|
HOW
TO SCORE EXTRA POINTS ON ANY EXAM: TESTMANSHIP
By Hugh Reed
Archived Article MARCH 2006....
As
a former military pilot and Army Airborne Ranger, there’s
no better advice I can give you than thorough preparation
and practice execution for any task for which you’d like
to succeed. Pilots and Rangers prepare thoroughly and execute
with precision even under  anxiety
conditions; the opposite would be disaster. Stephen Covey,
the author of “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”
says, inter alia, “Begin With the End in Mind…”
And, so it is with taking any exam—know what is likely
to be tested and then go about reviewing those topics in a
fashion that will guarantee a high probability of success.
Vince Lombardi, the late famous Green Bay Packer football
coach was fond of saying “…you can’t hope to
accomplish on Sunday what you haven’t practiced all week…”
The same is true for success on law school exams and the bar
exam. Many know enough law to do well on their exams but fail
to execute properly because of the lack of practice and/or
proper coaching.
 Most
examinees feel some anxiety while taking exams. That is normal.
However, if you’ve prepared properly using checklists,
mnemonics, and other memory devices on what is likely to be
tested, you’ll be able to execute at your peak during
test anxiety conditions without wasting time. E.g., if you
learned to remember the Great Lakes with the acronym HOMES,
you’ll never forget them, even under stress. If you remember
the Statute of Frauds – when a contract has to be in
writing – with the mnemonic MY LEGS, you’ll know,
even under anxiety conditions that oral contracts are valid
contracts with the exception of: Marriage (in consideration
of), Year (a contract that cannot be performed within a year),
Land contract, Executor’s promise to pay the debts of
the estate from his personal funds, Goods $500 or more, and
a Surety contract. If you remember the acrostic “Frank
and Tom Are Equally Ugly under the Deep Rock” you’ll
know a corporate veil can be pierced when there is: Fraud,
Tort, Alter Ego, Undercapitalization, and the Deep Rock doctrine--when
inside creditors are subordinated to outside creditors.
While
many law school professors try to hide the ball from you in
order to force you to analyze the law, and many of the cases
you read, are in fact, bad law, decide now to make your life
easier by reviewing mnemonics, flashcards, memory devices,
etc., and, by all means, rehearse and practice what is going
to be expected of you.
Feel free
to contact our offices at 1 (800) 852-3926 or simply e-mail
me at hughreed@PassYourBar.com
for your complimentary CDs on Examsmanship, especially prepared
for first-year students, upper-class students, and those getting
ready to take the bar exam. Or, go to PassYourBarOnline.com
for complimentary MP3 and data files that will help you be
successful on your exams.
Good luck
on your exams!
Hugh
Reed is the Founder and National Director of PassYourBar.com
and PassYourBarOnline.com. Formerly he was the Director of
Multistate Testing and Editor in Chief for the largest traditional
bar review in the country and wrote and edited Gilbert Law
Summaries and Legalines. Professor Reed is a foremost expert
on exam-taking techniques. He is licensed to practice in numerous
jurisdictions by taking bar exams in order to monitor the
most recent nuances and changes on exams. He has personally
tutored and coached thousands of successful students and writes
articles on Examsmanship for law student publications.
Back
to Archives
|
|
|
Kathleen Sullivan
Article Drew Readers and Letters . . .
By Steve Liosi, Esq.
Archived
Article NMARCH 2006......
|
|
Our
Web site (www.clsj1994.com)
received 1,697 hits in just three (3) hours, when we released
last month's Publisher's Article, about Kathleen Sullivan’s
failure, on the Internet. Not since John F. Kennedy, Jr. failed
the New York bar exam did a failing candidate draw so much
interest. So much national interest. We received letters from
law students as far away as Hawaii and Maine.
Below,
you'll find just a few of these letters.
Dear Steve,
Great article! Ms. Sullivan’s boss sounds like a real
tool. His comments about the bar exam should bring disciplinary
actions.
Sincerely,
Daniel B.
Re:
Kathleen Sullivan who did not pass the California Bar Exam.
An
attorney in Kathleen Sullivan's office stated the problem
is not with Ms. Sullivan but with the bar exam graders? If
so, how many other persons, especially applicants who were
within points of passing, can claim the same?
Would
he make the same claim with another first-time taker? I don't
think so. Even case law teaches when a different justification
is given to treat persons differently who are in similar situations,
that reasoning is faulty.
In response
to the State Bar's claim that the low pass rate is to protect
the public. If so, then the California state bar should publish
the bar-exam scores for all attorneys, so clients can seek
attorneys they feel are the most astute.
“The
protection of the public” is the same thing I heard when
I was in the military, but my experience is when organizations
use that rationale, the protection is for the organization,
not the public.
Sincerely,
John N.
Dear Steve,
I
am studying for the bar exam. When I was a law student, I
read your law student journal all of time, and I wondered
how a law student could know so much about law school and
the bar exam. I just realized you’re an attorney. Guess
I missed the e-s-q after your name.
Anyway,
great article about Kathleen Sullivan. I enjoy the irreverence
of your writing style – it is a welcome change from the
stuffy language used by most law journals.
|
|
What
I appreciate the most, though, is that you are not afraid
to shatter myths about law school and the bar review process.
You were not afraid to publish articles about the bar/bri
and PMBR law suits, and that says a lot about your integrity.
(A like publication didn’t dare write about the bar/bri
law suit.)
Keep
up the good work! You’re the Ralph Nader for all of us!
Sincerely,
Sandra
K.
. . . And What About the MBE Portion
Of the California Bar Exam?
Last
month, I promised I would write about the impact your MBE
score has on your chances of passing the California bar exam.
Unlike some jurisdictions, a high MBE score in California
does not equal an automatic pass. In fact, the highest MBE
score I have actually seen was a 172 raw, and every bar exam
I see numerous raw scores in the 150s. Not a misprint. An
MBE score of 150+, and the candidate did not pass the California
bar exam!
Does this
mean the MBE should be downplayed? Of course not – but
neither should it be overplayed. Too often, I have met multiple-time
takers who do nothing but focus on the MBE in preparation
for the California bar exam. “Why?” I’ll ask.
“Because the essays aren’t even read,” the
hardcore repeater will respond, “and because a raw score
of 145 or higher is virtually an automatic pass in California.”
Well,
my experience tells me this just isn’t true. A high MBE
score will not save a candidate who does not know how to spot
issues and write analytically. “But,” the hardcore
repeater will interrupt, “you can fail the essays and
still pass the California bar exam.” “Technically,”
I respond, “that is true. A candidate can score below
1,440 on the written portion of the exam and still pass. But
the reverse is also true – a candidate can fail the MBE
portion and still pass the California bar exam.”
All
of this begs the question, what actually is a failing essay
score? Well, that depends on the particular bar exam. Sometimes,
a 64.5, far below a 70, is a passing essay on the California
exam. (Yes, a passing essay.) Sometimes, a 67 is a
passing essay, which means using a “passing” essay
score of 70 as the benchmark is . . . well . . . not mathematically
sound.
What
does any of this mean? Be skilled in all areas of the
California bar exam, which is, after all, 66% written. That,
however, does not mean the MBE portion should be downplayed
– the MBE portion just shouldn’t be overplayed,
at the expense of the written portion of the exam.
In
addition to publishing this journal, Steve Liosi, a former
Faculty Tutor at Chapman Law, is the program director of Barperfect.com.
Any questions, concerns, comments? Send him an e-mail: steve@clsj1994.com;
or call him: (562) 536-9476.
Back
to Archives
|
|
Lessons
From The February Bar Exam
By Paul Pfau, Esq.
Archived
Article MARCH 2006......
|
The
early word from may of those who have just taken the February
bar exam confirms some old lessons that continue to be emphasized
by the Committee of Bar Examiners as well as suggesting some
potential new ones for each of the three sections of the test.
Having specialized in customizing programs for bar applicants
for nearly 29 years, one over-riding lesson, however, should
never be lost: Those whom learn from these lessons and develop
the kinds of skills necessary to succeed on the bar as a “problem-solving
speed exam” typically outdistance their more generically
prepared competition. In other words, learn to “study smart”
in preparing for an exam that continues to place a premium on
solving complex problems under strict time conditions.
On
the essay, for example, many issues continue to “cluster”
from traditionally familiar fact patterns. The lineup fact pattern
from the February criminal procedure problem undoubtedly tested
one such issue cluster (1) whether it was unnecessarily suggestive
and in violation of due process,
whether there was a right to counsel violation, the “negative”
issue of self-incrimination (to be dismissed because line-ups
are not testimonial), and a relatively subtle 4th-Amendment-fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree
issue in the
event the line-up suspect was unlawfully detained so that his
identification could be suppressed. Similarly, with the torts
products liability question, the facts involving the absence
of a manufacturing defect likely triggered, among others, the
more remote issue clusters of battery and negligent misrepresentation.
Similar instances of issue clusters from this exam included
conflicts of interest with professional responsibility, in personam
jurisdiction, res judicata and collateral estoppel with civil
procedure, waste and negligence with real property, procedural
and substantive due process in addition to equal protection
and eminent domain with a constitutional law zoning fact pattern,
and so on.
In
addition, subjects that cross-over on the essay seem to be increasing.
Historically, since the reduction in the total number of essays
from 12 to the current 6 many years ago, a total of 8 to 9 subjects
were tested. On this bar exam, the consensus seems to put the
number of total subjects closer to 11 - with criminal procedure,
perhaps crimes and evidence, civil procedure, real property,
constitutional law, remedies, wills, community property, contracts,
and professional responsibility being tested. Once again, by
the way, professional responsibility remains the most consistently
testes subject - showing up as a part of a contracts cross-over
and on the performance exam.
Finally,
the essay fact patterns continue to be perceived by some as
deceptively easy, while historically many of the questions contain
what I would describe as “deal breaker” issues (translation:
you do not want to miss them). Here, it is important to note
that the most significantly and substantively important word
in the essay instructions is “facts”. In other words,
the candidates’ ability, under the stress of time, to sufficiently
improve his reading comprehension and be able to differentiate
between what the instructions describe as |
|
“material vs. immaterial”
facts; in other words, dismissing on paper (not mentally)
what we might term a “negative issue”, such as the
“self-incrimination” issue in the line-up fact pattern
(noted above). Again, this is an important lesson in being
able to separate yourself from your competition by demonstrating
your more nuanced and comprehensive knowledge of a particular
subject.
Lessons
form the February performance test continue to emphasize the
importance of learning how to organize. As with the essay,
candidates should pay heed to the Examiner’s instructions
with specifically focus on spending the first 90 minutes or
so (of the 180 minutes available) on this most important function.
Poorly written answers do not reflect this capability, and
it is equally key to remember that it is important to be familiar
with the different kinds of formats that can make up the performance
exam.
On
the February bar, for example, the memo format was tested
– still, the most tested of any of the different formats
– and placed an emphasis on the candidate understanding
the very formal cases-within-cases
in the library section of the PT are potentially relevant,
so that if there are only two cases significantly represented
(as apparently was the case with PT B), to pay attention to
them as well.
Lessons
from the multi-state section continue to emphasize the importance,
like the essay and performance exam, of learning to “listen”
to the subtle variables engineered into the fact patterns.
Interestingly, many of the candidates noted what they believed
to be a trend to more “one-to-one” question and
answer sets. In other words, a shorter fact pattern with a
single question, rather than the more traditionally longer
fact pattern with multiple questions branching from it. In
addition, many continued to feel that there was a noticeable
difference between the difficulty of the morning and afternoon
session’s questions.
In
all, the clear consensus continues to be that the bar is a
difficult three day exam – but that the prize will go
to those candidates who learn from lessons regularly engineered
onto each of its six three hour sessions: Develop the skills
that will more precisely produce the test-taking standards
required for each of the three sections of the bar at a statewide
level. Adopt the lesson from “Seabiscuit” in learning
more precisely how to run the kind of race the bar has become
– and not from Bill Murray’s character in “Groundhog
Day, who, sadly, had to repeat his lessons before learning
from them. Be positive and have faith in yourself! You can
do it!
Paul
Pfau, founder and director of CalBarTutorialReview, has been
specializing in customizing programs for bar applicants for
nearly 29 years. For more information, you may visit Mr. Pfau’s
Web site: www.cbtronline.com,
or reach him by calling either 1-800-783-6168 or 1-800-348-2401.
Incidentally, Mr. Pfau has led several Mt. Everest expeditions!
Back
to Archives
|
|
|
