Bar Exam Structure.....

[eastman]

The reason why Ms. Sullivan failed is actually very simple: she is stupid.

She's not stupid, she just thought they would give her a pass just because she was Stafford's dean ..

Which boils down to being stupid .. they did jack her up, but her score was so low that they just couldn't give her a pass ..

I wouldn't say stupid ... maybe she just did not study enough, thinking they'd give her a pass because she was Stanford's dean ... but I may be wrong, of course ...

[natanchik1]

Anyone interested in the multiple choice questions on the Multistate bar should definately enroll in a PMBR course.  You can do so at www.easypmbr.com.  It is a great site put together by one of PMBR's reps, and makes the enrollment process simple. 

[tamika]

The reason why Ms. Sullivan failed is actually very simple: she is stupid.

She's not stupid, she just thought they would give her a pass just because she was Stafford's dean ..

Which boils down to being stupid .. they did jack her up, but her score was so low that they just couldn't give her a pass ..

I wouldn't say stupid ... maybe she just did not study enough, thinking they'd give her a pass because she was Stanford's dean ... but I may be wrong, of course ...

Even if she did not study hard, she's Stanford's dean, she has already taken two states bar exams and you just can not attribute her failure to her lack of preparation. Does the definition of "assault," "battery," "specific performance" and the like change over time, or from state to state?! Does California have a much different definition of "principal in the second degree" compared to New York?! Not really!

[marian]

Even if she did not study hard, she's Stanford's dean, she has already taken two states bar exams and you just can not attribute her failure to her lack of preparation. Does the definition of "assault," "battery," "specific performance" and the like change over time, or from state to state?! Does California have a much different definition of "principal in the second degree" compared to New York?! Not really!

Kathleen Sullivan is a stupid female private part period.

[J D]

The reason why Ms. Sullivan failed is actually very simple: she is stupid.

She's not stupid, she just thought they would give her a pass just because she was Stafford's dean ..

Which boils down to being stupid .. they did jack her up, but her score was so low that they just couldn't give her a pass ..

I wouldn't say stupid ... maybe she just did not study enough, thinking they'd give her a pass because she was Stanford's dean ... but I may be wrong, of course ...

Even if she did not study hard, she's Stanford's dean, she has already taken two states bar exams and you just can not attribute her failure to her lack of preparation. Does the definition of "assault," "battery," "specific performance" and the like change over time, or from state to state?! Does California have a much different definition of "principal in the second degree" compared to New York?! Not really!

Actually, criminal and tort law can vary significantly from state to state.  Regarding the example you gave, I don't know for certain (I would guess not, but only because the definition of "principal" is pretty uncontroversial) but the criminal laws of NY and CA differ markedly, since NY is for the most part an MPC jurisdiction, while CA is not.  For example, in NY, the rules regarding the mens rea needed for conviction would differ tremendously from the rules CA has on the subject (CA actually tries to distinguish between "specific intent" and "general intent," for example; NY only cares about "purpose").  Besides, as mentioned in the article, the CA bar examiners often test matters that more properly belong to legal history than anything else.  Most other states could not care less how a hypothetical case would turn out in 18th century England; they want to see whether you know how that case would turn out NOW in that jurisdiction!

Besides, the argument you make regarding the relative stability of legal rules over time and across US jurisdictions proves too much.  If all that you argue is really the case, then one wouldn't excpect to see such low bar passage rates for the CA bar exam (both from first time law school graduates AND from lawyers sitting for the CA bar who have already passed another state's exam), unless sitting for the CA bar exam logically correlates with stupidity or laziness in some way.  It's a hard exam.  No one denies this.  Thus, it's hard to justify the position that a demonstrably qualified legal practicioner is "stupid" merely because she didn't pass the CA bar. 

[sdlaw]

I passed the actual bar that she took, I do not think she is dumb but rather was unprepared.  My belief is that she thought given her experience she did not need to study, and from what I have read she was too busy to study alot.  But what she failed to take into account was that she is a very talented lawyer in one area, while the bar tests on many areas.  Also the bar exam likes a certain style of writing, many short paragraphs with the point being right out there rather than in the middle of a paragraph.  So I would judge her failure more on being underprepared and over confident rather than stupidity.

[erinbrockovich]

hahaha

[miamivice]

Also the bar exam likes a certain style of writing, many short paragraphs with the point being right out there rather than in the middle of a paragraph.

Are the essays scored by a computer or by a real person?

[substantianigra]

LOL miami, I know what ya mean!

[bong]

Interesting thread