| Search |
| Navigation |
| Syndicate |
|
| User login |
blogs
During the summer, I used the February 2008 numbers to generate an idea of the raw written score necessary to pass the California bar exam for a range of MBE scores.
Now that the Information for Unsuccessful Applicants has been published, we can get an idea of what was required for July 2008.
Updated for July 2008, here's how it worked out. If I'm interpreting the changes correctly, strong performances on the MBE had a pretty big effect, lowering the required raw written score substantially.
Update 3: Word trickling in from the school is either 88% or 89% pass rate, depending on which professor's report one chooses to believe. (Prof. Honigsberg was responsible for the 88% number, so that's probably where I'd lean...) That's pretty close to my final number, which dropped an eighth non-taker from the list, putting us at 174 pass, 27 non-pass, or 87% (rounded). All told, pretty good, but not the 9 points above the CA ABA number of July 2007.
Update 2: 7 non-takers have been eliminated. One miscount by me has been corrected (thanks, Sean.) Now we're at 174 pass, 28 non-pass, with only half of the non-passers confirmed as takers. That puts us just over 86% passing right now. Thanks to the network of investigators bringing the numbers together.
Update: So far, I've received a list of 6 2008 grads who didn't take the CA bar exam in July (at least 3 of whom passed other bars.) That bumps the number up to around 85%, matching 2007 (but matching the difference between 2007's results and the CA ABA number. We need to get to 92% for that.)
Also, since I neglected to earlier, let me add my congratulations to those who passed, and my encouragement to those who did not, who will be starting their prep for February soon.
--
Now that the passing list for the July 2008 California bar exam is out, I was able to cross-reference it with the list of graduates from the commencement bulletin.
Using that as a guide: 83%, right at the number for California ABA-accredited schools. 173 pass, 36 fail.
However, I imagine it's unlikely that everyone who graduated in May 2008 the California bar exam. If you know someone on the list as a May graduate who didn't take the CA bar exam, let me know. (I have no idea about the LLM students, none of whom showed up on the pass list, so I didn't count them at all.)
Whew. I'll re-use the phrase above to title this one.
I memorialized the final 2 minutes with this lovely screencast. Enjoy.
Less than 24 hours to the bar exam. I've suddenly become rather nervous, though I'm not entirely sure why. It's not like I have anything lined up Monday other than the same job I've had for the last 5.5 years. I won't be rushing to take the oath as soon as possible.
On the plus side, the state bar sure hurried up their determination of my moral character. I received the positive determination on November 5, less than 5 months after submitting it. I'd been a little worried, because I'd heard they take even longer than normal for those with longer backgrounds -- people like me, forced to attach a sheet for additional employment lasting longer than 6 months.
However, based on that concern, I was very complete in everything I listed. I contacted as many former managers as I could find, going back to my first high-tech job in 1995. I didn't have any information for my job at Mellon Bank prior to that, and before Mellon Bank, no job met the 6-month threshold. Still, I dug up the temp agencies I did work for in 1994, thanks to the security clearance paperwork I had from the Foreign Service oral assessment. I listed my summers between college semesters. Basically, I did everything I could do to make sure it wouldn't get spit back, as I've heard and read of that happening, with results in the 7- to 8-month range.
On the other hand, I've also heard of very short periods with the analysts, and I've begun to wonder if they don't hurry them along as bar results creep closer, potentially prioritizing those coming up on February results over those who were more conscientious and go their applications in earlier. In the end, I have no idea. I briefly spoke with the analyst handling my file, because I was told my law school declaration wasn't in. I was told that that was normal, because they probably hadn't updated all of the files yet, but that when she actually got to reviewing my file, I would be notified if it was still a problem. Just over a month later, I got the positive determination.
And so, with about 23 hours to go until results, I just have to assume that I did well enough. During the last week, I've been rehashing essay answers over and over in my head, picking out the numerous flaws. I've wondered if I should have organized my answer to the first performance test clearly enough and obviously enough to satisfy the grader who read it. So many little things. Hopefully, all this worry will be for naught. I don't want to be the first person in the top-20% to fail since 2002 (and I keep wondering, how did three fail all in one year?)
I'll report back tomorrow.
A vote for "straight Republican" may be a vote for Nader, even on a calibrated (but not calibrated) machine.
Nice.
I feel sorry for this poor, stagnant blog.
I haven't been writing much here, because I haven't been writing much of anything. I do have things to write, some on legal matters, some not.
As I was bemoaning to a fellow blogger recently, a big hit to my blogging (and legal writing) productivity -- what productivity there ever was -- was the disappearance of my free Westlaw and Lexis access. At some personal expense, I've rectified that, and I plan very shortly to plunge back in on some unsettled matters.
After that, I'll be turning some attention back to the blog, likely with a pretty massive overhaul. I'm still cementing the details, though I have a pretty good idea of what it will be like. The toughest part is design, which just is not my forte. No worries, there's time for that.
With law school and the bar exam out of the way, it's time to get back to riding. Prior to law school, I was going 25,000 miles to 30,000 miles per year. During law school, that didn't happen, and my sport-touring bikes just weren't being ridden.
And so, today I took delivery of a 2007 FJR1300A.
I told it, "There will be good times across that bridge, but if you go too fast, I might end up on the island on the right."
I'll try not to take it into the big, bad city too often:
If it looked closely, it could see where it would take me to work, up at the top of the big brown spot on the hill:
Then, we ran over to those hills for a small amount of riding, when it became clear that a couple of years without some sporty riding have made me rusty. I've got some practicing to do.
Finally, we came home, and the poor thing learned that where it lives, the views aren't as great as the other areas I showed it:
It's taking some work not to disengage my clutch every time I brake. It's also taking work to remember that fine braking needs the pedal and not the clutch lever. But we're getting there.
Jayson Ahern, Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recently posted a blog entry at the Department of Homeland Security's site. In it, Mr. Ahern takes issue with the criticism that has been level against Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") in light of the news that they've been routinely nabbing laptops and other electronic devices, imaging the full contents, and sharing those contents with other agencies. It's a tired refrain of the typical DHS line: 1) we're at risk; 2) we've always been doing it, anyway, and you just didn't know about it; and 3) the courts say it's okay, so that makes it okay.
Leadership Journal: Answering Questions on Border Laptop Searches:
First, it’s important to note that for more than 200 years, the federal government has been granted the authority to prevent dangerous people and things from entering the United States. Our security measures at the border are rooted in this fundamental fact, and our ability to achieve our border mission would be hampered if we did not apply the same search authorities to electronic media that we have long-applied to physical objects--including documents, photographs, film and other graphic material.
Who knew that documents, photographs, film, and other material constituted "dangerous things?" Those things aren't dangerous, of course, and to characterize them as such is the way of the simple, who have no reasoned explanations for their mindless actions. Might those items contain information that might be used to commit harm? Probably. However, it is people acting, not the things in their possession, that cause harm and create dangers. That's true whether the items contain child pornography, bomb making plans, or obscene comic books.
In the 21st century, terrorists and criminals increasingly use laptops and other electronic media to transport illicit materials that were traditionally concealed in bags, containers, notebooks and paper documents. Making full use of our search authorities with respect to items like notebooks and backpacks, while failing to do so with respect to laptops and other devices, would ensure that terrorists and criminals receive less scrutiny at our borders just as their use of technology is becoming more sophisticated.
So, to, do many law abiding Americans and aliens, who might like "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." The difference is one of need. In this modern era of electronic media, there's little reason to feel threatened by the transport of a laptop. There are countless smarter, more efficient ways that a devious criminal would find to migrate that data across the border. In fact, a laptop with a spinning hard drive is perhaps one of the worst. It's the clear electronic devices that are the least threatening.
The agency would be better off not lying to the American people and fully explaining what this is: a fishing expedition. Grab laptops and these other electronic devices, create images, and then use them either in the coming copyright enforcement battles or to simply watch and hope for the appearance of incriminating data.
This brings me to my third point, which is that travelers whose laptops are searched represent a very small number of people. As Secretary Chertoff noted in a recent op-ed,
"Of the approximately 400 million travelers who entered the country last year, only a tiny percentage were referred to secondary baggage inspection…[and] of those, only a fraction had electronic devices that may have been checked.”This number is less than one percent of people entering the United States. Contrary to some media accounts, we’re not rolling out a new strategy and screening an exorbitant number of travelers. We’re simply following a common sense border policy that has been in place for years, and has been reaffirmed by the courts.
Unless they're horribly misstating their case, there is a "common sense" policy that permitted the CBP to search the electronic devices of up to 4 million people entering the United States last year. One percent may, indeed, be a small percentage. However, 4 million people is not a small number of people.
I hope this has helped answer some of your questions. One of the lessons 9/11 taught us was that we must adapt to 21st century risks and anticipate rather than react to new threats. Our CBP officers are on the front lines every day ensuring that these lessons are heeded. We trust that travelers understand the need for these sensible security measures.
"One of the lessons 9/11 [has] taught" the rest of us is that those in power will use 9/11 as a ready justification for any unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of Americans and the expansion of governmental power and knowledge. Can Mr. Ahern look at the mirror after trotting out this 9/11 crap to support his points? More importantly, if this has been long-standing policy, backed by more than 200 years of authority, as he asserts in the posting, shouldn't we have better lessons than 9/11? What laptops with plans slipped through prior to 9/11 that permitted it to occur?
None, would be my guess.
This is my second day back at work since the bar exam. I came in Friday, but things were generally dead. It's not dead today.
I have not been keeping count of the number of people who ask me how I did on the bar exam. I'm not entirely sure how I wish to answer such questions. I've settled on, "I think I did well enough to pass." Does that sufficiently hedge?
I just made the mistake of reading someone's breakdown of questions and issues, which suggests that I missed more issues that I had originally believed. In particular, it appears that perhaps my Question #3 and Question #5 were weaker than I had originally believed.
Oh, man. It's going to be a long wait until November 21.
Every now and then, I take some ribbing for the "Friends" references I make. But today, at blawgging heavyweight Concurring Opinions, I find I'm not the only one.
Concurring Opinions: Put Your Hands Together:
In an episode of Friends, Joey, a notorious womanizer, is eating fresh-made jam directly from the jar. Chandler says, "Hey, Joe. I gotta ask. The girl from the Xerox place--buck naked [holding up one hand], or [holding up the other hand] a big tub of jam?" And Joey says, "Put your hands together." That is how I feel about movies and tax. Put your hands together! Lucky for me, such a fantasy place does exist: movie tax credits.
Granted, in this post, Prof. Lawsky provides a little more context than I might typically provide in my "Friends" references. There probably aren't enough "Friends" geeks in my readership for many to understand the reference here, for instance.
Regardless, I'm just hoping this is a sign of the practice taking off. Soon, such references will be common and meaningful to all!
| Browse archives |
| IP/Tech Blawgs |
| Other Blawgs |
| Friends |
| USF Law Blawgs |