Author: scrivener5 [814] 
 |
| 14 Dec 2009 01:27 PM |
|
Hi FRIENDS,
I am HAPPY to announce that I am officially a FIRST TIMER!
Thanks for all your prayers and support!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: FCPolak [21237]
|
| 11 Dec 2009 10:45 AM |
|
Another matter for CA BAR.
Ill be taking it in july, Im from argentina, Attorney, etc... but take into account something about CA.
Not only there are lots on unaccredited Law schools as some posters said... also.. ANYONE WITHOUTH ANY LEGAL BACKGROUND can take de CA BAR, remember that. i think thats a pretty big issue when u come to putting passing numbers on a chart...
Im an attorney in a country that doesn't use Common Law, but French Coded Law, and im as elegible to take it as someone from England or even the US... So, yes, the exam is hardest for us, but not because CA is harder, just because the requisits are much less.... |
|
|
|
|
Author: scrivener5 [814]
|
| 11 Dec 2009 07:56 AM |
|
Well, today is D-Day. Results of the October 27, 2009 FYLSE California Baby Bar exam administration are being mailed to candidates, today.
Best of outcomes to all who braved this challenge, which has been described by "experts" as the most difficult bar exam in the country.
Have a toast. Relax. Listen to some soothing music. Be confident. And, congratulations...in advance! |
|
|
|
|
Author: scrivener5 [814]
|
|
Author: Jeff [21237]
|
| 29 Nov 2009 10:21 AM |
|
| I wish now that I would have had to take the baby bar so that I could have had that experience of preparing and taking the bar exam under my belt before I got to the real bar exam. I think that would have made the difference for me. I support a baby bar for ALL law students in CA. |
|
|
|
|
Author: Jeff [21237]
|
| 29 Nov 2009 10:17 AM |
|
2nd Timer,
To answer your three questions:
1. I took Feb '09 and did similar to my first bar attempt in July '08, but got a lower scaled score since February scaling formula always(?) seems lower than July bar exams. Same raw points, about 35 or 50(?) fewer scaled points. MBE's were up, essays were down. Using July 08's formula, I got the same exact scaled score. Hmmm. I was depressed by failing my first bar when my study buddy passed. Was newly diagnosed ADHD and had a HORRIBLE time trying to study on my own without the discipline of my study partner. Awful experience.
2. I thought about asking for a rescore, but my understanding is that you have to request that before your next bar exam and it's only available for the MBE's. I failed my first bar by 3 MBE questions (141 raw, 147 scaled) and those 11 points would have made up for my 7.5 points needed to pass. It was too late by the time I found out you could request a hand count of your MBE's. I wonder now if the scantron could make a difference of three questions, but it's moot now that I passed.
3. My application number was in the 1,000's on my first bar, much higher on the second (because you reregister after the first deadline for first timers), and almost 8,000 on my third bar. I'm convinced it's purely on the basis of when you register.
You can do this if you work really hard, do many,many practice essays (at least one a day) and PT's (at least one a week) under timed conditions. After 2-3 months, the bar exam is just another day of practice and you'll be much more confident, which seems to create an entirely different result, by the way.
Don't let the holidays distract you. I said to myself that they wouldn't, but they did and I don't even have family or significant other. You MUST keep your focus even during the holidays. Good luck!
Jeff |
|
|
|
|
Author: scrivener5 [814]
|
| 29 Nov 2009 05:14 AM |
|
There is an old saying: "A man whose only tool is a hammer views the world in terms of nails."
I mention that aphorism because, having just taken the October 2009 Baby Bar exam, I view exams in terms of the FYLSE. There are "experts" who maintain that the Baby Bar is the hardest bar exam in the country:
http://www.lawschoolsecretstosucces..._Exam.html
The California Baby Bay Exam (FYLSE) is the hardest law school bar exam in the country. This it true for two reasons, the first is that it appears clear to us that they really don’t want you to pass the exam and they are afraid to give the exam to ABA students. In fact, if the unaccredited law schools in California ever got their act together they would lobby the state legislature and require the Baby Bar Exam (FYLSE) for all law students. Making that the rule of law would shorten the big bar exam, and allow the state to collect more money. But it would sure send shivers down the spines of all those ABA and state accredited schools at the thought of losing most of their first year law students because they can’t pass the Baby Bar Exam. |
|
|
|
|
Author: scrivener5 [21237]
|
| 25 Nov 2009 07:45 PM |
|
Just to remind you all...some of us are still waiting for our results from the FYLSE. Of course, we are glued on news relating to the FULL bar exam. However, we have our own burden to tote.
Thanks for your prayers!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: anon [21237]
|
| 25 Nov 2009 07:18 PM |
|
Posted By Anonymous Miss on 25 Nov 2009 04:48 PM
Anon, it was late at night and "by myself" was a typo. I meant to type "like myself". Give me a freaking break.
For the record I was a first time bar taker in July 09 and MBE's were my weakness but I still passed. Bitter much?
thanks for clarifying! however what is "bitter much?"
and congrads on passing! |
|
|
|
|
Author: Anonymous Miss [4]
|
| 25 Nov 2009 04:48 PM |
|
Anon, it was late at night and "by myself" was a typo. I meant to type "like myself". Give me a freaking break.
For the record I was a first time bar taker in July 09 and MBE's were my weakness but I still passed. Bitter much?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: anon [21237]
|
| 25 Nov 2009 02:53 PM |
|
Posted By Anonymous Miss on 25 Nov 2009 03:16 AM
I have to politely disagree with you, Anon. I sat for the July 09 administration and had a 3-digit exam number. On the 3rd day of testing, I discovered the guy to my left was taking it for the 3rd or 4th time. The girl to my right was a first-timer by myself. Since you're seated according to exam numbers, both my neighbors had 3-digit numbers as well. Exam numbers are determined by when you sign up to take the test (I registered on the first day).
from your post, i could not gather if you were a repeater or a first timer? which one were you? And what does it mean "the girl to my right was a first-timer by myself?"
if this is how you wrote your essays, i must tell your MBE's must have been really high!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Anonymous Miss [4]
|
| 25 Nov 2009 03:34 AM |
|
I disagree. MBE's are not a better indicator of minimum competency because lawyers don't win cases or draft documents by filling out multiple choice answer sheets. Yes MBE's are indicative of how well one memorizes and applies the law, but that's only part of the picture. You need the essays and PT's to test the whole gamut of skills competent lawyers should possess.
From my personal experience, many people I met through Barbri or while at testing center should never have signed up for the test. One woman I bumped into waiting in line at the restroom said she spent all her time outlining. Why outline when Barbri's done that for you already? She never did any practice tests and saw July 09 as a "practice run" to get a feel for the real thing. And she admitted she wasn't in a hurry to pass. She went to an unaccredited law school.
This woman in my Barbri class also did not understand basic principles of American Government/Con law. She also attended an unaccredited law school.
I realize these are anecdotes, but they're also a sampling of the characters you'll meet at a CA Bar testing center, which sorta explains the OVERALL low pass rate of 56.4%. ABA law schools passed at 79%. It's the unaccredited schools that give false hope to its graduates and artificially bring down CA's pass rate.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Anonymous Miss [4]
|
| 25 Nov 2009 03:16 AM |
|
I have to politely disagree with you, Anon. I sat for the July 09 administration and had a 3-digit exam number. On the 3rd day of testing, I discovered the guy to my left was taking it for the 3rd or 4th time. The girl to my right was a first-timer by myself. Since you're seated according to exam numbers, both my neighbors had 3-digit numbers as well. Exam numbers are determined by when you sign up to take the test (I registered on the first day).
|
|
|
|
|
Author: anon [21237]
|
| 25 Nov 2009 02:21 AM |
|
Posted By bunnyclaw on 24 Nov 2009 10:24 PM
Are repeaters easily identified by their exam numbers?
This time I was in the 4000's -- will I be a much higher number next time?
I just can't believe that the graders know the difference in 1st time takers and repeaters. If that is true - then this system is royally F***'ed.
wake up and smell the coffee! YES they do! the system asks you when you register IF you are a repeater. YOU CANNOT lie, your application b/c 1) that is unethical and 2) you submit your application under the penalty of perjury.
registration deadline has already closed UNLESS you are a repeater then you will have until dec 9th. Obviously, you number going to be wayyyyyyyyyyyyy higher than all.
they system is mess up. When you go to take your bar as a repeater, you will see that all the people NEXT to you are repeaters.
I am so sorry for telling you this, i personally refused to believe this when I was a 2nd timer, in july 09 but then when I went to the room I asked people sitting around me, ALL were repeaters. EXCEPT a few who registered late.
I did not know that I could only get one shot at this. I was feeling ill in feb (my first time) then I was butchered in july 09. so unfair. there is no appeal. you cannot even see the portion of the page where the grader writes your grade to check that the clerk inputed the numbers right b/c they will send you your essays w/ that portion torn.
so basically, if the clerk inputed 45 instead of 55, your total will be less than 1440 and there is no way to verify that. you will NEVER see what the grader gave you. all you get is that sheet which you should have gotten by now. then in 4 weeks you get your essay, no comments, no grade, just like you turned them in.
something needs to be done about this process!
this must be discouraging, but really its the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: bunnyclawP [51]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 10:24 PM |
|
Are repeaters easily identified by their exam numbers?
This time I was in the 4000's -- will I be a much higher number next time?
I just can't believe that the graders know the difference in 1st time takers and repeaters. If that is true - then this system is royally F***'ed.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Chicaca [21237]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 05:56 PM |
|
Passed Illinois Bar exam back in 2006, just recently passed CA bar. It's the toughest because of the scaling. CA is very restrictive in allowing applicants to pass, normally due to market control.
Substantive-wise, pretty much the same except the CA essays are much more longer. And at least in this case I felt the CA essays were a bit more convoluted and filled with more issues; which would explain how many can steer off course (not necessarily wrong).
And the three days of exam was (again, to me) much more exhaustive. Not sure if it's the toughest in the nation, but I felt it was tougher than the Illinois bar exam.
Again, bar exams in generally I'm sure are tough throughout. just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: cal bar taker [21237]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 05:29 PM |
|
Posted By bunnyclaw on 24 Nov 2009 11:06 AM
No second read for me. My MBE was way low. I'd have passed on essays alone.
you should know when you go in as a repeater, they will crusify you. all my essay scores went down from 1st time even though I studied 3x as hard and did 4x better than my first time.
don't waste your money! don't lie to yourself thinking you will study hard. I reviewed the materials more than 4 times I know every single law there is. how could I possibly have gotten 50s in my second time and 70s on my first when I did not know what I was writing on my first time. AS soon as you are labeled repeater, your chances are LESS than 30%.
I sound negative, but believe me it is the truth. You will be in so much pain when you fail your 2nd time knowing that you did so well.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: bunnyclawP [51]
|
| 24 Nov 2009 11:06 AM |
|
No second read for me. My MBE was way low. I'd have passed on essays alone.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: cal bar taker [21237]
|
| 23 Nov 2009 10:20 PM |
|
Posted By bunnyclaw on 23 Nov 2009 09:43 PM
This was my first shot at the bar. I doubt I'm going to be able to take Feb - just won't be able to afford it...
did they read your essays a second time?
P.S. i'm not taking feb either! this is a joke! |
|
|
|
|
Author: bunnyclawP [51]
|
| 23 Nov 2009 09:43 PM |
|
This was my first shot at the bar. I doubt I'm going to be able to take Feb - just won't be able to afford it...
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Scrivener5 [21237]
|
| 23 Nov 2009 08:27 PM |
|
Please, don't kill yourself. Remember that we are not physical beings who have spiritual experience. We are SPIRITUAL beings having a physical experience.
Control your spirit. Other spirits NEED you. You have wondrous work to do for yourself and for others.
(Just sayin') |
|
|
|
|
Author: cal bar taker [21237]
|
| 23 Nov 2009 08:19 PM |
|
Posted By bunnyclaw on 23 Nov 2009 06:52 PM
Holy crap! I got a raw 101 on my MBE. I averaged 60 on my essays...
I know right! w/ 146.2 and fail. I am about to kill myself.
I'm assuming you did not take feb 09? did you?
I guess, MBE's you could always improve but essays, they are so subjective. I took feb 09 and I got 620 total on my essays but now they went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down to 596. AND i know for a fact that I did MUCH MUCH better than feb 09. this tells you how arbitrary the grading is.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: bunnyclawP [51]
|
| 23 Nov 2009 06:52 PM |
|
Holy crap! I got a raw 101 on my MBE. I averaged 60 on my essays...
|
|
|
|
|
Author: cal bar taker [21237]
|
| 23 Nov 2009 06:49 PM |
|
Posted By bunnyclaw on 23 Nov 2009 05:25 PM
What does a low application number mean? Mine was below 6000 and I didn't pass. :(
what was your MBE score?
I failed w/ 146.2 ... crap! |
|
|
|
|
Author: bunnyclawP [51]
|
| 23 Nov 2009 05:25 PM |
|
What does a low application number mean? Mine was below 6000 and I didn't pass. :(
|
|
|
|
|
Author: 2nd timer [21237]
|
| 22 Nov 2009 10:20 PM |
|
Posted By on 22 Nov 2009 01:33 AM
Wow, you guys are amazing! ;-)
Some good arguments in both camps, of course. But comparing out-of-state practicing attorney pass rates in each state sounds the most objective test to me. Obviously, some of the arguments above were flawed as they compared attorneys to ABA students, etc. Gotta keep it apples and apples.
I'm a CalBar student that wouldn't have been admitted to an ABA school. I didn't study for the LSAT mostly out of ignorance of the process. There was a law school close by me, I applied, I got accepted. Nobody told me that this law school was not ABA, what that even meant, or that the average pass rate was only 25% for first-time takers, and only in the teens for repeaters.
Well, I'm a success story now since I'm a repeater that passed in July. This old fart couldn't have even raised an eyebrow from an ABA school, but I conquered the CA bar exam with the hardest and most determined 18 months of my life studying and taking the bar three times before I finally got it in my blood.
First-time passers will NEVER understand what it's like to fail, get depressed, finally pick yourself back up off the floor, and start all over again... for the third bar attempt, no less. My whole outlook changed when last year on Nov. 21st, I learned that I failed by 1/3 of 1%... a 1,432 out of 2,000 when I needed only 7.5 more points, or ONE better score of 5 points on any ONE essay or PT to pass.
So when you think that the dumbshits from the CalBar schools can't do what you do, just realize that it might take this old fart with ADHD, a reading disability and a writing disability a little longer to get it all down pat, I can still keep up with the ABA boys in the end.
Whether I ever practice a day of law in my life or not, I have the pride that I worked my entire being to the bone and finally conquered my albatross. Now THAT's worth its weight in gold.
Maybe I'll come sit for the Texas bar someday and then I can opine as to the relative difference between it and CA. Until then, I'll just take my friend's word for it that most everybody passed, "of course." My hat's off to anyone that can face failure time after time and not quit... because it's the eventual pass that matters, not the easy pass the first time that makes a lawyer a really good one that can empathize with his client that faced his own dragon and lost, and now seeks your help to fix it.
Maybe there's something to being a repeater that eventually passes that the first-timers just don't quit get.
Have a good Thanksgiving. I have so much to be thankful for now that my dream of 5 years has finally come to pass. I hope you can be thankful that yours came so easily.
Jeff,
Congrads on passing! you should really be proud. You expressed yourself beautifully.
I failed feb 09 and now I failed july 09. I graduated from an ABA approved law school and now this. Repeaters have a very low passage rate here in Ca.
I have a few questions for you:
1. did you sit out feb 09?
2. when your score so close to passing in july 08, did you demand an hand scoring of your MBE?
I am betting that I'm so close to passing but have not recieved the score sheet yet.
3. IN july 09, was your application number below 6600 or so?
Thank you in advance for your inputs.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: feb NY taker [21237]
|
| 22 Nov 2009 10:12 PM |
|
Posted By on 22 Nov 2009 07:13 PM
congrats to everyone who passed - I unbelievably managed to pass even though I only studied nights/weekends (was clerking full time up until the last week of the exam). It is absolutely a difficult test, and considering I failed NY the first time I took (two months after graduating from a top law school), it almost feels like CA was easier to pass, since I studied MUCH less for this exam. However, I'm pretty sure all the knowledge I've gained in the past three years since I graduated, through clerking and working at a law firm, contributed greatly to my success. I know for a fact that I bombed one of the essay questions (the one about CA evidence) and basically made things up, and I was sure i missed quite a few issues on the other questions. I suspect my PT scores brought my score up, since I had been writing memos and motions for the past 3 years and had a good sense of how to organize/approach them (i didn't do a single PT before the exam). I did not feel so hot about the MBE - but somehow everything turned out okay. I guess I'll never know how/why but I am very grateful. Good luck to repeaters - as a repeater myself, I know how hard it can be, but I passed NY easily on my second try with focus and determination, and I know everyone here can do the same for CA.
Congrads on passing!
Ok, so you passed CA your 1st time?
why do you think you failed NY? essays, MPT, or NY MC?
I failed CA my 2nd time. I'm taking NY in feb. Any advice on NY? thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Author: calichick [21237]
|
| 22 Nov 2009 07:13 PM |
|
| congrats to everyone who passed - I unbelievably managed to pass even though I only studied nights/weekends (was clerking full time up until the last week of the exam). It is absolutely a difficult test, and considering I failed NY the first time I took (two months after graduating from a top law school), it almost feels like CA was easier to pass, since I studied MUCH less for this exam. However, I'm pretty sure all the knowledge I've gained in the past three years since I graduated, through clerking and working at a law firm, contributed greatly to my success. I know for a fact that I bombed one of the essay questions (the one about CA evidence) and basically made things up, and I was sure i missed quite a few issues on the other questions. I suspect my PT scores brought my score up, since I had been writing memos and motions for the past 3 years and had a good sense of how to organize/approach them (i didn't do a single PT before the exam). I did not feel so hot about the MBE - but somehow everything turned out okay. I guess I'll never know how/why but I am very grateful. Good luck to repeaters - as a repeater myself, I know how hard it can be, but I passed NY easily on my second try with focus and determination, and I know everyone here can do the same for CA. |
|
|
|
|
Author: ilawyer [21237]
|
| 22 Nov 2009 02:35 AM |
|
Thank you, you made my day with your theory!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: i [21237]
|
| 22 Nov 2009 02:33 AM |
|
| Congrats, Jeff!! |
|
|
|
|
Author: ding ding ding [21237]
|
| 22 Nov 2009 02:14 AM |
|
A perfect example of the above argument re CABAR students.
As touching as it was, not sure why you posted your story in this thread. You are living proof that the CABAR students kill your state's pass rate. Nobody in this thread has suggested you couldn't pass, just that you and your kind tend to fail a lot more than the ABA, and thus kill your state's average.
and LOL at "nobody told me that this law school was not ABA" I don't know about you, but when I invest thousands of dollars in something, I tend to try to learn the details of my investment before I sign on the dotted line. |
|
|
|
|
Author: Jeff [21237]
|
| 22 Nov 2009 01:33 AM |
|
Wow, you guys are amazing! ;-)
Some good arguments in both camps, of course. But comparing out-of-state practicing attorney pass rates in each state sounds the most objective test to me. Obviously, some of the arguments above were flawed as they compared attorneys to ABA students, etc. Gotta keep it apples and apples.
I'm a CalBar student that wouldn't have been admitted to an ABA school. I didn't study for the LSAT mostly out of ignorance of the process. There was a law school close by me, I applied, I got accepted. Nobody told me that this law school was not ABA, what that even meant, or that the average pass rate was only 25% for first-time takers, and only in the teens for repeaters.
Well, I'm a success story now since I'm a repeater that passed in July. This old fart couldn't have even raised an eyebrow from an ABA school, but I conquered the CA bar exam with the hardest and most determined 18 months of my life studying and taking the bar three times before I finally got it in my blood.
First-time passers will NEVER understand what it's like to fail, get depressed, finally pick yourself back up off the floor, and start all over again... for the third bar attempt, no less. My whole outlook changed when last year on Nov. 21st, I learned that I failed by 1/3 of 1%... a 1,432 out of 2,000 when I needed only 7.5 more points, or ONE better score of 5 points on any ONE essay or PT to pass.
So when you think that the dumbshits from the CalBar schools can't do what you do, just realize that it might take this old fart with ADHD, a reading disability and a writing disability a little longer to get it all down pat, I can still keep up with the ABA boys in the end.
Whether I ever practice a day of law in my life or not, I have the pride that I worked my entire being to the bone and finally conquered my albatross. Now THAT's worth its weight in gold.
Maybe I'll come sit for the Texas bar someday and then I can opine as to the relative difference between it and CA. Until then, I'll just take my friend's word for it that most everybody passed, "of course." My hat's off to anyone that can face failure time after time and not quit... because it's the eventual pass that matters, not the easy pass the first time that makes a lawyer a really good one that can empathize with his client that faced his own dragon and lost, and now seeks your help to fix it.
Maybe there's something to being a repeater that eventually passes that the first-timers just don't quit get.
Have a good Thanksgiving. I have so much to be thankful for now that my dream of 5 years has finally come to pass. I hope you can be thankful that yours came so easily. |
|
|
|
|
Author: havana [21237]
|
| 19 Nov 2009 11:19 PM |
|
CA is very lenient on the requirements to be eligible to take the exam compare to other states. That's drop the passing rate because there are too many takers. Nevertheless, the exam is f------ hard.
Good luck to everyone tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
Author: Chuckling [21237]
|
| 19 Nov 2009 10:36 AM |
|
| I didn't read your User handle and was thinking to myself, maybe this guy has seen stand by me one too many times. |
|
|
|
|
Author: Fat Kid from Stand By Me [21237]
|
| 19 Nov 2009 09:54 AM |
|
Hey guys,
I am a current law student in CA, and this talk about the CA being tough is scaring me. But not as scared as when I was a 12 year old boy in Oregon. Oh man, lemme tell you. I found a dead body once. Ohhhh man. Then my friends and I had leeches all around us. One of them even had leeches on his balls! Anyway, one of my friends grew up to be a lawyer. Great guy. But he got killed trying to stop a fight. Really sad. |
|
|
|
|
Author: Rick Neuheisel [21237]
|
| 19 Nov 2009 09:50 AM |
|
| BYU? Oh lord. I got mine from USC, even though I was the UCLA qb in the 80's. |
|
|
|
|
Author: Steve Young [21237]
|
| 19 Nov 2009 09:48 AM |
|
Hi guys,
I got my JD from BYU |
|
|
|
|
Author: Princeton law student [21237]
|
| 19 Nov 2009 09:47 AM |
|
Hey LSU douche,
tell you and the rest of your joke of a school brethren in the SEC to QUIT using our school's cheer. You know, the same one where YOU, Auburn, Alabama, University of Florida all use.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Big 12 RULES [21237]
|
| 19 Nov 2009 09:44 AM |
|
Listen, if a tier 4 school like the South Texas College of Law can have a pass rate of over 90 percent in Texas, then the TX bar has gotta be easy. Tier 1 schools like UCLA or Stanford stay around the 80 percent range. You can't tell me that the quality of test takers in Texas is better than CA when a tier 4 school has better pass rates than tier 1 schools!
I'm sure these Californians are just mad b/c they have things like the beach, wine country, mountains to distract them. And I'm sick and tired of these I'm just sayin!
Every Texan wants to get into a dick comparing contest with a California b/c they have a complex about why CA is better. Thats why they always have to do things "bigger".
Oh, and everyone knows that the Pac 10 region aint hard. Everyone knows the toughest bar states are in the SEC, just like dem football!
Moreover, can you California sissies please tell your god damn state to STOP it with the "Visit California" ads? Yeah we know you have the ocean, the mountains, celebs, wine country, beautiful women, the Governator, douchebag Beckham, and ROB LOWE...yeah, we get it! You don't gotta rub it in our faces.
Quit being so damn conservative and let the gays marry you non progressive state!
Sorry, both states are lame. Viva la Louisiana baby! Geaux Tigers!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: say what you want [21237]
|
| 18 Nov 2009 04:06 PM |
|
| I didn't know that performance tests could be written in religion! |
|
|
|
|
Author: pretty simple [21237]
|
| 18 Nov 2009 01:46 PM |
|
Depending on what rankings you use, I imagine UT Austin is probably in a lot of people's top 25 but that is neither here nor there.
If one does not understand the significant difference between a practicing attorney of several years sitting for a bar exam and a law student fresh out of school having an advantage over this person in terms of test taking ability, then that argument will go nowhere.
My original argument has nothing to do with Tier 1, 2, 3, 4; it has to do with ABA vs. non-ABA. We use this bar because even the weakest of the weak who get into the loweliest tier 4 school are still (generally speaking) more skilled than those who had to go to the non-aba/non accredited.
Make all the excuses you want, but CA lets a significant number of people take the bar that would not be allowed to take it anywhere else. Again, ABA v. non-ABA.
I would maybe give your argument re tier 1 etc some credence if it weren't for the fact that there is a HUGE disparity between the pass rates of ABA schools as a whole and your non-aba/UA schools. Your UA people in some examinations are passing like 10% of the time. This is killing your overall pass rate that the whiners keep referring to.
This threadargument needs to die, but I can't see how any reasonable person can argue that California is tough because of its low pass rate. Argue its tough because it's 3 days; argue its tough because there was no air conditioning when you sat; argue it's tough because the MPT is written in Hindu. But c'mon with this nonsense regarding the pass rate as a bar of difficulty. It means absoultely nothing. |
|
|
|
|
Author: Tex [21237]
|
| 18 Nov 2009 11:26 AM |
|
Are all people in Texas as defensive as you? I think the person above you was trying to look at a different population aside from the cream of the crop testers... thus no one could argue, how many tier 1 schools vs all others. Instead you look at a sizeable population of takers (Attorneys in that case) and do the math with them. Hence the control idea.
But to your argument, it seems fairly logical that if you want to start parsoning out comparisons you would actually need to look at how individual top schools do. Since Texas doesn't have any top 10 schools and only 1 top 25 it makes it hard to do the comparison you want to do. If there is a 5-10% difference on average when you do all the math (trimming the fat you speak of ... unacrediteds non-ABA etc...) then mathematically its tougher. If you have the time to do it across all states then by all means the lowest pass rate with all the tricky math included, would be the toughest. Who knows what the results would be from a weighted test would be... who cares. But you can't just on challenging the first person's post, because I think everyone agrees that those results are skewed. |
|
|
|
|
Author: its really NOT official [21237]
|
| 18 Nov 2009 10:33 AM |
|
That's the key phrase there; "Practice" in Texas; it appears there are those on this board that would rather stay unemployed. After passing the Texas bar I had multiple job offers to choose from. But go ahead; stay away from the ten gallon hats and enjoy your meals from the soup kitchen in CA (that is, assuming you can even pass, since clearly its the toughest bar in the country)
LOL at throw out tier one because it skews the results to the high end. My whole argument was predicated on throwing out the unacredited since an overwhelming majority of states won't even let people sit for their bar from non-aba.
Obviously out-of-state ABA will be lower. Why might that be????? (maybe they didn't learn CA law; just a guess). But low and behold, it appears MOST states out-of-state takers are lower. Wow what a coincidence.
The bottom line here is this:
1. Lots of people, mostly repeaters from California, get on these boards and whine/complain that "California Bar is tougher that other states; I would pass if I wasn't in California" they seek sympathy and justification.
2. These same people use California's low overall pass rate to back their argument that California has the "toughest" bar
3. However, upon closer review, if you throw out the unaccrediteds and other testing pools that allow a disproportionate amount of people to take the CA bar that WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE the bar in almost ALL other states, then the CA pass rates, over time, are AROUND 75%.
4. Consequently, CA bar isn't really that much tougher than other states (tough yes, but the unquestionable "toughest" no; NY is "tough"; FLA is "tough"; TEX is "tough"; CA does not stand alone); it just appears to be because of the skew from the UA candidates.
5. If you're from an ABA school and still firmly believe CA is toughest, then how about this? GO TAKE ANOTHER BAR. From the other camp of whiners it doesn't sound like you can get a job anyway in CA, so why not go elsewhere? |
|
|
|
|
Author: RE:????? [21237]
|
| 18 Nov 2009 09:53 AM |
|
I find it amusing that you bag on my argument for its generalization but then retort with an equally (if not more)unfounded generalization. The statistics don't lie when it comes to my argument, even over administrations, at the least we are talking a full 10% less pass rate on average for attorney takers.
When it comes to the whole ABA argument that has been presented, the in state and out of state schools still need to be averaged, not just in state takers. This would take a little bit of the wind out of that airtight argument. 5% - 8 % difference across all administrations is not just a deminimus exception, it signifies an actual difference. You would also have to look at the top 25 schools and whether or not their population is skewing the results of the remaining tier 1 schools.
I have a good eye for math so I tend to generalize, but I don't think anyone on the board has done the real math to figure this out. Until then who really cares... I passed two bars (including, first, the CA one we are all talking about), and still was scared shitless to take my second bar in a state with an 85% pass rate for all takers.
The only place this whole pissing contest gets us is to realize that no one wants to go practice in Texas with the guy with the 10 Gallon Hat! |
|
|
|
|
Author: ????? [21237]
|
| 18 Nov 2009 12:49 AM |
|
ya, it means that you're comparing 1 administration of the exam (July 08) to some generalized number that I'm sure you just pulled out of the air (80% nationwide?); this number isn't even legit.
Next time try looking at MULTIPLE administrations of the CA exam and compare it to MULTIPLE states instead of just making up some number; you'll find the numbers comparable.
Also, who says that's an accurate test group of the exams "toughness" What better test group than Graduates from ABA law schools? These students, ON AVERAGE, pass at about the same rate as takers of bars across the country.
The bottom line (and you can't argue with this; its an irrefutable fact) that the tier 4 and non-accredited takers are the ones killing the pass rate and giving CA bar takers this illusion that their bar is hard because its pass rate is so low. As the well informed poster earlier in the thread stated, in all likelihood you'd see other states' pass rates slip to low levels if you allowed non-accredited takers in the same number as CA; CA will even let people take it who never set foot inside a classroom.
Does this make the test harder? no not at all. It means that a pool of underqualified applicants are killing the pass rate. This is a fact. You can point to whatever you want, but if you throw out the unaccredited takers, the CA pass rates mirror most other states. |
|
|
|
|
Author: Response [21237]
|
| 17 Nov 2009 11:44 PM |
|
| Your not getting the point. I am using them as a control population, not comparing them to young takers. The pass rate for attorney takers in the rest of the country is around 80% plus. In California its less than 60% for the last July administration... does that not mean anything. |
|
|
|
|
Author: Attorney takers [21237]
|
| 17 Nov 2009 11:40 PM |
|
| Your argument might make some sense if we weren't talking about a pool of applicants that have been practicing law for some years and have not had to take a test or any kind for who knows how many years. To say that the bar would be easier for a licensed attorney of many years than a guy fresh out of a good law school is wrong; the law student is going to be the better test taker almost every time |
|
|
|
|
Author: Look At Attorney Passers [21237]
|
| 17 Nov 2009 11:31 PM |
|
If you want to toss out the less qualified people comment then perhaps you should look at a control. Look at the attorney pass rate in the state of California. These are people who passed elsewhere and still fail at a dramatically low rate, actually lower than anywhere else in the country. Is that just coincidence or do we perhaps think it may go to the toughness of the bar.
Regardless of what you may think about the tier 3/4, unaccredited schools throwing off the curve, you cannot argue with the statistics as they relate to Attorney takers. |
|
|
|
|
Author: try reading before you post? [21237]
|
| 17 Nov 2009 10:23 PM |
|
I can see that the root of your troubles with the bar stem from your weak reading comprehension skills. Nowhere in my post do I say that "California lets 3rd graders take the bar." To any reasonably intelligent person, the point of that part of the post was to boldly illustrate what I was talking about; that if you allow weaker people into your test-taking pool, OF COURSE YOUR PASS RATE WILL BE LOWER; but to say that this lower pass rate = a tougher bar is a logical fallacy.
Secondly, had you actually read the post, or comprehended it, you will see that I specifically addressed the issue with February having lower results, and that TYPICALLY (in big letters so you might actually see/comprehend/understand) your test takers from ABA schools pass at about the same rate as other states.
Consequently, I guess this "anger" you have suggested perhaps comes from the fact that all these California failures get on her and whine about how tough their bar is compared to other states, but in reality the California bar is what it is; a test with a low passage rate due to a significant number of underquallified applicants skewing the test pool. |
|
|
|
|
Author: cal bar taker [21237]
|
| 17 Nov 2009 08:02 PM |
|
to stat
why are so upset that we claim that our bar is the hardest in the country?
and FYI b/f you speak of stats, take a look at our feb bar passage rate from ABA approved law schools, it was only 53%!
IF cali so so easy, be our guest, come and take it. I'm sure you will qualify, b/c according to you our state bar allows 3rd graders to take it!
It's hard to believe that making the kind of arguments you made, you passed the bar. if you passed w/ this type of analysis, TX must be really easy so they must even allow 1st graders to SIT for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Stats [21237]
|
| 17 Nov 2009 03:17 PM |
|
You want to talk about stats. The above poster who suggested that the California Bar exam is far from the "hardest" has a point. If you look at the successful first-timers from ABA approved law schools (in and out of California) in most administrations of the exam the pass rate is 75%ish (obviously February is going to be lower than July; same trend that takes place across the country).
It's the students from the California law schools that are killing the numbers and creating a delusion among test takers that the California bar is so hard. Let's put about 10 correspondence schools in Texas and see how many people fail the bar each administration. My guess (and a guess that is tough to dispute) is that you'd see Texas' bar passage rate plummet too and then all the Texans could whine about how tough their bar is too.
Do the math people. If your state (California) is letting a bunch of lesser qualified people sit for this thing then of course you're going to have a horrid pass rate. Does that mean that this bar is "tougher"? possibly, but if you look at the numbers from ABA test takers, you'll see a comparable pass rate to other states.
To the poster who said "until you've sat for CA you have no idea... 3 days instead of 2.... blah blah blah" I sat for Texas; I passed; it was 3 days; the pass rate in February when I took it was under 70%; I think this July it was over 85%. Let's throw in another 1000 test takers from a mythical pool of correspondence school taking the same exam as students at schools they could not get into, and its obvious; the pass rate is going to plummet.
The moral of this small novel is simple. California is no tougher than NY, FLA, TEX, etc (might even be easier from what some of my friends who have sat for that bar have told me) just because fewer people pass it. When you have more "less qualified" individuals sitting for your bar, your pass rate will be lower; says NOTHING about difficulty of the exam.
In my mythical state of Delusion we only let 3rd graders set for our bar. It's the 10 MBE and 5 essay questions. Our pass rate is less than 1%. Must be the hardest bar in the country. |
|
|
|
|
Author: for sure [21237]
|
| 17 Nov 2009 10:39 AM |
|
| I have a friend who passed both CA and NY. He said " CA is much much harder than NY". |
|
|
|
|
Author: Anon [21237]
|
| 15 Nov 2009 01:51 PM |
|
| The CA Bar is three days. To all the jerks out there with opinions if you have not taken the CA bar than you really don't know or understand the complexity of this examination. Taking a two day exam is a cake walk compared to three days. Stats plus three days = Toughest bar exam in the nation. |
|
|
|
|
Author: Agree w/ Jeff [21237]
|
| 15 Nov 2009 12:50 AM |
|
Jeff,
don't get yourself worked out responding to an ignorants.... e.g. all those who say, difficulty does not matter, "so what", etc.
We know what we know, and that being that CA bar exam is UNFAIR! If we try to explain it to others we waste much needed energy so its best to ignore them.
I think you had a great 156 score on the MBE, you really should have passed in feb. I'm sure that you did this time around.
Best of luck to you.
I just came back from watching the movie 2012, very stressful, and I was watching starting w/ CA, NV, etc... get hit by a huge earthquake. watching tragedies like those, made me realize that we worry too much about this stupid bar that we forget important things in life. FIRST of all, we forget about praying that a huge earthquake won't hit CA, as has been predicted, b/c we will all be underwater.
people got to see this movie, it is devistating, but good movie.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jeff [21237]
|
| 14 Nov 2009 08:55 PM |
|
As a CalBar repeater, I can tell "So What" that it matters a huge amount!
I've come very, very close on the CA bar exam twice, especially my first attempt. My MBE scores were 148 and 156 respectively, so I do know the law. CA bar graders take all of two minutes (maybe!) to grade your exam while sitting on the commode, watching TV, etc. It's well established that grading varies a great deal. I've had second reads on both exams and had many that varied by 10 points and one PT that varied by 15 points. How can one grader give me a 55 and the other one a 70?!?
Anyway, it IS VERY important to repeaters to know that had they been in any other state than the hardest in the nation that they likely would have become an attorney. I totally believe it's about economic control, unemployment, law firms folding, displaced licensed lawyers, etc.
Unfortunately, I'm one of those students at a CA accredited law school instead of an ABA school, so I have to pass CA before I can take any other state's bar exam. Sucks to be me, I guess.
We'll find out next Friday night whether my third time really was the charm. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: so what [21237]
|
| 14 Nov 2009 01:26 PM |
|
| Even if it is tougher, does it make you feel any better that you failed? Complaining about the difficulty of the exam isn't going to get you anywhere. |
|
|
|
|
Author: market control [21237]
|
| 14 Nov 2009 12:50 AM |
|
| It is all about market control. The pass rate for February 09 was 32%, so 68% of the takers, according to the bar, were not up to standards to be an attorney. There are about 220,000 attorneys in CA, and each time thousands are added, while many struggle to even find a job. I would not expect July 2009 to be higher than 50% pass rate. Lastly, all bar exams are the same, it is all law. CA just lets in a lower percentage of takers by grading it hard. |
|
|
|
|
Author: intprp [21237]
|
| 13 Nov 2009 11:55 PM |
|
| Just because they have the lowest PERCENTAGE of people who pass does not mean that it is the toughest. If you look just at numbers, California still admits more lawyers than many other states. |
|
|
|
|
Author: this is called racisim [21237]
|
| 13 Nov 2009 11:43 PM |
|
your post tells us more about you that what you say about others. You are racist .. you are basically saying that minorities are dumb in CA and that is why the pass rate is low... you should be ashamed of yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: The Realist [21237]
|
| 13 Nov 2009 09:25 PM |
|
| Maybe Californians are just dumber than the rest of the U.S. I'm sure the number of racial minorities (i.e. hispanics) taking the exam is higher than in any other state...even NY. |
|
|
|
|
Author: Well -- how abou this! [21237]
|
| 13 Nov 2009 08:21 PM |
|
If you compare non-US graduated candidates passing in NY, as opposed to CA you will see that last Feb, they passed around 46%. In Ca, our overall average was 33% and that included domestic educated candidates.
So how could foreign educated candidates in other states do almost better than domestic educated candidats in Ca, 4th tier or non-aba approve does not matter? The reason why is that other states allow the MBE to to weigh about 40-50% of the score which is a lot better than ca allowing only 35%. The MBE is a better indicator than the essays b/c it is NOT subjective. All the states KNOW that the MBE is a better indicator than the essays b/c they finally multiply the essay scores to the MBE state average to scale them. Which proves the point that MBE is a better indicator of the minimum competency that the bar exam should gauge.
The truth of the matter is that the Ca bar exam is unnecessarily difficult PERIOD. It is NOT the substance of the exam that is difficult, but rather the grading of the exam -- 65% of the score is based on subjective standard which will inevitably vary from one adminstration to another.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: not exactly [21237]
|
| 13 Nov 2009 07:52 PM |
|
| Those numbers alone don't prove anything. California has a ton of unaccredited law schools. These students represent a pretty large chunk of CA bar takers and most of them fail. There are also a ton of 4th tier schools in CA. A state like Texas, for example, has ~80% pass rate, but it doesn't have any unaccredited law schools. And 1/2 the schools in Texas are tier 1 and 2 schools. So comparing the difficulty of bar exams solely on passage rate is misleading...you need to look at the quality of the examinees taking the exam too. |
|
|
|
|
Author: seabee [17]
|
| 13 Nov 2009 01:48 PM |
|
Q. If a bar has a 20% lower pass rate than other bars, will lowering the passing score requirment by 20% in that state make the pass rate even?
If CA's passing score was lowered to 1240 (from 1440), would 60% (+) pass? I know there are other variables, but it would be cool if someone could establish that those who (for example) score 1400 (+) on the CA bar would have probably passed any other bar in the US. If this is way off, is there any way to determine (roughly) what score in CA equates to a pass in all other states? I suppose you could compile stats from attorneys from other states who failed CA, and look at their CA scores. If (generally) CA attorney examinees are scoring (on average) 1400 (if taking mbe), then a 1400 in CA would constitute a pass in their state, no?. These stats could be averaged across all states.
Might help boost a CA repeaters confidence a bit to know they are competent to practice just about anywhere else based on their CA score. Maybe not. |
|
|
|
|
Author: agree [21237]
|
| 13 Nov 2009 03:24 AM |
|
Definitely CA is the hardest.
NCBE has announced that the passing score for CA is 144/200 while NY is 133/200.
It means you need only 1330 in CA to pass NY bar.
Many people reached 1330 in CA |
|
|
|
|
Author: Brian Moquin [35]
|
| 13 Nov 2009 01:51 AM |
|
Nevada: "Overall pass rates vary, however generally range between 62 - 65%."
-- State Bar of Nevada, here.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Anon [21237]
|
| 13 Nov 2009 01:34 AM |
|
| I'd like to see where Nevada falls on your list. I thought it was every bit as hard as California and the pass rates are pretty darn low. |
|
|
|
|
Author: Calbar [21237]
|
| 13 Nov 2009 01:17 AM |
|
Ten year averages of those who passed the bar exams from 1999 through 2008.
California: 48%
DELAWARE: 62%
Maryland: 66%
New Jersey: 69%
New York: 64%
Pennsylvania: 69%
National: 66% |
|
|
|
|