is, but I'm willing to bet that having a 2 month-old baby puts another whole level on the difficulty of studying. I truly hope that you can garner some practical support.
II. HERE ARE MY WRITING TIPS.
A. ISSUES.
As far as writing tips are concerned, I significantly modified my writing style for this last time that I took the bar. I would look at a problem and, instead of thinking, "oh my god, have I hit every possible tiny issue?!?!", I changed that into, "ok, what are the blatant issues that the examiners CLEARLY want me to hit and discuss?" One friend of mine put it well; he said, "Show the examiners that you're not going to commit malpractice."
B. RULES.
Moreover, once I got the main issues out on a page, I would write a rule statement that stated the rule in one sentence. Then, if applicable, I would go into the most key element of the issue (ex: intent, which is usually the most important element if it is, in fact, an element). Finally, if applicable, I would maybe write about what would happen in certain jurisdictions.
EXAMPLE: "Conspiracy is an agreement between at least two people to engage in an unlawful act. There must be a specific intent to agree as well as a specific intent to commit the substantive act. In a bilateral jurisdiction, both parties must actually and truly agree to commit the unlawful act, whereas, in a unilateral jurisdiction, if one party feigns agreement, the other may still be liable for conspiracy. Some jurisdictions also require an overt act."
Basically, I would write my first sentence rule statement to include all the elements and then I would "unpack" the rule to be a little more sophisticated in the next sentence or two (especially when the facts would call for such "unpacking").
Just to note, though, there are clearly some issues that are so major that you must, MUST separate out the elements as their own sub-headings. For instance, negligence is huge. Therefore, under each subheading/element (duty, breach, causation, and damages), you will want to write out a rule statement. But for most issues, you will not need to do this (e.g., battery, assault, trespass to land, conspiracy, standing, abstention, consideration... the list goes on and on).
C. APPLICATION.
The most important part, however, is the application section, as we all know. I learned to cut right to the chase in my first sentence. I try to sit back and think, "which element in the rule statement does the outcome of this issue really hinge on more than the others? And why is that... what facts make this element above the others so contentious?" Once I had my answer, I started writing. Let me give you an example:
STANDING
[Rule; aim for more than the basic elements.] Standing requires an injury in fact, causation, and redressability. If there is no injury in fact, the requirement for injury will be satisfied if the plaintiff can show a threat of immediate harm. The government regulation at issue must have caused the harm. Also, a favorable determination in the plaintiff’s favor must alleviate the grievance.
[Application; the big deal with standing, and given these facts, is whether the plaintiff was actually injured or about to be harmed, so that was the first element I addressed because I knew the outcome of the issue hinged on this element.:] Here, Ned has standing because he is currently injured since he is not allowed to have a permit simply due to his age; this prevents him from performing his job. Also, Ajax has standing because it can at least show threat of an immediate future harm since some of its employees will not be able to perform their duties by being precluded from obtaining a permit in State A. Further, assuming that Ajax has more than one employee that would need to drive through State A, Ajax would also be harmed by the additional time and cost required for each employee to obtain the permit. The harm is coming from the government because State A is the entity that passed the law at issue. Finally, redressability exists because, upon a favorable decision by the court in Ned's and Ajax's favor, Ned can avoid the license requirements and keep his job, and Ajax will not have to incur the expense of ensuring that every employee has such a license.
[Conclusion; short and sweet.:] Therefore, both N and A have standing.
Tie the element with a fact within each sentence and link them with the word "because," "since," or "when." (For the law review nerds, I understand that "since" is temporal, but sometimes you need to use commonly perceived synonyms. This is particularly true when you need to use "because" more than once in the same sentence, which looks and reads absurd. It's the bar, not law review. If you aim for perfect, it may lead you into troubled waters with more time wasted on unnecessary editing.)
The second time I took the bar, I had a real problem with writing without using the word "because" in the right way. Example:
[EXAMPLE OF WHAT **NOT** TO DO:]
THEFT
Theft is the taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive.
Here, Ned was in Charlie’s place and took a box from inside, so he took someone else’s personal property. He intended to permanently deprive, likely, because he brought his own briefcase and placed the box inside with a lock on the briefcase. Afterwards, Ned carried it outside of the apartment.
Therefore, Ned committed theft.
I mean, that is just AWFUL! I wasn't doing a good job at tightly discussing the facts relative to the corresponding element. Hell, sometimes I left the element out completely! I think I figured that, as long as I caught the fact that addressed the element, it would be ok. Well, I was wrong.
Q: Brandon writes, "I just wanted to say that I REALLY appreciate you posting your input on passing the bar. I myself am I repeat taker of the California bar (failed July 2011) and am looking to re-take it in Feb. This time around I, like you, work full-time and I have a 7 week old daughter. So, I was hoping that you might be able to provide a little more insight on what you did in order to pass due to time constraints along with some of the tips you got from the tutoring you received in regard to essay writing. I hope I am not asking too much. Any comments will be greatly appreciated! Thanks again!"
A:
Hi, Brandon. :)
I'm sorry it's taken me a bit to get back with you (work has been a never-ending series of fires to put out lately). Alas, here's my response.
I. MAKE AS MUCH TIME AS YOU CAN FOR STUDYING.
Having a baby, I imagine, brings the difficulty of studying to a real head. To be very candid, what I did when I came home from work every day was study. Well, technically, I spent about 1 hour transitioning from "I'm finally home" to "aw, crap; I have to study." This meant changing into comfy clothes and eating something. I also cuddled with my roommate's dog for about 20 minutes. But after that, I hit the books hard. Seriously, I did it until I fell asleep. Every night. I only took 1 full day off, and that was to participate in a work thing.
If you have a spouse who can help with the baby as well as parents who don't mind staying over to help her/him out, I would really try to get them to do so. Beg. Bargain. Do whatever you can.
One of my friends told me to "be really selfish" for once in my life. This is what it took. I even held off moving in with the boyfriend and found a place to rent for the studying period so that I would have no distractions (it was a room in a house, but that's all I could afford).
I know that this might not be helpful... I sure hope it is, but I'm willing to bet that having a 2 month-old baby puts another whole level on the difficulty of studying. I truly hope that you can garner some practical support.
II. HERE ARE MY WRITING TIPS.
A. ISSUES.
As far as writing tips are concerned, I significantly modified my writing style for this last time that I took the bar. I would look at a problem and, instead of thinking, "oh my god, have I hit every possible tiny issue?!?!", I changed that into, "ok, what are the blatant issues that the examiners CLEARLY want me to hit and discuss?" One friend of mine put it well; he said, "Show the examiners that you're not going to commit malpractice."
B. RULES.
Moreover, once I got the main issues out on a page, I would write a rule statement that stated the rule in one sentence. Then, if applicable, I would go into the most key element of the issue (ex: intent, which is usually the most important element if it is, in fact, an element). Finally, if applicable, I would maybe write about what would happen in certain jurisdictions.
EXAMPLE: "Conspiracy is an agreement between at least two people to engage in an unlawful act. There must be a specific intent to agree as well as a specific intent to commit the substantive act. In a bilateral jurisdiction, both parties must actually and truly agree to commit the unlawful act, whereas, in a unilateral jurisdiction, if one party feigns agreement, the other may still be liable for conspiracy. Some jurisdictions also require an overt act."
Basically, I would write my first sentence rule statement to include all the elements and then I would "unpack" the rule to be a little more sophisticated in the next sentence or two (especially when the facts would call for such "unpacking").
Just to note, though, there are clearly some issues that are so major that you must, MUST separate out the elements as their own sub-headings. For instance, negligence is huge. Therefore, under each subheading/element (duty, breach, causation, and damages), you will want to write out a rule statement. But for most issues, you will not need to do this (e.g., battery, assault, trespass to land, conspiracy, standing, abstention, consideration... the list goes on and on).
C. APPLICATION.
The most important part, however, is the application section, as we all know. I learned to cut right to the chase in my first sentence. I try to sit back and think, "which element in the rule statement does the outcome of this issue really hinge on more than the others? And why is that... what facts make this element above the others so contentious?" Once I had my answer, I started writing. Let me give you an example:
STANDING
[Rule; aim for more than the basic elements.] Standing requires an injury in fact, causation, and redressability. If there is no injury in fact, the requirement for injury will be satisfied if the plaintiff can show a threat of immediate harm. The government regulation at issue must have caused the harm. Also, a favorable determination in the plaintiff’s favor must alleviate the grievance.
[Application; the big deal with standing, and given these facts, is whether the plaintiff was actually injured or about to be harmed, so that was the first element I addressed because I knew the outcome of the issue hinged on this element.:] Here, Ned has standing because he is currently injured since he is not allowed to have a permit simply due to his age; this prevents him from performing his job. Also, Ajax has standing because it can at least show threat of an immediate future harm since some of its employees will not be able to perform their duties by being precluded from obtaining a permit in State A. Further, assuming that Ajax has more than one employee that would need to drive through State A, Ajax would also be harmed by the additional time and cost required for each employee to obtain the permit. The harm is coming from the government because State A is the entity that passed the law at issue. Finally, redressability exists because, upon a favorable decision by the court in Ned's and Ajax's favor, Ned can avoid the license requirements and keep his job, and Ajax will not have to incur the expense of ensuring that every employee has such a license.
[Conclusion; short and sweet.:] Therefore, both N and A have standing.
Tie the element with a fact within each sentence and link them with the word "because," "since," or "when." (For the law review nerds, I understand that "since" is temporal, but sometimes you need to use commonly perceived synonyms. This is particularly true when you need to use "because" more than once in the same sentence, which looks and reads absurd. It's the bar, not law review. If you aim for perfect, it may lead you into troubled waters with more time wasted on unnecessary editing.)
The second time I took the bar, I had a real problem with writing without using the word "because" in the right way. Example:
[EXAMPLE OF WHAT **NOT** TO DO:]
THEFT
Theft is the taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive.
Here, Ned was in Charlie’s place and took a box from inside, so he took someone else’s personal property. He intended to permanently deprive, likely, because he brought his own briefcase and placed the box inside with a lock on the briefcase. Afterwards, Ned carried it outside of the apartment.
Therefore, Ned committed theft.
I mean, that is just AWFUL! I wasn't doing a good job at tightly discussing the facts relative to the corresponding element. Hell, sometimes I left the element out completely! I think I figured that, as long as I caught the fact that addressed the element, it would be ok. Well, I was wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I was just sort of going in order of the elements listed in my rule statement. This is bad. It shows the examiners that you don't really see what is important. In theft/larceny, the big issue is whether you can clearly demonstrate INTENT to permanently deprive. This will require a discussion... meaning, more than one sentence. What I probably should have written (without looking back at the fact pattern) is the following:
LARCENY
Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive. In most jurisdictions, larceny is considered a felony, but some jurisdictions consider it only a misdemeanor. [NOTE! I don't even know if this is true, but chances are, there is at least one piddly jurisdiction out there that punishes larceny as a misdemeanor. If you think that there MIGHT be a jurisdictional issue, but if you can't remember what specific type of jurisdiction holds which way, I suggest that you write something like, "some jurisdictions ________, whereas other jurisdictions ________."]
Here, Ned committed a larceny because he intended to permanently deprive Charlie of his box (personal property) when he placed the box inside of his own briefcase and headed toward the door to leave. Also, Ned likely intended to do so at the time of entering Charlie's home because he had brought his own briefcase, which was probably intended for putting the box in; this demonstrates aforethought to take Charlie's box away from his home. Ned probably intended to permanently deprive Charlie of the box because he believed that it contained something valuable that Ned wanted for himself, as he told Judy. This taking was trespassory because Charlie did not give him permission to take the box. Once Ned left, he had completed the crime because exiting was a carrying away of the box.
Therefore, Ned has committed larceny and should be found guilty. In most jurisdictions, he will have committed a felony.
Do you see the difference? Do you see the "because" in each and every sentence of the application section as it ties an element to the key fact or set of facts? "Since" and "when" are also used to link the elements to the facts when I have already used "because" in the same sentence.
Also notice that the first few words in the application basically conclude as to which way the ISSUE concludes and links that to the dispositive element along with the key fact. This, I think, is probably the most important part of my entire diatribe here.
Is the example above grammatically perfect? No.
I was just sort of going in order of the elements listed in my rule statement. This is bad. It shows the examiners that you don't really see what is important. In theft/larceny, the big issue is whether you can clearly demonstrate INTENT to permanently deprive. This will require a discussion... meaning, more than one sentence. What I probably should have written (without looking back at the fact pattern) is the following:
LARCENY
Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive. In most jurisdictions, larceny is considered a felony, but some jurisdictions consider it only a misdemeanor. [NOTE! I don't even know if this is true, but chances are, there is at least one piddly jurisdiction out there that punishes larceny as a misdemeanor. If you think that there MIGHT be a jurisdictional issue, but if you can't remember what specific type of jurisdiction holds which way, I suggest that you write something like, "some jurisdictions ________, whereas other jurisdictions ________."]
Here, Ned committed a larceny because he intended to permanently deprive Charlie of his box (personal property) when he placed the box inside of his own briefcase and headed toward the door to leave. Also, Ned likely intended to do so at the time of entering Charlie's home because he had brought his own briefcase, which was probably intended for putting the box in; this demonstrates aforethought to take Charlie's box away from his home. Ned probably intended to permanently deprive Charlie of the box because he believed that it contained something valuable that Ned wanted for himself, as he told Judy. This taking was trespassory because Charlie did not give him permission to take the box. Once Ned left, he had completed the crime because exiting was a carrying away of the box.
Therefore, Ned has committed larceny and should be found guilty. In most jurisdictions, he will have committed a felony.
Do you see the difference? Do you see the "because" in each and every sentence of the application section as it ties an element to the key fact or set of facts? "Since" and "when" are also used to link the elements to the facts when I have already used "because" in the same sentence.
Also notice that the first few words in the application basically conclude as to which way the ISSUE concludes and links that to the dispositive element along with the key fact. This, I think, is probably the most important part of my entire diatribe here.
Is the example above grammatically perfect? No.
Did I end a sentence using a preposition? Yes.
Do I write like this practice? No.
But this is the bar, people, and you need to get through it in top speed, so get your heads out of the black hole of perfection.
Oddly enough, I don't think I wrote that badly on my law school exams. I think that I thought that the bar was so very different and that the approach was a mystical thing to try and figure out. To an extent, this is true. However, it is also true that my "theft" example from above would be horrendous for any law school exam, let alone the bar! I also think that examples from *some* courses do not spell this out explicitly. The instructors do not say, "Hey! Here's what to do." or "Hey! Don't do that!" Maybe it's because they assume that you should know better from law school. This may be true. However, for the bar, I was so nervous and literally wiped my "learning-how-to-do-legal-writing" slate clean.
This, of course, was a grave mistake. In the end, I re-learned what I wiped clean. And this is how I passed.
SUMMARY:
1) Get help with the baby so that you can focus as much of your time as humanly possible on the bar.
2) Better to spot all of the in-your-face main issues (and possible defenses) and to take the time to really discuss those thoroughly and properly than to spot every feasible issue out there with mere superficial discussion. [Ignore people who talk about how brilliant they are that they found some minor, ridiculous issue. I promise, it's worth 0 points. This is especially so if that person failed to fully discuss the big stuff.]
3) Attempt to make your rules at least a tiny bit more sophisticated than a list of elements.
4) Write the application section the way I discussed above. Use "because," "since," and "when." Begin your application by concluding on the issue and linking that to the dispositive element with the key facts.
5) Don't forget to actually conclude on every issue.
6) Bonus tip: I never underlined anything on my passing bar exam. That nonsense just took up too much of my time. Instead, if I felt like something was super important, I would use all caps. This saves on time and potential frustration.
I cannot imagine how long this response is going to look once I post this. Regardless, I really do hope this helps you or someone else out there.
:D,
Jessie
Oddly enough, I don't think I wrote that badly on my law school exams. I think that I thought that the bar was so very different and that the approach was a mystical thing to try and figure out. To an extent, this is true. However, it is also true that my "theft" example from above would be horrendous for any law school exam, let alone the bar! I also think that examples from *some* courses do not spell this out explicitly. The instructors do not say, "Hey! Here's what to do." or "Hey! Don't do that!" Maybe it's because they assume that you should know better from law school. This may be true. However, for the bar, I was so nervous and literally wiped my "learning-how-to-do-legal-writing" slate clean.
This, of course, was a grave mistake. In the end, I re-learned what I wiped clean. And this is how I passed.
SUMMARY:
1) Get help with the baby so that you can focus as much of your time as humanly possible on the bar.
2) Better to spot all of the in-your-face main issues (and possible defenses) and to take the time to really discuss those thoroughly and properly than to spot every feasible issue out there with mere superficial discussion. [Ignore people who talk about how brilliant they are that they found some minor, ridiculous issue. I promise, it's worth 0 points. This is especially so if that person failed to fully discuss the big stuff.]
3) Attempt to make your rules at least a tiny bit more sophisticated than a list of elements.
4) Write the application section the way I discussed above. Use "because," "since," and "when." Begin your application by concluding on the issue and linking that to the dispositive element with the key facts.
5) Don't forget to actually conclude on every issue.
6) Bonus tip: I never underlined anything on my passing bar exam. That nonsense just took up too much of my time. Instead, if I felt like something was super important, I would use all caps. This saves on time and potential frustration.
I cannot imagine how long this response is going to look once I post this. Regardless, I really do hope this helps you or someone else out there.
:D,
Jessie
Jessie:
ReplyDeleteYou rock! You are more than kind and a million thank you's for taking the time to write such a detailed response. After all of this, you might consider writing a book on how to pass the bar exam.
As far as the "never-ending fires" you need to put out, is the practice of law everything you hoped and dreamed it would be?
Thanks again!
Brandon
You're welcome, Brandon. :)
DeleteAnd, yes, I knew that I would be really busy as an attorney, but holy hell! Things have just been super crazy lately. Once CA gets out of its budget crisis, I will seek a job with the government as a state prosecutor (with way better hours). I dream about this at least once a day. :)
My dream is to prosecute sex traffickers. High burn-out, but worth it.
Hi Jessie:
ReplyDeleteI watched your previous video posts about the exam and found them to be so helpful on so many levels. I have put into practice many of your recommendations and feel much better prepared for the Feb. exam. I just took a chance that you might have made an additional post and imagine my surprise to find the above information, which again has just made things so clear.
Your approach just clicks with my learning style, and as someone who has spent way to much money and time listening to "talking bar course heads" it is so refreshing to find someone who "speaks my language". Thank you for sharing all of this. I look forward to coming back to your blog in May with good news! in the meantime good luck with your job and I agree with the above poster - you could really write a book!
M~
Well, I can't tell you how much it means to me to receive such lovely feedback. :) As you might notice, I don't monetize my blog at all. This is because I truly believe in helping those as best as I can if they put forth the effort to find my blog. I only hope that this really helps people. I suppose we'll see in May and in years to come.
DeleteNote: I posted what I did above because someone specifically requested it in the comments of my last blog. So, if you have any thoughts, questions, or issues that you would like me to either respond to or blog about, please just let me know. :)
I wish you (and all other bar-takers, of course) the best of luck!
- jessie
Hi Jessie,
ReplyDeleteI found out that I failed the bar exam yesterday. I was devastated because it was my fourth time taking the bar exam. I really thought that I had gotten it this time because I actually took a test prep after three attempts using self-studying didn't really work out.
My problem area, according to the California Bar graders, are my essays. I don't mean to sound snarky; it's just that I'm sincerely frustrated. According to my test prep company my weakness is in my analysis. I've always thought that analysis is not too difficult when you have a good amount of time and you have the rule perfectly memorized. Or, in my case, if you have the rule memorized, time isn't really a problem. But, what happens when this is not the case? For example, what if you encounter a question that deals with an hearsay exception like the former testimony exception. Let's say, the only thing you can remember is that a former testimony exception may be hearsay when in reality, the exception has so many elements and differs in civil and criminal cases and may have a very fine CA distinction (which I'm not even sure about). I've heard that the best thing to do at that point is to just BS and apply the BS rule in a logical and lawyer-like manner. I don't know... How would you deal with that?
-Man Onymous
Sometimes, in that circumstance where I have a mental block about a rule, I look at the facts in order to sort of fashion a rule. What I mean is, sometimes, you can see by the fact pattern that there is a "rub" in the law. For instance, if the facts indicate that the former testimony taken was actually in another case (but perhaps it was related to this current case), you can see the possibility of a legal problem. When something like this happens, I can tell by the facts that the bar examiners have tried to design a fact pattern where there is a "rub" in the law, meaning that the outcome could go either way depending upon the jurisdiction or upon other factors.
DeleteWhen this is happening, yes, I tend to attempt to create a rule. But I don't just totally "BS" it; rather, I think about the facts before I create the rule. I also try to be a little vague, and I try to think about what a reasonable legislature would require. In the above example, I might write something like this for the rule (after writing out the rule and analysis for hearsay itself): "Former testimony is an exception to hearsay. Usually, this applies when testimony has been taken in the same case or in a closely related case, depending upon the jurisdiction. The witness must be available in order to apply this hearsay exception because the witness must have the ability to explain himself/herself. Finally, this exception can be used to impeach the witness, and in most jurisdictions, this is even true for extrinsic issues."
Do I know whether any of that is true? Hell no. However, I'm using my instinct. Plus, it just kind of makes sense that the witness who gave the former testimony would have to be available, but I honestly can't remember. The thing is, though, availability itself is an issue, and I'm guessing that the bar examiners would at least be happy to know that you even thought of availability. (Extrinsic evidence is also a big deal in evidence questions.)
Then, I would apply in the way that I described in the main body of this blog. I hope this helps!
Just know, though, forgetting a rule or two is not going to kill you on the bar. What will is if you don't know a lot of them. Also, the application section is very key (please see above). In real life, if you forget a rule, you can look it up; the examiners know this. But, regardless, if you can sort of "step back" to think about what a rule would reasonably require (especially given the facts that they are spoon-feeding to the examinees), you should be able to construct a "lawyerly" rule.
I know that the California Bar Exam is extremely frustrating, but I have confidence that if I could do it, anybody can. Best of luck to you!
HI Jessie!
ReplyDeleteWatching your videos made me feel like I found a kindred spirit. I am prepping for my third attempt at the bar exam, found the resources you did for this third attempt, started on Celexa just recently, and am forced to work because its so darn expensive to this three times in a row.
I fortunately am not working full time. I'm only working 20-30 hrs a week. I was just wondering if you could give a bit more detail as to whether you had a set routine of a certain number of MBEs or essays each day. I honestly am struggling with the guilt of not being able to do everything given my time constraints. The only thing I liked about Barbri was the schedule. I felt accomplished if I stayed on task. Now, working automatically makes me feel like I'm behind.
Thanks in advance!
-Monique
Hello, Monique. I don't recall precisely what my schedule was; all I know is that I made my own schedule (and re-made it a few times throughout the bar-prep period). Once I had the PTs down, I never touched those again until the day of the bar. I tried to get MBEs in whenever I could, but I did not do a certain amount each day. I just did the best that I could. If I started to feel anxious about not doing enough MBEs, I would focus only on those the entire following day. When I inevitably fell way behind, it would start to make me feel anxious, at which point I just stopped and re-worked my study calendar. This always made me feel better, and I feel like it really helped me get through everything.
ReplyDeleteGood luck! :D
This is great information post , I really like it .These are very informative tips ..
ReplyDeleteRichard Mooney Attorney
The information you provide in this posting and your 3 videos is more valuable than 99% of the other information available on the net. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteYou are very welcome. Thank you for your feedback!
DeleteJessie
ReplyDeleteIt may be a while before you read this but thank you for contributing to the loan wolves who read blogs at 3:30 am after bar results. I got my scores today, and they were spot on with my predictions. It's like I knew when my nerves got the best of me Thursday I was doomed and I guessed precisely what each essay deserved. Tuesday I was confident on my essays, and thankfully cheat sheets came to the rescue for the RP essays. My PTs well I knew they confused the crap out of me. I'm a paralegal, I use practice guides and templates and westlaw. So somehow getting a motion or P&As on law I know in a crunch is doable. PTs put me in a real panic and were just terrible. Finally, who knows what happened misbubble? I was getting 75% in Adaptibar overall, and I felt the MBEs were so close to Adaptibar that I left early. Today my scores for the MBEs were embarrassing low, like 59% bad. I don't know what happened there. I did all four OPEs got, 90, 85, 84 and 77. So I scratch my head in disbelief. I have most of the items you suggest...but I seeing if I can see a doctor for my anxiety attacks. I had a bad one Wednesday in th hotel and I had to count sheep to try to sleep. It carried over during the day and boy it caused 3 months of studying down the drain. Yikes. Thanks again for great suggestions. CD
You're very welcome. I'm sorry that you have to go through taking the bar again, but I really hope that you are able to find some help with your anxiety. Also, please check out my other post on how I passed the California Bar Exam. That post contains 3 videos in which I fully explain everything that I did to pass this beast of an exam. I wish you all of the best!
Delete