This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - RLS90
« on: December 16, 2012, 02:36:03 PM »
Here's the truth: You know what they call you when you pass the Bar? A lawyer!!! I know people who have graduated summa from ABA accredited schools that have passed the Bar exam in myriad jurisdictions only to fail the California Bar multiple times. If you pass the California Bar, you're likely to find a job somewhere and if not, there is always the option of opening your own practice.
Here's another truth: Unless you are graduating at the top of your class at one of the top 35-40 law schools in the country, you probably aren't going to get a job in BIG LAW. If you go to Cooley or St. Thomas, or any other 4th Tier School, your job prospects are limited. The best move is to attempt to get a job at the City or District Attorney's office somewhere, or to work in the Public Defender's office, obtain a good amount of trial experience on the County or State's dime, and then lateral your way into a big law job. That's how to do it. When you've got the license to practice, anything is possible if you are good at what you do. Its not how you get to your destination that matters, its whether you get there or not. If you get to the party, then there are opportunities abound.
« on: December 14, 2012, 10:43:14 PM »
Well then I guess I failed because it says that the requirement is not satisfied.
« on: December 14, 2012, 04:57:47 PM »
How do you know if you passed if you didn't receive your score yet?
« on: December 12, 2012, 11:08:33 PM »
I'm hoping you're right. I know that I may have missed one or two issues (albeit minor ones) on the Baby Bar essay exams, but I highly doubt that missing these issues could dock me enough to have scored anything lower than a 75 on any of the essays. I feel confident, but at the same time, I also feel like my law school graded my exams unreasonably and was overly critical of my writing. When I had a family friend who is an adjunct professor of Con Law at Loyola read my writing, he said that I could have scored no lower than a B+, yet at Taft, the online law school I attend, I got a C-. I think the people at Taft are just trying to trick me into believing that my skills needed improvement so that when I do take the Baby Bar, I kill it. While such efforts are all well and good, I think it did more in detracting from my confidence than it did push me to study - I was studying hard no matter what.
Now, I'm glad that we agree on the idea that most of the people taking the Baby Bar are not suited for being in law school and that is why the fail rate is so high. But, I disagree with your objection to my use of the word moron. The simple fact is: after a year of studying the law of torts, if you try to argue that stray cats should fall under the umbrella of strict liability because they are wild animals, then you are definitely a moron. And you should go back to reading John Grisham novels and leave the law to the ones capable of competently practicing it.
« on: December 09, 2012, 07:58:36 PM »
Here's another reason so many people fail the Baby Bar: Most of the people taking it are complete morons who don't belong anywhere near the law.
For example, when I took the Baby Bar this past October 2012, not one, not two, but three people mentioned that the second tort question on the essay portion (question 4) involved the application of ultrahazardous activity and/or strict liability.
The fact pattern dealt with a woman who ran a day care center and her next door neighbor was always feeding stray cats and the woman who owned the day care center was worried that one of the cats might bite her students at some point in the future. So, to get rid of the cats, who had a habit of pooping in the sandbox, she poured ammonia in the sandbox and one of the kids ate the sand and got sick from ammonia poisoning.
Now, the question asked us to analyze a causes of action for negligence against the neighbor and the owner of the day care. As a threshold issue, the daycare center owner has a duty of care established under the invitee standard of premises liability because the children's parents pay for the children to be on the property. As for strict liability, the pouring of ammonia into the sandbox does not suffice, in any way, as a strict liability issue. Strict liability requires that the (1) activity be inherently dangerous, (2) is uncommon to the geographic area, (3)cannot be made safe even with the highest level of care, and (4) whose risks outweigh its social utility. That being said, pouring ammonia into a sandbox is not inherently dangerous. Ammonia is an everyday household cleaning product which is commonly found under the kitchen sinks of most Americans. While the daycare lady may be liable in negligence, she is certainly not strictly liable for an ultrahazardous activity.
Now, as to the strict liability for the neighbor: Two shmucks, one dumber than the next, said to me that the neighbor was strictly liable because the cats were wild animals. I didn't even get into it with these dummies, but it is a well-settled judicial principle that "wild" animals are animals that are not domesticated. Thus, cows, chickens, bulls, sheep, goats, horses, dogs, and yes, even cats - stray, wild, or otherwise - are not considered wild animals for the purposes of strict liability. Even if the neighbor knew that these cats had vicious propensities, she still would not be liable because she did not own the cats.
Now, I just wrote this analysis off the top of my head in a little less than 6 minutes. If you aren't able to do the same, then you shouldn't be taking the Baby Bar.
« on: December 09, 2012, 07:41:50 PM »
How is it possible that you did so poorly on the essays, yet received a 77% on the MBE questions? Such circumstances are a complete distortion of how things work in these types of exams. Similarly, other people on the forum who have failed the FYLSE also claim high scores on the MBE, yet poor scores on the essays.
For you to score in the 60's on the essay portion means that you were objectively bad at understanding how to apply the law to a set of facts. The threshold for law scores on the essay portion start at 40 - which means you only received 20-25 more points than the MINIMUM on each essay. Yet, miraculously, you were able to understand the proper application of the law on the MBE section? This, and other claims made by people in your exact situation who have posted on this board claiming scores as high as 85% on the MBE rings extremely odd. Indeed, how can one score an 85% on the MBE, yet fail the exam based on the poor performance on the essays? It just makes no sense.