Essays...

So, I am working on my contracts issue outline. In the meantime, I am over being angry about my essays.

I thought about them for a couple of days, and went on to the cal bar website yesterday and looked at the sample answers. I saw that I lumped the strict liability elements in under duty, without parsing them out and making it abundantly clear that there were the separate elements and that I was discussing each in turn. Duh, that's where I lost probably 5 points.

On corporations, I knew that I had lumped the two parties together and smushed the discussion of their respective actions on making the company liable. Duh, there's five points.

On the Community Property question, I was kicking myself as soon as I walked out of the test, because I used the doctrine of quasi-marital property, explained what it is, but NEVER ACTUALLY USED THE WORDS. Duh, bet that was 3-5 points.

At first I was mad that I did just fine on the wills and trusts essay. After I looked at the sample answers, I realized that I do better when I actually know a little less about the subject area. Happened in law school, too. If all I know are the basic rules, then I'm forced to mechanically apply them to facts and hence, better grade. It's when I start thinking about all the eventualities that I run into problems. I start yammering too much and make it all too complicated. This isn't a problem at work, because I do a draft, do something else, then read it and pare down the language and focus the argument. Comes out great. But, alas, I do not have the luxury of any proofreading on the bar...

The other ones I did fine on, as I thought upon completing the test, so I'm not too worried about those.

So I have had some kind of mental epiphany (which I probably should have had, oh, maybe last June) where I *get* that I have to parse everything out in a very mechanical and super boring and tedious manner, and cover at the same time. Now, this is really nothing new. I mean, we've all heard that before, but I *saw* it, whereas before I thought that I was doing that, when I really wasn't. Now I'm mostly doing that, and so it's easier to see where I falter in that method.

So, essays are really, really fine. Just need to apply that same method to the PT. Don't make choices. Don't leave out any case, no matter how it seems to be the wrong thing to use if I were in the real world. Don't do any more than the directions, and don't do any less than the directions. Make the headers super detailed and super clear.

Oh, and do lots of MBEs. (By a lot, I actually mean not that many, but make and study flashcards for recall during the test.)

This is really getting to be quite a lot of work.

Mush...

Went to class all day...

brain is now mush.

Did okay for the morning, but I didn't eat anything at the lunch break, so after two hours of Con Law and Property in the afternoon, I was dizzy and couldn't see straight. Can I just say how much I despise Con Law? It's not even that it's THAT hard, it just brings back memories of the teacher I hated and the contentious arrogant people who were in my class... that was just a horrible year of class.

So now, I suck at Con Law as a result.

Property, on the other hand, I loved, but the lecture consisted of going over a really, really difficult real covenants and equitable servitudes question that makes my brain turn in circles.

But I did learn a few things, such as how I need to address my inadequacies at the more linear subjects like contracts. I'm going to do my own timeline, plugging in where every single little rule and doctrine goes, so when I get an essay, I have the visual breakdown, in order, in my head. My problem on organization is that I know the rules, but it doesn't seem like it, because I tend to say each rule as they come to me, not necessarily in the order they are supposed to go, as in, UCC 2-207 goes under acceptance, not interpretation of the contract terms.

I'm sure this is nothing new, and I could probably find some kind of study aid that does this for me, but the act of doing it and synthesizing the issues is the important part for me. That's how I learn it.

Oh, and I got my essays back from the February debacle, and I started reading them, and I just didn't get what was so bad about my torts essay. Seemed like I covered the issues, and in the proper order. I think I just lost holistic points because my language is not strong enough. I like to say "likely" and "may" and "could" instead of "will" and "is".

Ironically, I do the best on the subjects I know the least, like crim pro and trusts and wills. Trusts I did not study at all, except for checking the duties of a trustee five minutes before I walked to the testing center Thursday morning in February, and I did well on that essay. Same for crim pro, although I did actually study that (for MBEs, mainly.)

Not sure what that means. That's been true for me all through law school. I think if I just have a few rules, I tend to simply apply them in straightforward, clear language without making it more complicated and doing what I think I'm *supposed* to do, whatever that is. Sigh. Apparently more knowledge is dangerous for me.