The Almost Daily Word – Win Big on Performance Tests by Reading Their “Tells” – Part 1

“If you’re playing a poker game and you look around the table and can’t tell who the sucker it, it’s you.” Paul Newman – Movie Star and Race Car Driver

The most common complaint I hear from applicants preparing to take the Performance Test is this:

“I had trouble organizing my answer. This created so much pressure to finish within three hours. There is so much material in every Performance Test and so little time to absorb and deal with it.”

“Practice makes perfect” in performance test writing; the more you write the better you’ll get. That said though, you can also practice spotting the sucker – not being a sucker.

Here’s the difference.

Every performance test is unique in many ways – it’s intended by the drafters to be. But, if you were, say, a “bar geek” like me (get a life Adam!) you might consider it interesting to go through as many of the 120 or so past questions to see if they have anything in comment. If you did, you might be able to describe the major types of performance tests and invent strategies for each one. No way you say?

Well … you’re in luck. Stay tuned to the “Almost Daily Word.”

The Almost Daily Word – Magic and the MBE – Part 1 – the Bullet Catch

“The magic show is a competition. The audience is trying to figure you out. They aren’t suspending their disbelief—they’re trying to expose you as a scam artist.” – Teller

The Bullet Catch is a classic magic trick. In it, a bullet, typically marked in advance by an audience member to establish its authenticity, is loaded and fired by a skilled marksman, generally through a pane of glass, at the star of the show. The magician then catches it, often in his or her mouth, collapsing to the stage with the effort, only to stand back up triumphantly to spit out the projectile with its markings in tact. Magic – right? Or at least an impenetrable deception.

Actually, neither. In Penn and Teller’s “Double Bullet Catch,” the magicians swiftly and surreptitiously substitute wax bullets in the two guns and conceal the marked ones in their mouths. The waxed bullets shatter the glass, going no further and, well, you know the rest. All the famous pair have done, when you get right down to it, is invent a simple set of procedures, and then practice them to perfection, relying on their experience in, and knowledge of, what will trick their audiences.

In a way, as you begin your preparation for the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) you are walking into a similar world of tricks and deceptions. In this world, each question has a correct answer right out in plain site – no trick there. However, all around the answer are scattered diversions, misdirections, and challenges, all carefully contrived by experts– often law professors with professional lifetimes observing students’ weaknesses and counter-productive tendencies.

The National Conference of Bar Examiners spends considerable time and treasure creating MBE questions, creating layer upon layer of question creation, editing, review, pretesting, and statistical tracking to make sure that questions go out on stage every bit as slick and apparently impenetrable as the Double Bullet Catch. Just as Penn and Teller rely on certain audience tendencies, the NCBE relies on the tendency of applicants to read questions incompletely or without sufficient focus; to make incorrect assumptions; to bring less-than-satisfactory understandings of the law into the exam; and – let’s be real– to be terrified.

Okay – take a breath. Open your mind to this possibility. If you can learn to spot these tricks, or even just the most common ones, and then practice, practice, practice, what may seem like insurmountable wizardry at the moment can, over time, turn into just another day at the office.

In this occasional series on The Almost Daily Word, I will be making observations on how to penetrate the magic of the MBE on your road to Bar success. Please stay tuned!

Here we go!

The Almost Daily Word – Why Gamble on Essay Questions: Letting Essay Call Structures Organize Your Answers – Part 5 – The Undivided Call

“The smarter you play, the luckier you’ll be.” Mark Pilarski – Gambling Expert

“You can know the rules of law. You can know IRAC. You can know how to write. You can know all of that. But if you don’t know the Bar Exam itself, you’re “’playing stupid.’” Adam Ferber – Bar Exam Blogger

Each year, there are six essay questions on each of two bar exam administrations – 12 altogether. That’s 60 essays in the last five years, 120 in the last ten years. This might lead you to conclude, even after your bar preparation, that there is endless variety in essay questions. It might lead you to think that your best bet is just opening the exam booklet and reacting to what you see. It might, but if it did, you wouldn’t be playing smart – you’d just be gambling.

Although California Bar Examination Essay Question calls (the tasks assigned to the applicant in each question) vary slightly, in general, there are four call structures that commonly appear. An applicant who has become familiar with each such call structure and has developed appropriate strategies to respond to them will have an advantage on the essay portion of the Exam.

The fourth such call, I call “the Undivided Call.”

(a) Description

The “Undivided Call” can appear as a single call, or one or more sub-calls in a question. (This means that, at the same time, an essay question can have characteristics of both a “multiple-choice call,” and an “undivided call.” However it appears, it is similar to the Causes of Action Call in that it calls on the applicant to identify all possible issues (sometimes causes of action, sometimes other legal issues) that reasonably arise from the facts in the question, assign weights to them, and then allocate appropriate time and words to organizing, analyzing and discussing them.

It is different from the Causes of Action Call in that it also requires the applicant to organize, analyze and discuss all the issues together to reach the answer to the single call of the question. In this respect, it is similar to the most heavily weighted sub-call in a Multiple-Call question.

(b) Example

“Does City’s refusal to allow AAO to use the bulletin board violate the rights of AAO’s members under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Discuss.”

(c) Handling the Undivided Call

As does the Causes of Action Call, the Undivided Call typically uses facts and words typically associated with a rule or rules in doctrinal law school courses and bar reviews. Once the applicant is familiar with the content of the root of the question, he or she can identify these facts and situations and/or these triggering words and link them to the corresponding rules of law. The relative weights of the issues can be used to make time and word allocations.

The second level of analysis can be thought of as an issue in itself, requiring its own weight and time and word allocation. That is because, as in the example above, the applicant must organize, analyze and discuss the each issue and its outcome to arrive at a direct answer to the single call.

(d) ‘Samples of Causes of Action Questions at the Office of Admissions’ “Past Examinations Site”

– February 2014: Essay questions 3, and 4

– February 2013: Essay questions 4, 5, and 6

 

 

Why Gamble on Essay Questions: Letting Essay Call Structures Organize Your Answers – Part 4 – The Causes of Action Call

“The smarter you play, the luckier you’ll be.” Mark Pilarski – Gambling Expert

“You can know the rules of law. You can know IRAC. You can know how to write. You can know all of that . But if you don’t know the Bar Exam itself, you’re “’playing stupid.’” Adam Ferber – Bar Exam Blogger

Each year, there are six essay questions on each of two bar exam administrations – 12 altogether. That’s 60 essays in the last five years, 120 in the last ten years. This might lead you to conclude, even after your bar preparation, that there is endless variety in essay questions. It might lead you to think that your best bet is just opening the exam booklet and reacting to what you see. It might, but if it did, you wouldn’t be playing smart – you’d just be gambling.

Although California Bar Examination Essay Question calls (the tasks assigned to the applicant in each question) vary slightly, in general, there are four call structures that commonly appear. An applicant who has become familiar with each such call structure and has developed appropriate strategies to respond to them will have an advantage on the essay portion of the Exam.

The third such call, I call “the Causes of Action Call.”

In this common call, the term “causes of action,” can be replaced with terms such as “ethical violations,” or “arguments.”

a) Description

The “Causes of Action” Call asks the applicant to list and discuss all causes of action that reasonably arise from the root of the question, often together with all defenses to such causes of action. Alternatively, the question may be “flipped,” and the applicant asked to discuss all defenses (creating the necessity to discuss the causes of action).

This type of question is easier than other types in the sense that each cause of action (and its defenses) can be discussed separately. There is generally no need to discuss one cause of action in connection with others in the question. It is more difficult in that the applicant must identify all causes of action worth discussing and, importantly, omit all causes of action not worth discussing. As a consequence of each cause of action’s complexity relevant to the others, the capable applicant must also assign a tentative weight to each and then apportion answer and outlining time and words accordingly.

(b) Example

“What causes of action might Peter’s father reasonably assert against PLC, what defenses can PLC raise, and what is the likely outcome on each? Discuss.”

(c) Handling the Causes of Action Call

The “Causes of Action” Call often describes facts and situations that are commonly used in law school and bar review courses to illustrate the application of a rule of law. The facts often include particular words that the applicant will recognize as triggering the possible application of the rule or rules. Once the applicant is familiar with the content of the root of the question, he or she can identify these facts and situations and/or these triggering words and link them to the corresponding rules of law.

The analysis should not end there however, since the applicant should anticipate that all identified causes of action will not be weighted equally. The applicant should also anticipate that one or more facts may give rise to the possible application of more than one rule of law. For example, in Question 1 (“Peter and the Power Station”) from the February 2008 examination, the “high voltage electricity power substation” that injures twelve-year-old Peter should trigger consideration of both ultra hazardous activities and attractive nuisances, in addition to negligence.

(d) Samples of Causes of Action Questions at the Office of Admissions, Past Examinations Site

– February 2014: Essay question 5

– July 2013: Essay questions 2, 5, and 6

– February 2013: Essay question 2

The Almost Daily Word – Why Gamble on Essay Questions: Letting Essay Call Structures Organize Your Answers – Part 3

“The smarter you play, the luckier you’ll be.” Mark Pilarski – Gambling Expert

“You can know the rules of law. You can know IRAC. You can know how to write. But if you don’t know the Bar Exam itself, you’re “’playing stupid.’” Adam Ferber – Bar Exam Blogger

Each year, there are six essay questions on each of two bar exam administrations – 12 altogether. That’s 60 essays in the last five years, 120 in the last ten years. This might lead you to conclude, even after your bar preparation, that there is endless variety in essay questions. It might lead you to think that your best bet is just opening the exam booklet and reacting to what you see. It might, but if it did, you wouldn’t be playing smart – you’d just be gambling.

Although California Bar Examination Essay Question calls (the tasks assigned to the applicant in each question) vary slightly, in general, there are four call structures that commonly appear. An applicant who has become familiar with each such call structure and has developed appropriate strategies to respond to them will have an advantage on the essay portion of the Exam.

The second such call, I call “the Evidence Call.”

(a) Description-The Evidence Call is a variation of the Multiple-Call Call, adapted to an Evidence question or the Evidence portion of a cross-over question. It consists of two or more sub-calls, each of which may have additional sub-sub-calls. Each sub-call references testimony or evidence that each of the party’s in a contested action wishes to introduce into evidence.

(b) Example

“Assuming all appropriate objections and motions were timely made, did the court properly:

1. Allow the prosecution to call Whitney? Discuss

2. Admit the testimony of:

(a) Whitney? Discuss.

(b) Ella? Discuss.

(c) Fred? Discuss.

Answer according to California law.”

(c) Handling the Evidence Call

The Evidence Call has a slightly different format from the Multiple-Call Call but requires the same recognition of the relationship that the weights of the sub-calls have to the applicant’s apportioning of time and words. One or more of the sub-calls may call for a two-tiered analysis; for example, the admissibility of testimony based on a discussion of the hearsay rule and all relevant exceptions. The applicability or inapplicability of the rule and each exception is the first tier. Organization, analysis and discussion of all the relevant rules and exceptions is then necessary to answer the call; e.g., should the testimony of Officer be admitted?

(d) Samples of Evidence Call Questions at the Office of Admissions “Past Examinations Site”

– July 2012: Essay Question 6

– February 2012: Question 3