strategy that helped some pass
For those interested in what I did differently this time, here goes:
First, I realized that all of my previous study partners who had passed the bar had studied full-time, while I had only been able to study evenings and weekends as I was working full-time, and while I was working, they were sitting home writing out essay answers. So I made the decision to quit my job of ten years in mid-January and live off my 401k fund while I studied.
Second, I asked a professor at Loyola who tutors repeat exam takers to read my answers and give me her feedback. She told me the only thing she saw missing from my answers was any discussion of both sides of an argument where it was possible to argue both sides. It turned out that when I was initially told "no ping-ponging during the analysis" by the first bar course I took, I interpreted that to mean "don't discuss both sides of an issue." What it really meant was don't use the `plaintiff will argue? Defendant will argue?#39; style of writing, which annoys the graders. Instead, use phrases like "on the other hand." Of course, this is only used where there are really two sides to an argument. When discussing damages, for example, they either exist or they don't, so you wouldn't waste time arguing both sides of that issue. So while I was writing out essays, I practiced looking for issues where the writer had legitimately argued both sides of the issue and paid attention to how that was handled.
Third, I read Jay Wiseman's post after the last bar exam describing how writing out a LOT of model answers helped him become familiar with the writing style the bar graders are looking for, and I bought the Tim Tyler series of books and did just that. (Thank you for that suggestion, Jay.) When I had written out all of the Tim Tyler model answers, in the time remaining I started going through the
BarBri California Essay Workbook and writing out sections of answers that
discussed issues I hadn't covered yet.
Fourth, I took Tim Tyler's advice that we memorize the seven basic ConLaw statements verbatim (I also received similar advice from a former bar grader, who said the bar graders look for more exact rule statements in ConLaw answers). During the final ten days before the bar exam I wrote out all seven of the ConLaw statements from Tim Tyler's book by hand, over and over, until I could write them all out without having to stop and think. (The "by hand" bit is important, because we remember far more of what we write than what we read or hear.) For the first time EVER on a bar exam I was able to state the exact case the applicable rule came from (Central Hudson - that name will probably stay in my head forever). And just for good measure I threw in all of the other Freedom of Speech rules and the names of the cases THEY were drawn from.
Fifth, I analyzed my performance on past exams, and realized that even though I am usually very calm in emergencies, on bar exams I tended to get a little panicky when I couldn't remember the exact rule for an issue or spot enough issues to write about, and the creeping panic caused my memory to shut down until I couldn't remember anything. So this time around I resolved to make a conscious effort to remain calm, knowing what panic would do to my ability to recall information.
Sixth, about two weeks before the exam, I was thinking about the "best" student answers released by the bar examiners, as it still bugged me that they would release "best" answers with clearly incorrect statements of the law. It hit me that ?
and this is the biggie, folks ?the message they were trying to send was that they didn't care as much about letter-perfect statements of the rule as they cared about the analysis that followed. When I went back and looked at the released answers, I saw that every single one of them spent a LOT of time on analysis. This meant, of course, that all of my energy spent worrying about not being able to remember all the elements of a rule or the exact phrasing of a rule had been misplaced. I also realized that even though I had been told many times that if I couldn't remember a rule, just make up a rule that sounded plausible and then apply the facts to the made-up rule, when it came time to follow that advice, I hadn't been doing it. For example, on last summer's bar exam there was a ConLaw question where I could have discussed obscenity. However, I could only remember a few elements of the rule for obscenity, and because I started getting panicky (see number five above), I ended up not discussing the issue at all. Granted, this was ConLaw, where they look for more exact statements of the law, but in failing to discuss the issue at all, I lost ANY possible points. To remedy this, I decided to go through the one-page outlines I got from BarGraders and write out a rule for each issue, and if I
couldn't remember the exact rule, to practice making something up. This is a lot harder than it sounds, guys, so I highly recommend spending some time doing this until you can do it without going back and tweaking your made-up rule and thereby losing time. Of course, if you
get halfway through your analysis and another element pops into your head, by all means go back and insert it into your made-up rule.
Well, that about covers what I did differently this time around. Truthfully, I'm glad I passed this time, because I was starting to understand how people can just give up on the bar exam after putting so much effort into it numerous times and not passing. But I also knew it would have bothered me for the rest of my life if I had given up, and I'm glad I didn't quit after the fourth try.
I hope someone finds the above helpful, and if anyone has any questions, just ask. And to my fellow repeat-takers who passed, my hat is off to you (and me too, I guess) for sticking it out. GREAT job!
Source: westlahere