2017 July California Bar Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:47 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Question about the registration fees:
I was admitted to the NY bar this past January and plan to take the July CA bar. Because I have been admitted less than four years (far from it), I'll have to take the general 2-day exam rather than the 1-day attorney exam. When I tried to submit my application, it showed me as an attorney applicant and a charge of $983. Is that right? Even though I will be taking the general exam, I still need to pay the extra as an attorney applicant? Thanks so much!
I was admitted to the NY bar this past January and plan to take the July CA bar. Because I have been admitted less than four years (far from it), I'll have to take the general 2-day exam rather than the 1-day attorney exam. When I tried to submit my application, it showed me as an attorney applicant and a charge of $983. Is that right? Even though I will be taking the general exam, I still need to pay the extra as an attorney applicant? Thanks so much!
- CAnow
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:13 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Checking in... Texas resident will be flying in for the California bar in July.
Signed up for Anaheim as my 1st choice and Ontario as a backup. My admission status page shows Anaheim, so I guess it's safe to assume that I already got my first choice(?)
Signed up for Anaheim as my 1st choice and Ontario as a backup. My admission status page shows Anaheim, so I guess it's safe to assume that I already got my first choice(?)
- CAnow
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:13 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
lollipop1 wrote:Question about the registration fees:
I was admitted to the NY bar this past January and plan to take the July CA bar. Because I have been admitted less than four years (far from it), I'll have to take the general 2-day exam rather than the 1-day attorney exam. When I tried to submit my application, it showed me as an attorney applicant and a charge of $983. Is that right? Even though I will be taking the general exam, I still need to pay the extra as an attorney applicant? Thanks so much!
Same here. I was admitted in Texas a couple of years ago so I will need to take the general exam but was still charged the attorney applicant fee. Mine was north of $1100 including the laptop fee.
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:56 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Yes, unfortunately this is correct, it could be distinguished a lot clearer. You did it right. That $983 really stings, even more once you've just paid $375 in bar dues to NYS...lollipop1 wrote:Question about the registration fees:
I was admitted to the NY bar this past January and plan to take the July CA bar. Because I have been admitted less than four years (far from it), I'll have to take the general 2-day exam rather than the 1-day attorney exam. When I tried to submit my application, it showed me as an attorney applicant and a charge of $983. Is that right? Even though I will be taking the general exam, I still need to pay the extra as an attorney applicant? Thanks so much!
-
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
You can just directly apply as a student to save some money. My friend did just that.CAnow wrote:lollipop1 wrote:Question about the registration fees:
I was admitted to the NY bar this past January and plan to take the July CA bar. Because I have been admitted less than four years (far from it), I'll have to take the general 2-day exam rather than the 1-day attorney exam. When I tried to submit my application, it showed me as an attorney applicant and a charge of $983. Is that right? Even though I will be taking the general exam, I still need to pay the extra as an attorney applicant? Thanks so much!
Same here. I was admitted in Texas a couple of years ago so I will need to take the general exam but was still charged the attorney applicant fee. Mine was north of $1100 including the laptop fee.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- CAnow
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:13 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Your friend will have to disclose the out-of-state license on the moral character application. I sure hope that inconsistency will not raise any red flags.maxmartin wrote:You can just directly apply as a student to save some money. My friend did just that.CAnow wrote:lollipop1 wrote:Question about the registration fees:
I was admitted to the NY bar this past January and plan to take the July CA bar. Because I have been admitted less than four years (far from it), I'll have to take the general 2-day exam rather than the 1-day attorney exam. When I tried to submit my application, it showed me as an attorney applicant and a charge of $983. Is that right? Even though I will be taking the general exam, I still need to pay the extra as an attorney applicant? Thanks so much!
Same here. I was admitted in Texas a couple of years ago so I will need to take the general exam but was still charged the attorney applicant fee. Mine was north of $1100 including the laptop fee.
-
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
He is already licensed in CA. He submitted his moral application after he knew he passed the exam.CAnow wrote:Your friend will have to disclose the out-of-state license on the moral character application. I sure hope that inconsistency will not raise any red flags.maxmartin wrote:You can just directly apply as a student to save some money. My friend did just that.CAnow wrote:lollipop1 wrote:Question about the registration fees:
I was admitted to the NY bar this past January and plan to take the July CA bar. Because I have been admitted less than four years (far from it), I'll have to take the general 2-day exam rather than the 1-day attorney exam. When I tried to submit my application, it showed me as an attorney applicant and a charge of $983. Is that right? Even though I will be taking the general exam, I still need to pay the extra as an attorney applicant? Thanks so much!
Same here. I was admitted in Texas a couple of years ago so I will need to take the general exam but was still charged the attorney applicant fee. Mine was north of $1100 including the laptop fee.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 7:28 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
I am constantly confused by all things math, so I apologize in advance if this question seems idiotic. Since the test sections are weighted differently now, does this change the raw scores needed to pass each section? For example, now that there are only 5 essays, is a score of 65 still considered a passing answer? Is ~128 raw still the passing score for the MBE?
- a male human
- Posts: 2233
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
The raw scores are most likely the same, and you still need 1440 to pass, but this doesn't really matter.xpcny wrote:I am constantly confused by all things math, so I apologize in advance if this question seems idiotic. Since the test sections are weighted differently now, does this change the raw scores needed to pass each section? For example, now that there are only 5 essays, is a score of 65 still considered a passing answer? Is ~128 raw still the passing score for the MBE?
Here are the new grading mechanics:
- MBE is worth 50% of your total score, up from 35%
- Written (essays and PT) is also worth 50% of your total score, down from 65%
- The written portion is out of 700 raw points now. The PT is worth 200 points. Essays are 100 points each (there are 5). This means the PT is worth two-seventh out of that 50%, or about 14.3% (which you get one shot at). Essays? They're also now worth slightly more (about 7.1% of your total score instead of 6.5%, still half as much as a PT, will show my work upon request).
More info here http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals ... 2017_R.pdf
There is no "passing" score. 65 is just a "safe" guideline number to hit on average that will generally lead to passing. Moreover, we don't know what will be enough to pass until they come up with the scaling.
Let's focus on the big changes... Are you weak at MBE? Now you gotta step up your game. Do you hate PTs? Great, now you can relax a bit (just a bit, still practice it). Essays continue to suck for everyone, a little bit more now.
I wrote more about the changes here and how to prepare for them: http://www.makethisyourlasttime.com/cal ... r-changes/
- Yea All Right
- Posts: 579
- Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:27 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Checking in. Good luck everyone!
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
David here. I am in Malibu and interested in a study partner(s) for the MBE for the July CA Bar Exam. I am licensed in NY & NJ. For anyone taking the attorney's exam we can drop the MBE until June 15. I will let my practice test scores determine what to do.
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Male Human;
Your post is impressive to say the least.
How can I go about securing the coupons you mentioned for the Bar Exam Answer repository?
Thank You,
David
DavidRW3344
drwilbur@gmail.com
Your post is impressive to say the least.
How can I go about securing the coupons you mentioned for the Bar Exam Answer repository?
Thank You,
David
DavidRW3344
drwilbur@gmail.com
- a male human
- Posts: 2233
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Thanks David! I'm assuming you're talking about BarEssays? Will send you a private message with $25 coupon.DavidRW3344 wrote:Male Human;
Your post is impressive to say the least.
How can I go about securing the coupons you mentioned for the Bar Exam Answer repository?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- CAnow
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:13 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
I found this Civ Pro MBE question but don't agree with the answer, and the explanation they provided wasn't very helpful. What do y'all think?
A woman brought a lawsuit in federal district court against four defendants, who were all from the same state as the forum court. The state had four federal judicial districts. The woman's lawsuit was brought in the southern judicial district where both she and one of the defendants lived and where the incident that was the subject of the woman's lawsuit had occurred. One of the other defendants resided in the northern district, another in the central district, and the last in the eastern district. Before answering the woman's complaint, these three defendants immediately made a motion to dismiss for improper venue. Which of the following rulings is correct?
A. All three of these defendants waived their venue objection because they failed to raise it in a pre-answer motion.
B. Venue was improper because only one of the defendants resided in the southern district.
C. Venue was proper because all defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in the southern district at the time that the action was commenced.
D. Venue was proper because one defendant could be found in the southern district, and there was no district in which the action could have otherwise been brought.
A woman brought a lawsuit in federal district court against four defendants, who were all from the same state as the forum court. The state had four federal judicial districts. The woman's lawsuit was brought in the southern judicial district where both she and one of the defendants lived and where the incident that was the subject of the woman's lawsuit had occurred. One of the other defendants resided in the northern district, another in the central district, and the last in the eastern district. Before answering the woman's complaint, these three defendants immediately made a motion to dismiss for improper venue. Which of the following rulings is correct?
A. All three of these defendants waived their venue objection because they failed to raise it in a pre-answer motion.
B. Venue was improper because only one of the defendants resided in the southern district.
C. Venue was proper because all defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in the southern district at the time that the action was commenced.
D. Venue was proper because one defendant could be found in the southern district, and there was no district in which the action could have otherwise been brought.
-
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:52 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
CAnow wrote:I found this Civ Pro MBE question but don't agree with the answer, and the explanation they provided wasn't very helpful. What do y'all think?
A woman brought a lawsuit in federal district court against four defendants, who were all from the same state as the forum court. The state had four federal judicial districts. The woman's lawsuit was brought in the southern judicial district where both she and one of the defendants lived and where the incident that was the subject of the woman's lawsuit had occurred. One of the other defendants resided in the northern district, another in the central district, and the last in the eastern district. Before answering the woman's complaint, these three defendants immediately made a motion to dismiss for improper venue. Which of the following rulings is correct?
A. All three of these defendants waived their venue objection because they failed to raise it in a pre-answer motion.
B. Venue was improper because only one of the defendants resided in the southern district.
C. Venue was proper because all defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in the southern district at the time that the action was commenced.
D. Venue was proper because one defendant could be found in the southern district, and there was no district in which the action could have otherwise been brought.
D looks like the straight up right answer to me - pretty sure venue is proper either (1) if all D's in same state, any district where one resides; (2) where a substantial part of the transaction/events arose; or (3) if first 2 don't apply, anywhere any one D is subject to PJX.
Here, she has done both 1 AND 2 above and has thus selected the best possible venue (all D's same state, one lives in that district, and events transpired there) - there is no other district she could have otherwise brought it in.
Without the complicated explanation though.....A through C are just all completely wrong, so it MUST be D.
- Duralex
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Agree w/ur_hero.
Note that venue is not the only limitation on where an action may be brought, so in a very pedantic sense there's no inherent conflict between "venue is proper in all four districts" and "the action could only have brought in District X." I'm not sure if that's intentionally fuzzily worded or just a shitty question. In an exam situation if I had doubts I'd satisfy myself the other answers were worse and move on.
Note that venue is not the only limitation on where an action may be brought, so in a very pedantic sense there's no inherent conflict between "venue is proper in all four districts" and "the action could only have brought in District X." I'm not sure if that's intentionally fuzzily worded or just a shitty question. In an exam situation if I had doubts I'd satisfy myself the other answers were worse and move on.
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:42 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Looking for study partner. Im in Monterey Bay area. Do not have to be in person. We can work on a schedule and lay out a plan this week or next, or ?
please let know if your interested
rocklander1234@gmail.com
Thanks,
please let know if your interested
rocklander1234@gmail.com
Thanks,
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:56 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
73 days remain
-
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
The State Bar is undertaking a series of studies into the bar exam. The initial phase of the standard setting study, which examines the cut score, begins on May 15.
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/News/T ... 01707.aspx
Wishful thinking, they do lower the cut off score for July.
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/News/T ... 01707.aspx
Wishful thinking, they do lower the cut off score for July.
-
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
So...I won another chance to sit for the CBX. (How's that for a positive attitude?) This will be my fourth attempt. I'm wondering if anyone knows of any resources for the new PT format. I don't want to practice a 3-hour test if I can practice a 1.5-hour test.
Also, as far a locations. I've been to Pasadena once. Thought the city itself was way too noisy. Went to Ontario twice. The area around the convention center is nice, and even though it's next to the airport, it's still quieter than Pasadena. I'm thinking about Sacramento or Oakland. I understand that the Oakland venue is smaller. This might be a better fit for me given that I'm from a remote, rural area. Suggestions welcome.
Also, as far a locations. I've been to Pasadena once. Thought the city itself was way too noisy. Went to Ontario twice. The area around the convention center is nice, and even though it's next to the airport, it's still quieter than Pasadena. I'm thinking about Sacramento or Oakland. I understand that the Oakland venue is smaller. This might be a better fit for me given that I'm from a remote, rural area. Suggestions welcome.
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:25 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Checking in. European candidate flying into San Diego for the 6th attempt this July.
My MBEs need to improve, and this time around they will even get 50% weighting!
Would be happy if any of the repeaters let me know when they get their letter with the scores as I am not in SD and have to ask a friend to pick the letter up for me! Cheers!
My MBEs need to improve, and this time around they will even get 50% weighting!
Would be happy if any of the repeaters let me know when they get their letter with the scores as I am not in SD and have to ask a friend to pick the letter up for me! Cheers!
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Alt123
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:36 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Is it even possible the July exam will be affected?maxmartin wrote:The State Bar is undertaking a series of studies into the bar exam. The initial phase of the standard setting study, which examines the cut score, begins on May 15.
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/News/T ... 01707.aspx
Wishful thinking, they do lower the cut off score for July.
-
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Well, the petition letter from Deans to Supreme Court is all about July edition.Alt123 wrote:Is it even possible the July exam will be affected?maxmartin wrote:The State Bar is undertaking a series of studies into the bar exam. The initial phase of the standard setting study, which examines the cut score, begins on May 15.
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/News/T ... 01707.aspx
Wishful thinking, they do lower the cut off score for July.
- rcharter1978
- Posts: 4740
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
You won't like it, but I don't think the CA bar gets any benefit by making the exam easier to pass so I don't think they will. The most recent changes seems as far as they would be willing to go.
-
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
50% is good enough. Under 50% format, if you score around 1600 in MBE, you are almost guaranteed to pass.rcharter1978 wrote:You won't like it, but I don't think the CA bar gets any benefit by making the exam easier to pass so I don't think they will. The most recent changes seems as far as they would be willing to go.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login