My life begins...again...
It's pretty hard to power down after a marathon like this one. The initial exhaustion lasted a few days, and then I began to revisit my health. I now seriously question the health effects of this profession, and the life choices people make. There is no profession, and no amount of money, that is worth being fat and unhealthy over. A short and glorious existence or a long and unremarkable one...that is an easy choice to make. At least for me. It amazes me the physical condition I was once in. I could jog in one hundred degree heat...hike for hours in death valley, alone and unafraid. Hike into the Sierras for days at a time. Now I'm fearful to be away from my sleep apnea machine, and even jogging around the track makes me cautious. That is no way to live.
I continue to do an autopsy on the test; a bad idea, with no upside. JDJIVe.com is a very unhappy place, filled with a lot of really tiny, insecure people. I belong there. In any case, a few issues seem to have arisen as of late. The first one was DRR on the wills and trusts test, which I missed but agree was pretty clearly there. I discussed it in a sentence without really mentioning it by name, so I might get some points. Another was the Professional Responsibility issues on Pt B. There was a disproportionate fee splitting agreement which may have created an unreasonable fee. I was fortunate to speak with several people who remembered their bar review course mentioning the fact that these PR issues pop in PT's. I found it written in barbri, barpassers, and even the Bar itself that you are supposed to do that. Remarkably, even in the face of these experts, there are those who still argue it wasn't there. We will find out sometime. I don't expect to eat crow.
There was another group who continue to argue that the con law essay had a zoning regulation. Of course, in order to have a zoning regulation, you have to have a zone where certain speech is allowed, and another place where it isn't. The ordinance prohibited it in the whole county, so the line of cases these folks relied upon didn't apply. One fellow even cited, RAV, then backtracked, and then cited Renton, and stated the facts of renton incorrectly. It is absolutely stunning how people continue to defend positions that have disintegrated underneath them for the sake of their foolish pride. I feel better all the time about the level of competition I face in the legal field.
Of course, the bar probably doesn't really care that much about whether you got the law wrong. If you line up the law with the facts, they will probably pass you. I'm stunned by the number of applicants who honestly believe their conclusions matter.
In any case, doing an autopsy is foolish, and anyone who took that test and says it was 'easy' when they haven't got their scores (The California essays are reportedly the hardest in the nation, or at least graded the hardest) is whistling in the dark. When you have very intelligent people who go to top schools failing at a ratio of one in ten (at least) this test isn't a mere formality. Failure for anyone is a real possibility.
I continue to do an autopsy on the test; a bad idea, with no upside. JDJIVe.com is a very unhappy place, filled with a lot of really tiny, insecure people. I belong there. In any case, a few issues seem to have arisen as of late. The first one was DRR on the wills and trusts test, which I missed but agree was pretty clearly there. I discussed it in a sentence without really mentioning it by name, so I might get some points. Another was the Professional Responsibility issues on Pt B. There was a disproportionate fee splitting agreement which may have created an unreasonable fee. I was fortunate to speak with several people who remembered their bar review course mentioning the fact that these PR issues pop in PT's. I found it written in barbri, barpassers, and even the Bar itself that you are supposed to do that. Remarkably, even in the face of these experts, there are those who still argue it wasn't there. We will find out sometime. I don't expect to eat crow.
There was another group who continue to argue that the con law essay had a zoning regulation. Of course, in order to have a zoning regulation, you have to have a zone where certain speech is allowed, and another place where it isn't. The ordinance prohibited it in the whole county, so the line of cases these folks relied upon didn't apply. One fellow even cited, RAV, then backtracked, and then cited Renton, and stated the facts of renton incorrectly. It is absolutely stunning how people continue to defend positions that have disintegrated underneath them for the sake of their foolish pride. I feel better all the time about the level of competition I face in the legal field.
Of course, the bar probably doesn't really care that much about whether you got the law wrong. If you line up the law with the facts, they will probably pass you. I'm stunned by the number of applicants who honestly believe their conclusions matter.
In any case, doing an autopsy is foolish, and anyone who took that test and says it was 'easy' when they haven't got their scores (The California essays are reportedly the hardest in the nation, or at least graded the hardest) is whistling in the dark. When you have very intelligent people who go to top schools failing at a ratio of one in ten (at least) this test isn't a mere formality. Failure for anyone is a real possibility.
posted by Robert Smith at 12:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home