Wednesday, January 13, 2010
New Year’s Actions
Finding myself – back to the basics…
I don’t know about you, but the new year bring in a lot of soul-searching, or, as my husband would say, anxiety for him, as he doesn’t know what his crazy wife will want to do in the new year. I hate the word “resolutions” as many call it. I like to think of it as actions. I’ve made many resolutions that die before they leave the shutters of my mind, so I figure, a new word will help me help myself better.
One of my first actions this year was to think about food differently. I’m tired of making the same old rice, roti, curry, meat dishes. Not only is Indian cooking time consuming, but leftover portions, after two meals, tend to weigh me down, with the smell and the tiredness of it all. I decided to expand my repertoire not only with different recipes and cuisines but to get back to the basics. Like trying out more seasonal veggies and not just making Indian style versions of them, updating my pantry with more whole grains – quinoa, wild rice. Although what I will do with them, we’ll see…
This week was a really good start. Monday’s dinner was roasted kale (kudos to my cousin for introducing this delish starter to me) and asparagus to start, with pav bhaji. Yes, Indian, I know, but it was a combination of four or more veggies, easily cooked and consumed, I must say. My two-year old had a blast tearing off the kale leaves from the stem while prepping it for the oven.
Tuesday night was fish and a ready-mix salad – freshly shopped for at the grocery store, but with a dinner prep time of 20 mins of less!!! Added a few spicy ingredients and sizzled the fish in a saucepan. I could have added some version of bread, in hindsight. Next time…
Tonight, I’m planning a whole wheat spaghetti & store bought marinara, with oven roasted thinly sliced eggplants and zucchini (and asparagus still in the fridge from Monday) and a great fresh salad recipe - shredded beets and carrots – from this author/chef I stumbled across on NPR www.cucinanicolina.com. Shredded beets, carrots, some lime juice, olive oil, salt and pepper.
Tomorrow, I’ll probably revert back to some version of chicken curry, before the other members of my household (including me, at some point, I’m sure) revolt in protest at alien combinations being forced down their palates, but in this process, I’m re-discovering how much I used to enjoy cooking and baking. These past few years, despite the obvious relish with which I watched the Food Network, I grew disdainful of cooking day in and day out. I’m not sure how much steam my current interest will run on, but I’m hoping it will last a while, because I cannot see myself doing take-out 2-3 times a week like I used to. Forget about the expense and the growing abdominal fat, (which, it is rumored you can never get rid of!) but the taste these days is just so blah! The oil smells stale most of the time; you wonder what’s in there the rest of the time…
I also came across an interesting article in the Sac Bee a few weeks ago. http://www.sacbee.com/161/story/2426657.html Apparently, a farm just outside Sacramento http://www.delriobotanical.com allows you to purchase a box of fresh veggies and fruits for $20 a week (catch is that you have to pay for the whole quarter in advance) along with recipes or suggestions for how to cook the produce. This sounds fabulous! I read the reporters article with relish, but my enthusiasm started nose-diving about half-way through the article. I didn’t know about more than half the veggies and I don’t think I ate any of them at all… I guess this is going to have to wait to see how my life plan action is taking effect in the next few weeks. Figure, if I sign up closer to the summer, at least I’ll know what to do with the abundant summer produce that I’m mostly familiar with, but I wouldn’t be making any bets if I were you!
I don’t know about you, but the new year bring in a lot of soul-searching, or, as my husband would say, anxiety for him, as he doesn’t know what his crazy wife will want to do in the new year. I hate the word “resolutions” as many call it. I like to think of it as actions. I’ve made many resolutions that die before they leave the shutters of my mind, so I figure, a new word will help me help myself better.
One of my first actions this year was to think about food differently. I’m tired of making the same old rice, roti, curry, meat dishes. Not only is Indian cooking time consuming, but leftover portions, after two meals, tend to weigh me down, with the smell and the tiredness of it all. I decided to expand my repertoire not only with different recipes and cuisines but to get back to the basics. Like trying out more seasonal veggies and not just making Indian style versions of them, updating my pantry with more whole grains – quinoa, wild rice. Although what I will do with them, we’ll see…
This week was a really good start. Monday’s dinner was roasted kale (kudos to my cousin for introducing this delish starter to me) and asparagus to start, with pav bhaji. Yes, Indian, I know, but it was a combination of four or more veggies, easily cooked and consumed, I must say. My two-year old had a blast tearing off the kale leaves from the stem while prepping it for the oven.
Tuesday night was fish and a ready-mix salad – freshly shopped for at the grocery store, but with a dinner prep time of 20 mins of less!!! Added a few spicy ingredients and sizzled the fish in a saucepan. I could have added some version of bread, in hindsight. Next time…
Tonight, I’m planning a whole wheat spaghetti & store bought marinara, with oven roasted thinly sliced eggplants and zucchini (and asparagus still in the fridge from Monday) and a great fresh salad recipe - shredded beets and carrots – from this author/chef I stumbled across on NPR www.cucinanicolina.com. Shredded beets, carrots, some lime juice, olive oil, salt and pepper.
Tomorrow, I’ll probably revert back to some version of chicken curry, before the other members of my household (including me, at some point, I’m sure) revolt in protest at alien combinations being forced down their palates, but in this process, I’m re-discovering how much I used to enjoy cooking and baking. These past few years, despite the obvious relish with which I watched the Food Network, I grew disdainful of cooking day in and day out. I’m not sure how much steam my current interest will run on, but I’m hoping it will last a while, because I cannot see myself doing take-out 2-3 times a week like I used to. Forget about the expense and the growing abdominal fat, (which, it is rumored you can never get rid of!) but the taste these days is just so blah! The oil smells stale most of the time; you wonder what’s in there the rest of the time…
I also came across an interesting article in the Sac Bee a few weeks ago. http://www.sacbee.com/161/story/2426657.html Apparently, a farm just outside Sacramento http://www.delriobotanical.com allows you to purchase a box of fresh veggies and fruits for $20 a week (catch is that you have to pay for the whole quarter in advance) along with recipes or suggestions for how to cook the produce. This sounds fabulous! I read the reporters article with relish, but my enthusiasm started nose-diving about half-way through the article. I didn’t know about more than half the veggies and I don’t think I ate any of them at all… I guess this is going to have to wait to see how my life plan action is taking effect in the next few weeks. Figure, if I sign up closer to the summer, at least I’ll know what to do with the abundant summer produce that I’m mostly familiar with, but I wouldn’t be making any bets if I were you!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Effective Public Notice in Times of Dwindling Newspaper Circulation?
It’s been a while so, here’s a long, overdue post:
Public Notice Requirements & Declining Newspaper Circulation
If you read a sampling of the Government Code (not that you’d do it for fun), you will most certainly stumble across some aspect of Public Notice, where either the statute, or any proposed amendment to a statute or a regulation has to be made public, through a newspaper notice/advertisement. I also came across a similar requirement for companies that are involved in class-action lawsuits, where they may not have a customer list of those who may be affected, etc, or, that their universe of customers/interested parties is so large, that the most efficient way to reach them is to advertise in the major newspaper of that market. (How’s that for a long, sentence in semi-legalese?)
This, coupled with recent reports about declining circulation of major dailies, got me thinking about the efficacy of this medium for the purpose of notice. Back in the day, pre-internet, the newspaper was the only place to be informed about such happenings. Now, however, the number of people that rely solely on newspapers for their information is declining, and rapidly in some age-groups, mostly younger age-groups, in my opinion. (Although, without having the time or resources to dig into a report or analysis saying something similar, I would venture to suggest that this is the current trend.) Not only is the medium through which people get their news fragmented (exploding internet news sites, cable, satellite, broadcast tv, streaming media directed to phones, radio, etc.,), but newspaper circulation is also at its darkest time in its history. (Someone once made an interesting analogy, comparing the obsoleteness of newspapers with the obsoleteness of the law firm billing model, but suggested that neither is going to change drastically in a short period of time.) Check out this link from the Sacramento Business Journal, http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/10/26/daily7.html, about plummeting circulation numbers. Don’t forget to note the possibility that while overall circulation is down, if you compare declines by age-group, you would probably find a more telling story about older vs. younger generations and their preferences for different media.
Now that we have all this background, here’s the point – is a “public notice” requirement in newspapers obsolete? Further, if it is obsolete, is there any other medium that is more suited for widespread dissemination to enable the public to gain notice about matters affecting its rights?
I’m sure people will argue that newspapers still have a vast majority of readers, particularly those who would go to newspapers specifically for this kind of information. I’m sure most defendants would argue that too, because suddenly, their burden of notifying the public will be more weighty and expensive, perhaps. But still, does reaching out to a fraction of an “interested” population through a newspaper advertisement qualify that you have met the requirements for notifying the public about potential changes to their rights? Are we just paying lip service to this function of “notice” by carrying on old traditions that do not serve their purpose anymore?
Secondly, is the internet a better-suited mechanism for “public notice”? It’s also equally fragmented. It’s much more private (yes, an oxymoron!), but the privacy of opening a web page from your own space (home, office, phone, tv, wherever!) lends to a more uncensored ideological/philosophical leaning, I would think. So, I’m assuming those who lean left, never (or infrequently, perhaps) visit right-wing news sites or blogs, and vice-versa. Maybe a non-profit organization will pop-up soon, if it hasn’t already that will be a “public notice center.org” by State, that will perhaps be the new equivalent. But can you imagine that text in a regulation or statute? I’m assuming here’s how it will read, “Department has to put up a notice on ‘public notice center.org’ or its equivalent, for a period of 45-60 days, with an opportunity for the public to respond. Public hearings will be held within 3 weeks…” and so on and so forth. That would be a first… I wonder if this change will come about in my lifetime.
I did see something close, though, albeit, with the newspaper as the conduit. The Sacramento Bee had an article recently about how the Re-districting Commission was accepting applications from citizens for the Committee and it directed readers to their website. (As an aside, I urge all residents of California to apply and participate in this process, see http://www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov/.) But still, it was the newspaper that directed people to it. How would the average citizen learn about it if the Sac Bee, even with its dwindling circulation didn’t carry it?
Public comments appreciated…
Friday, August 28, 2009
Circus, circus
Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey is in town and I've been debating for a long time if I should take my two year old to it. I finally gave in and bought tickets earlier this week, much to the recrimination of more principled friends. So I am trying desperately to justify going to the Circus... I know my munchkin will be amazed beyond belief to see elephants, horses and I think even a tiger, so why isn't that impending joy enough? I looked at their website and they had a page or a comment somewhere about how humanely they treat their animals... But then my conscience goes, it's like Philip Morris saying they donate money to lung cancer foundations, isn't it. Bah! Voice in my head, you're killing the fun of it.
Then I try to argue with the voice in my head, that the zoo is the same thing. They have animals on display and they have to deal with heckling kids all day - that's much more sad than the circus animals participating in shows for a few minutes/hours a day. But this is not the same, yells out my conscience. No one is deliberately demeaning you by trying to make you defy gravity, by having the horse or the dog walk on two legs or by having a majestic elephant do silly
anthropomorphic tricks. Or, even worse, no one uses corporal punishment in order to train you to do these things...
I get it - I understand the mistreatment, but in a way, I think, I'm going through the same thing. With the current job market (yes, it will always come back to this somehow), I feel like a circus animal myself in my job search - eager to please, displaying my profound and proficient talents, juggling if I have to, to make an impression, walking on one leg, or so it seems, most days... ;0) The one good thing is that I don't have a whip-happy trainer trying to get me to imbibe these seemingly fantastical skills. Yay! I'm a circus animal but I'm not mistreated. Sigh! Point is, I understand how they feel, with this weird, inexplicable analogy that I have created - the need to achieve something, the desire for applause, people flocking to you...
I don't ever want to be in this boat again, re-inventing myself, starting off at the bottom of the food chain and in a way, I don't think I ever will be. What I don't understand though is how an industry expects to get a skilled workforce if they are not invested in training that workforce or providing this workforce with opportunities and resources.
I'm sure there are many who say that this is just the market correcting itself to get rid of excesses, and they may be right, but it seems that the industry itself is caught unawares - with big law surreptitiously copying one another, with others waiting in the wings to see how the chips will fall, and with the rest of the bottom feeders now aspiring and getting what they couldn't earlier.
As far as I remember, there have been voices for changing the system - for changing the 6 minute "kaching" counter, for being more realistic with associate salaries, bonuses, etc, for having law schools be more responsive to the needs of the market, instead of burying them with theory and heavy coursebooks.
Why is it, that a system that has devised and designed a doctorate degree in three years of rigorous study, is so uncertain about the product it churns out that people are afraid of those who are below the magic number (what is that - the top third of the class?)? I am surprised by the judgment that your transcript inspires in people - not having seen such a phenomena with my other degrees.
Is it because the practice of law is so scripted and rigid that only the top third of the class can practice well? Or is it that the practice of law is so eclectic that those who did badly on one day, at the end of the semester/year, will be doomed to repent it the rest of their lives (dramatic, I know...)? Or is it just a system that has so badly spiralled out of being, that it is its own entity, where, the study of law in this country is now a law unto itself?
I know - I'm asking for the meaning of life and everything, but I digress... Where was I, yes, about the circus... yep "all the world is" indeed "a stage..."
Then I try to argue with the voice in my head, that the zoo is the same thing. They have animals on display and they have to deal with heckling kids all day - that's much more sad than the circus animals participating in shows for a few minutes/hours a day. But this is not the same, yells out my conscience. No one is deliberately demeaning you by trying to make you defy gravity, by having the horse or the dog walk on two legs or by having a majestic elephant do silly
anthropomorphic tricks. Or, even worse, no one uses corporal punishment in order to train you to do these things...
I get it - I understand the mistreatment, but in a way, I think, I'm going through the same thing. With the current job market (yes, it will always come back to this somehow), I feel like a circus animal myself in my job search - eager to please, displaying my profound and proficient talents, juggling if I have to, to make an impression, walking on one leg, or so it seems, most days... ;0) The one good thing is that I don't have a whip-happy trainer trying to get me to imbibe these seemingly fantastical skills. Yay! I'm a circus animal but I'm not mistreated. Sigh! Point is, I understand how they feel, with this weird, inexplicable analogy that I have created - the need to achieve something, the desire for applause, people flocking to you...
I don't ever want to be in this boat again, re-inventing myself, starting off at the bottom of the food chain and in a way, I don't think I ever will be. What I don't understand though is how an industry expects to get a skilled workforce if they are not invested in training that workforce or providing this workforce with opportunities and resources.
I'm sure there are many who say that this is just the market correcting itself to get rid of excesses, and they may be right, but it seems that the industry itself is caught unawares - with big law surreptitiously copying one another, with others waiting in the wings to see how the chips will fall, and with the rest of the bottom feeders now aspiring and getting what they couldn't earlier.
As far as I remember, there have been voices for changing the system - for changing the 6 minute "kaching" counter, for being more realistic with associate salaries, bonuses, etc, for having law schools be more responsive to the needs of the market, instead of burying them with theory and heavy coursebooks.
Why is it, that a system that has devised and designed a doctorate degree in three years of rigorous study, is so uncertain about the product it churns out that people are afraid of those who are below the magic number (what is that - the top third of the class?)? I am surprised by the judgment that your transcript inspires in people - not having seen such a phenomena with my other degrees.
Is it because the practice of law is so scripted and rigid that only the top third of the class can practice well? Or is it that the practice of law is so eclectic that those who did badly on one day, at the end of the semester/year, will be doomed to repent it the rest of their lives (dramatic, I know...)? Or is it just a system that has so badly spiralled out of being, that it is its own entity, where, the study of law in this country is now a law unto itself?
I know - I'm asking for the meaning of life and everything, but I digress... Where was I, yes, about the circus... yep "all the world is" indeed "a stage..."
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Why isn't my phone ringing off the hook with job offers?
Ok, so I'm not in the top 25% of my class (maybe from the bottom, hehe! ;0)), and my school is not in the top 25 law schools in the country, (it is in the top 25 in California, for sure! ;0)), but where are all the entry-level attorney jobs gone? The most depressing thing about all this is that I saw a job listing the other day for an experienced attorney, with 10-15 years of experience and, the listing said that the attorney should have graduated in the top 15% of their class, from a top tier law school. So what, the 10-15 years counts for jack? Crazy!!!
I swear it wasn't so bad last fall, while I was entering my final semester of law school, but all of a sudden, that well is dry. Yes, I know, the economy, stupid..., but what's going to happen to all the entry-level attorneys that law schools are churning out? Will the economy improve enough, that if for instance we were to do something totally different just to get a job, but wanted to change that once things opened up, will the improvement in the economy be so significant that we could? So, just for argument's sake, if I were to go into litigation, but had my heart set on corporate law or securities law, will I be able to work in securities law with 1 or 2 years of PI litigation or construction litigation under my belt?
Also, now, the BIG FIRM associates, the ones who secured all those fabulous jobs a year or two ago, and possibly just this past year, are vying with me, for the stable, not so glamorous other jobs. So, a hiring attorney, looking at this demi-God or demi-Goddess from the Big Firm with I don't know, let's say 2 years of experience of having worked with the best of the best and closed, what, 12 deals, with a market cap of 1 billion plus, (can you tell I'm pulling stuff out of the wazoo?), and looking at my resume, impressive as it is with a few internships, a mid-career change, and my stellar "passed the Cal Bar on the first go" record in Feb '09 with only a 33.5% pass rate, is going to choose whom?
Additionally, I was one among the many ignoramus who didn't realize that to qualify for a Federal Justice Dept job, your application deadline would be the fall of your third year or last semester. If you missed that, the only way to get a Federal Justice Dept job would be to have a few years under your belt.
What about the Cal AG's office you may ask? Well, they're hiring, apparently, but then again, they want you to pick up the ball and run with it on day 1, so they want experience also. It's like the old cliche - what came first, the chicken or the egg? How do you get a job or experience if no one wants to spend time mentoring/training you?
Law firms? Sure (ly not!), and don't forget the non-traditional route I took to law school along with my swinging GPA. I think I should use some inventive statistics & fine print items in my resume to state some of the facts - you know, like top 25% of the class (and in fine print - only among students with a GPA of 3.0 or below); best law school in the country for the IP program (and in fine print - well, technically among the top ten in the country or something like that & since I didn't take any IP coursework, so this is only an fyi); school finalist for an external Moot Court competition (and in fine print - we were the only team that volunteered for the competition), etc. So that is sure to get me in the door for a law firm interview, albeit in a better economy.
Another strategy, use so much legalese on my resume that I look like a legal genius on paper - so it would read something like; drafted a legal opinion on the right of illegal aliens with an illegal re-entry status in cases involving aggravated assault or felony-murder or something cool and lawyerly like that. Hmm - there's an idea. (Not!)
So, my options? Volunteer! Yay! And the loans and the car payments and the credit card bills - oh, yeah, those... This reminds me of the song - "Where have all the "good jobs" gone and where are all the ..."- yes, I'm ageing myself, but where are the jobs? The great state of California is hiring, but again, being inundated with those with experience, is probably offering jobs to the top 25% of the top 25% (pure speculation on my part). And, probably to those who are willing to accept an IOU instead of pay check, given the state's budget crisis. But with 10-12 paid holidays, plus benefits & retirement, I will take a 55K+ job anyday, even with the 15%-20% pay cut from the three furloughs a month, right off the bat. But, I've yet to hear from them...
So what next - keep trying, I say, and I hope to get a job before mid-end November, before another horde of lawyers pass the bar exam and are ready for work. I figure, I can make an argument sounding like this in an interview: "I am a well qualified professional with 6 years of work experience prior to law school, a graduate degree holder along with a J.D., and I passed the bar on my first attempt where the overall pass rate was 33.5%. I know how to work in an office environment, given my past work experience, I can manage my time efficiently, having had a baby after my second year of law school, and having taken just one extra semester to catch up and I have great interpersonal skills," although this will probably get me no where - so scratch the last one. So, have I made a convincing argument for you to hire me, or do I need more facts, or more reasoning and analyses, or, a better application of law (in this case achievements, I guess) to facts?
Drop me a line and let me know if you are faring any better...
Friday, May 15, 2009
It's official, unofficially. I made it...
Sunday, April 05, 2009
My experience with the February 2009 California Bar Exam
I graduated law school in December 2008. I took a non-traditional route to law school in that I already had a Masters degree and about six years work experience in advertising. I didn't see myself in advertising for the rest of my life and this was something that was always in the back of my mind, so I decided to go for it.I joined Santa Clara Law School, which I think is a great law school not only because of its flexibility (I think it's one of the few ABA law schools that has a part-time program), but also because of the close knit community of faculty and administrators and especially the students. I felt a genuine camaraderie with my classmates, okay fine, some of my classmates. Some of them were cliquish, but for the most part, they were very helpful. It’s funny how even the most self-proclaimed liberal will wall themselves off in the quest for the best grade, but that’s a whole other essay on human nature and the survival of the fittest, which I guess would relate well to law school, but another time perhaps. The focus of this essay is the 2009 Feb Bar exam, which I will get to eventually. Maybe the last two paragraphs. ;0)
I started off in the part-time program for various reasons, the first being that I couldn’t get into the full-time program. The school is very flexible though, and after a year, I switched to the full-time path, as I knew I wouldn’t last out four years in law school. In hind-sight, being in the part-time program was great. It gave me enough time to adjust to the vigorous demands of the law school curriculum, and having been out of school for so long, I wasn’t used to staring at pages and pages of legalese. Not that full-time students were, but a majority of them had just graduated, so I’m assuming it would have been an easier transition for them. Prior to the start of my second year, the Fall of 2006, I had a revelation. I started law school in my early 30s. I realized that by the time I would graduate, pass the bar and get a job, I would be in my mid-30s, three to four years later. I couldn't visualize myself as a first-time mom or even as a pregnant woman in the first year of my first job in this profession, so my hubby and I decided that it would be best to have a baby in law school. Brilliant idea, let me tell you, that, along with starting law school as a mid-life career change. Not!!! Ever heard of sucker for punishment? Yours truly will gladly take that honor. The spring semester of my second year, semester two, is when I was happily pregnant and I found out soon after the start of the year. Again, not!!! I was happy and pregnant for all of 2-3 days, when I realized what I got myself into. I had signed up for about 15 or 16 credits that semester. It was not fun studying or sitting in classes when you are constantly nauseous or with a growing waistline that meant you didn't fit into any of your clothes. That coupled with reading assignments, Honors Moot Court and other law school requirements... What was I thinking???
Oh, and I almost forgot to write that all this while, I was commuting on a weekly basis from Sacramento to Santa Clara for law school. Yeah, I know what you are thinking… Santa Clara allows you to visit away your third year, so my big plan was to finish the requirements, 56 credits by the end of the second year, to be able to visit away in the third year and to be closer to school.
Fast forward a few months. About a week or so before my finals, I found out there was a problem with my baby in utero and at that time, we didn’t know what happened or what the outcome would be. I’m surprised I passed, even with the smattering of C’s I received, which seemed to be no different than when I studied hard. Oh well!
I took the Fall semester, the start of my third year off, and after a string of emails back and forth, I joined UC Davis law as a visiting student for the Spring of 2008, the start of my third year. At that time, however, I didn’t realize that UC Davis has this antiquated rule that if you apply for the Spring, you can only visit that one semester, and I didn’t know about it. So when I re-applied for the Fall of 2008, I found out that I couldn’t go back to UC Davis’ Law School in the Fall and I had to apply to another law school nearby.
So I applied again to McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, my saving grace. I finished up the required coursework, and even got a good GPA, surprise, surprise!
Finally, I was ready for bar prep for the Winter Bar Exam, in February 2009. I realized when applying for the bar that the results are released with the well-timed synchronicity of a ballet performance. By the time the results and released, and worst-case, if you failed, you would have enough time to reapply for the July bar exam. Interesting, but let’s not dwell on that. I’m being positive about the bar exam. :0) And yes, I will update this space in mid-May, after I find out.
Going into bar prep, I would recommend that given a choice, take all the bar courses that are offered at your school during your law school years. I found that it helped me remember the material better when it came around to bar prep time.
More about Multi-state prep (MBE, not the MPRE silly! :0)
I signed up for PMBR’s 6-day, 3-day combo, and for Barbri. I found that most students don’t do both, which was surprising as I was told that was the way to go by some of the Bar grads I spoke to. I thought PMBR’s 6 day course was pretty good, and scary, because I performed so badly – almost as if I was taking the multiple choice questions for the first time, minus three+ years of law school.
The questions were good and the instructor review was also good. But I found that the multiple choice explanatory answers could have used some improvement, especially with regard to the incorrect choices. Usually, the explanatory answers would explain the correct answers and at the most one other answer choice, but, if you were like me where your answer choice didn’t necessarily reflect these two, you were second-guessing a solution that may not have been the right one.
Also, the PMBR outlines were very confusing. Unlike Barbri’s more simplified, or some would say simplistic outlines, PMBR was more of a collection of treatises. They are good in that they are accurate explanations of the law, but they are lengthy and in legalese, which means you have to work further to condense it yourself.
PMBR vs. Barbri
Many people I’ve spoken to differ in terms of which one they prefer. So, it’s a personal preference issue, perhaps. I thought that PMBR’s questions were better formulated than Barbri’s multiple choice questions. Although the tips in the lecture or the online video, in case you missed a lecture were similar to Barbri’s tips in approaching a subject.
Also, I thought that the extended practice questions by Barbri were more of the same, and didn’t seem to have as much breadth as PMBR’s extended practice questions did. So, if you did Barbri’s initial sets and the four sets per subject, the extra practice questions didn’t seem to have new areas within that subject. But, since this differs from person to person, this is my opinion regarding my experiences with both companies.
February 2009 MBE
I thought the actual MBE was tricky. They have condensed their fact patterns and on the February exam, the longest fact pattern was probably a tad bit more than half a page, but true to their word, according to PMBR and Barbri, they didn’t have any multiple question sequences – you know, the ones that say, questions 9-11 are from this fact pattern. But, as a result of this, the answer choices on the MBE were very concise and the wording was tricky. I ended up spending more time in the two choices I was able to get down to, and I made decisions based on a change in words, more than anything else.
The scariest part of the MBE is that I have no idea how I did. I don’t know if many of the others were able to tell. One of my friends thought he did really well. But personally, I can never tell with that much certainty when it comes to multiple choice.
The answers involve more mastery on the grey areas of the law and don’t be fooled into thinking that because a question is a few lines, it is an easy one. Some of the ones I was perplexed by were property questions that had one or two answer choices related to Wills. I figured this subject was under Property, at least per Barbri, which has a small section at the end of the Property Conviser review, if I remember correctly, but, it took me by surprise because I wasn’t prepared.
I think both PMBR and Barbri need to brush up their question banks significantly, to make their questions tighter/concise and to make their answer choices more challenging.
Barbri Essay & Performance Test Prep
I thought Barbri did a great job with their essay and performance test preparations. The best part of the Barbri program, the ones most worth the money/time/effort, were Professors Sakai and Honigsberg. They were absolutely phenomenal in their approach to the Essay and Performance Test Workshops.
The Conviser review was pretty straight-forward. Some of the Professors put me to sleep – I don’t want this to be a slam fest or a rating for Professors, so I’m not going into that aspect of it. But, I thought that this past February’s paced program (Barbri’s schedule and daily program that students follow along with) was extremely tight and could have used more free days at the end. The paced program ended on Feb 14, and the Bar exam started on Feb 24, which was less than 10 days of self-study.
For someone like me who could not keep up with the paced program’s schedule, it was very hard to catch up, since you get so short on time toward the end, where there are a million things to do. I would have liked an extra few days to be able to get on top of things, but given the vastness of the syllabi and the subjects, I doubt that is feasible…
I thought the predictions by the Barbri team were fairly accurate. They talked about Civ. Pro not being covered for a while, and sure enough, it was on the exam. Also, the first time that California Evidence was tested, was on the Feb 2009 exam. So that was interesting.
So, finally, moving on to the Tue/Wed/Thur, (Feb 24-26, 2009, the California Bar Exam), the results of which (out in mid-May) will determine whether or not I am fit to be a lawyer in California.
Before I proceed any further, I promise I am not making any money from this, and had I started taking it sooner, I would have been better off, but regardless, I must give a shout-out to Rescue Remedy for any test-taker, or someone who is stressed out. It is a Bach Flower remedy and while I had it all along, my sister recommended I take it after I told her about a yelling match my husband and I had while trying to find the bar exam location (I took it in Sacramento – Cal Expo) on the Saturday prior to the exam. It was wonderful. I kept it in the car and I would take a dose prior to the morning session, and one prior to the afternoon session. It really made a world of difference.
After tossing and turning all night (does anyone really sleep soundly Monday night, through Wednesday night?) I headed out to Cal Expo. No major hitches. I took cushions and a foot stool (they’re some of the few things allowed, so why ever not?). The exam actually started early, at 5 minutes to 9:00 a.m., which threw me off, as I thought they would wait and it messes up your calculation. So, be prepared for that. In fact, Wednesday and Thursday, we started at different times, always before 9:00 a.m., if I remember correctly. Also, there is a bit of paperwork to do, so don’t come strolling in a few minutes before the exam. If you are a lap-topper, (as people using the computer and Softest are called), then you have to be in extra early to set up your computer. My Softest started acting up the afternoon of the third day. It was slow and the words would show up a few seconds after typing. It was annoying, but thank God it did not crash!!! Also, make sure you set up Softest in advance and also download the mock test and upload the test answer to ensure everything is okay. I had one setup issue, which I spent a nervous half-hour on, a few days before the exam.
So, Tuesday morning, ready to start, the first exam is Professional Responsibility. The essay is about a lawyer that is helping a corporation owned by a single shareholder, or something like that, and if I remember correctly, she takes a portion of the company shares as her fee and also is signs on another client who is suing a second corporation set up by the same shareholder who sets up corporation 1. We were asked to answer under ABA and California law.
Essay 2 was Civ Pro. I kept looking to see if they would ask for California Civ Pro, but it was Federal Civ Pro, and like the Barbri Prof said, it was basic Civ Pro rules, regarding venue. Luckily this essay had parts that asked specific questions, so you didn’t need to go crazy issue-spotting unasked issues. It was about a plaintiff who was injured by a copy machine at a copy-shop, but she was suing the manufacturer.
Essay 3 was California Evidence. This is the first time this subject has been tested, so lucky us. :0) (Not). It was not in narrative fashion, but in a testimonial fashion, with the sentences numbered, and we were asked to raise the evidence issues presented and answer according to California law.
Tuesday’s Performance Test – I made sure I had a light lunch, but I still felt sleepy about an hour or so into the exam, perhaps the lack of sleep or something. For some reason, I can’t seem to recall the subject matter of this exam. If anyone does, please send me a note to jog my memory. All I can remember is that it was long.
I remember reading someone’s blog about the California Bar Exam and this person studied law outside California. He or she said something to the effect of the Cal. Perf. Test being easy, because it was 3 hrs, while theirs was hard because it was 1.5 hours. Hello! Three hours, means twice the amount of material. So, go figure… I wouldn’t say it was hard, but it was a challenge, given the amount of time and the amount of material you have to digest and prepare.
Wednesday – MBE day. This was the most disconcerting. I have no idea how I did. Hopefully, when I pass (note the “when” and not the “if”), I won’t need to know…
On Thursday, essay 1 was a Torts/Defamation/Con Law question. Seemed relatively easy after Barbri’s prep. Essay 2 was a Contracts question, and this one had a few parts and was long. Even had a remedies thrown into it. I went too long on this question and had to sacrifice the remedies part by reducing it to a few sentences. I left it feeling I didn’t do it justice. Essay 3 was a Corporations Essay! Why?!! I don’t think anyone was expecting this subject, out of all the subjects. Anyway, most of the question dealt with fiduciary duties of care and loyalty. There was one part to it that left a few of us confused – a question about how to remove an interested director. I don’t recall covering this indepth in Barbri, perhaps it was there, but I just didn’t pay attention. Oh well!
Thursday’s Performance Test – this one I remember pretty clearly. It was about a Housing discrimination suit, by a couple that have a child and are asked to vacate because they violate the number of occupants rule or something. This was also extremely lengthy as they asked us to cover a number of things – one main thing was the recommendation to the client – and they listed three options to review, and wanted us to ask if they needed any further information, etc. So, it was long to say the least.
And then, we were done. I have never felt a bigger sense of denouement. We wound up, took our stuff and left. Everyone was so exhausted, that while there were some whoops of joy, people were glad it was over.
Now, we wait and wait some more. Wishing all my fellow warriors good luck!
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Changeling
When I saw the movie, I wondered what the title meant. I thought it meant the obvious - something that changes. Or so I thought. Dictionary.com lists the word as meaning "a child surreptitiously or unintentionally substituted for another." How fascinating... Now I know how little I know about the English language.
I saw this movie on a flight -- a long flight en route to India -- which meant I had plenty of time and nothing to do. I saw the movie on the menu, but didn't want to see it first, because I heard about the story briefly and thought it was depressing. So I saw Twilight again (third time! why? no clue!), then I saw "The Day the Earth Stood Still (why?), and then went on to Ms. Jolie.
This was based on a true story. What an incredible story it was. I completely and totally admire the tenacity of this woman, Christine Collins, played well by Ms. Jolie, in this sometimes sensationalized but unbelievable tale. I realized it was the late '20s, or else, leaving a child of nine years at home alone would result in child endangerment. And, I realize why we have laws that forbid you to do so, now, after watching the movie.
The movie has several themes that stayed with me for a long time. In fact, I was so perturbed after watching it that I couldn't fall asleep until several hours later. So, if you watch movies before bed, like me, I would advise you not to watch this one.
First and most significant is the role of the mother. Single mother raising a young son in Southern California. I don't remember if the movie talked about her being married or not, but I remember her telling her young son that his father didn't bother sticking around when she was pregnant with him. Not in so many words and definitely in a nicer way than I said it, though. I'm amazed at how stable and strong this woman was. Employed, with little family around to help, taking care of her son and struggling to be a good mother, while keeping up with the demands of work. Some of us have been there. I can relate to that. But, having to leave your child alone to go to work and coming back to find him missing... I cannot imagine the agony and the guilt that she went through. I thought A.J. did a good job in not being overly sentimental, because she conveyed more in the gravity of her appearance than any histrionical act would have.
I had to remind myself that this happend at a time when they had few resources to identify missing children - you know, like the age progression pictures that you see at the back of your Advo mailing packet, or some other direct mail brand postcard. So it was easy, or relatively so for the police to come up with a kid, who shared some of the physical characteristics of her missing son.
The police - the control, the power and the corruption - this was not news to me. I bet this hasn't changed in some countries - but to just hand over a random child to a mother who is half insane with worry - unbelievable. And, for her to realize and complain that this wasn't her son - again, the emotions I felt were hard to describe. What would Christine Collins have felt - doubt, self-loathing, guilt, anger, shame - at having realized that the child she was caring for was not her son, but also realizing that the child who willingly portrayed him obviously had some need to be where he was. To get a good meal perhaps, a home and a caring mother. Crazy!!
What really surprised me though, was the blatant Due Process violation that occurred when the police decide to pack her off to the mental asylum because she was raising a stink about her son still missing and that people were starting to notice. I was dumb-founded. They could do that in the '20s? Then I started thinking about women's rights - we weren't allowed to vote for the longest time; we were considered possessions (still are in some parts of the world) for the longest time; we were the "little women" - the housekeepers, the caregivers, the sex slaves of our masters, our owners; we were burnt at the stake; we were branded as bra-burning radicals for asserting our rights - so, in hind-sight, it shouldn't have been that surprising. But it was...
The hardest part of the movie, apart from feminist angst pouring out of my veins while I watched it, was with regard to the child-killer. Gordon something his name was. It's not important for me to remember his name - he doesn't deserve the recognition. But to think that such savagery existed then, and still continues to exist in those who prey on little children, made me very sad. The cycle of violence never seems to end, does it?
I know we have to raise our children in a way to warn them about these people - the ones who mean to do them harm, but how do we do it without taking away a part of their innocence?
Overall, this is absolutely a must-see. It is bitter-sweet, but just.
I saw this movie on a flight -- a long flight en route to India -- which meant I had plenty of time and nothing to do. I saw the movie on the menu, but didn't want to see it first, because I heard about the story briefly and thought it was depressing. So I saw Twilight again (third time! why? no clue!), then I saw "The Day the Earth Stood Still (why?), and then went on to Ms. Jolie.
This was based on a true story. What an incredible story it was. I completely and totally admire the tenacity of this woman, Christine Collins, played well by Ms. Jolie, in this sometimes sensationalized but unbelievable tale. I realized it was the late '20s, or else, leaving a child of nine years at home alone would result in child endangerment. And, I realize why we have laws that forbid you to do so, now, after watching the movie.
The movie has several themes that stayed with me for a long time. In fact, I was so perturbed after watching it that I couldn't fall asleep until several hours later. So, if you watch movies before bed, like me, I would advise you not to watch this one.
First and most significant is the role of the mother. Single mother raising a young son in Southern California. I don't remember if the movie talked about her being married or not, but I remember her telling her young son that his father didn't bother sticking around when she was pregnant with him. Not in so many words and definitely in a nicer way than I said it, though. I'm amazed at how stable and strong this woman was. Employed, with little family around to help, taking care of her son and struggling to be a good mother, while keeping up with the demands of work. Some of us have been there. I can relate to that. But, having to leave your child alone to go to work and coming back to find him missing... I cannot imagine the agony and the guilt that she went through. I thought A.J. did a good job in not being overly sentimental, because she conveyed more in the gravity of her appearance than any histrionical act would have.
I had to remind myself that this happend at a time when they had few resources to identify missing children - you know, like the age progression pictures that you see at the back of your Advo mailing packet, or some other direct mail brand postcard. So it was easy, or relatively so for the police to come up with a kid, who shared some of the physical characteristics of her missing son.
The police - the control, the power and the corruption - this was not news to me. I bet this hasn't changed in some countries - but to just hand over a random child to a mother who is half insane with worry - unbelievable. And, for her to realize and complain that this wasn't her son - again, the emotions I felt were hard to describe. What would Christine Collins have felt - doubt, self-loathing, guilt, anger, shame - at having realized that the child she was caring for was not her son, but also realizing that the child who willingly portrayed him obviously had some need to be where he was. To get a good meal perhaps, a home and a caring mother. Crazy!!
What really surprised me though, was the blatant Due Process violation that occurred when the police decide to pack her off to the mental asylum because she was raising a stink about her son still missing and that people were starting to notice. I was dumb-founded. They could do that in the '20s? Then I started thinking about women's rights - we weren't allowed to vote for the longest time; we were considered possessions (still are in some parts of the world) for the longest time; we were the "little women" - the housekeepers, the caregivers, the sex slaves of our masters, our owners; we were burnt at the stake; we were branded as bra-burning radicals for asserting our rights - so, in hind-sight, it shouldn't have been that surprising. But it was...
The hardest part of the movie, apart from feminist angst pouring out of my veins while I watched it, was with regard to the child-killer. Gordon something his name was. It's not important for me to remember his name - he doesn't deserve the recognition. But to think that such savagery existed then, and still continues to exist in those who prey on little children, made me very sad. The cycle of violence never seems to end, does it?
I know we have to raise our children in a way to warn them about these people - the ones who mean to do them harm, but how do we do it without taking away a part of their innocence?
Overall, this is absolutely a must-see. It is bitter-sweet, but just.
