hastingsgal wrote:I think standing and formation are standard for these types of questions almost all the time. Even if they aren't necessary for some of the questions, you certainly will not lose points for mentioning them. The barbri answers aren't real or graded, so hard to say whether they write the way the bar examiners want. The CA Bar answers are the best in the state, and sometimes the state wants you to see different approaches to the same question (I think).Pema wrote:I asked a Q earlier, but I don't see it posted.chickenb00b wrote:Hi! I'm an CA essay grader for a major bar prep company. We're trained by those who were past bar exam graders. Additionally, I also have experience with many of the supplements, including Critical Flash, Adaptibar, SmartBarPrep, Barbri conviser, (the one page supplement that I can't seem to remember the name off the top of my head), Emanuel MBEs (Tactics and Strats(?)), etc. etc.
Since I'm waiting for the bar study season to start in late May, I thought I'd offer some opinion/suggestion/advice here. If you have any questions (and there are no dumb ones), or need guidance, then ask and I'll offer my opinion.
I do ask that you quote this so I can see the notification and respond. Good luck studying folks!!!
I'm reading essay answers from CA Bar site, Barbri and baressays.com. For Con Law Q with a call that says WHAT ARGUMENTS CAN P MAKE UNDER EP AND DP? The CA Bar and Barbri answers don't discuss Standing/Justiciability, 11th, 10th. Baressays answers-90% do for the same Q.
For Contracts Call: Can P recover from D? + the facts state P and D entered into a written K for...(all terms present) - CA Bar and Barbri responses-no formation or SOF discussion. Baressays answers 90% discuss formation + SOF for the same Q.
I believe a big part of the CA bar Q's are the limiting factors. They are testing discernment and materiality by limiting the call (sometimes very subtly).
That said, they suck you in to discussing non material items because the (juicy) facts beg for it, while the call doesn't. Is this your experience? I ask 1) because I think they mark you down for lack of discernment and the inability to recognize material v immaterial facts (per call) and 2) I run out of time and can't afford to address standing and formation (and other preliminary considerations) if not at issue. Thanks.
BarEssays is usually the most reliable for thinking about something like this. When you see people write standing and formation and they got scores of 65+ you know that it may have helped and certainly did not hurt.
I understand your point on tradition, but how do we know those 65's would not have been 70's if they used discernment?
I just looked up the essay instructions:
“Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts in question, to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns. + “Your answer should be complete, but you should not volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem.
It seems discernment is critical. As such, if the facts state "P and D entered into a valid written contract," writing on formation and SOF is a failure - "to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns." + it does this as well: "volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem."
Same with Standing in many instances. Just my opinion. I need to shave of a few minutes since I'm run out of time. Anything will help. Thanks.