2014-02-12 - 2:38 a.m.

Eight more areas of VA law to review the lectures on.

I spent a few days on secured transactions and negotiable instruments listening to lectures, taking notes, then writing note cards of main points of law to learn, writing the rules over and over ( reminding me of Catholic School punishments of repetition of a writing of something over and over), and then typing legal rules OVER AND OVER in hopes of memorization. I don't really type anything but while the computer is off go through the motion as I think the repetition of saying the rules over and over while going through the motion of typing may help me since I am typing my essay responses. I just sat with a keyboard at my desk, and then with the new laptop turned off at times "pretend" typing as I practice chanting legal rules.

The act of writing is apparently helpful for memory, and if one writes content over and over which they have to memorize it will often come to them when writing. So I hope my method of study by typing the material proves to be as effective.

I spent a full four days on those areas, along with Equity and Personal Property as I really needed to learn all the nuances. Practicing writing essays is definitely valuable.

I am SURE I know those areas better than I ever did before.

So hope it is good enough!

Eight more areas to go in my study and countdown of twelve days left.

If I hit one area a day that leaves me a few days of review of the areas of law needed to know cold which I have written out on the index cards I am reading over and over.

Then those few days I can practice typing them over and over and over...

in hopes they are committed to memory.

The Essay workshop lectures I have are really outstanding. In all the previous years of study I never got that far to even listen to those lectures and work through the practice essays. So I am hopeful I am learning much more than I knew before. I am learning that one must STATE THE OBVIOUS on the bar exam as there are points lost if that is not done. I mean it never would have occurred to me that it was important to actually write what seems to be such nonsense as " Consumer goods are good that are bought for personal use or consumption. Abe bought a car which was a consumer good" before indicating when the dude Abe mentioned in a questions fact pattern had a security interest in the car that was perfected. In my practice essays I gave conclusions that were accurate but I know in the past I never spelled out anything I thought was just OBVIOUS. So I essentially did not get points for citing legal rules before applying them- but would just write the conclusion to the question asked. I would say " Abe had a security interest on Sept 1 ( which is in the fact pattern when he took possession of the car), but never would have thought to write out the legal rule that "A security interest in consumer goods is perfected upon possession of the goods." So I always gave a answer but never showed legal rules and their application which are the reasons the answer was correct. Its the same trouble I had in math class way back when of failing to show the work done, or rather not doing the math problem the way taught but using mental math to write the correct response. In school as a kids I never could wrap my mind around how a correct answer in math was marked wrong. Of course now I know the teacher was testing knowledge of the formula, the "rules" so to speak, and then their application in working out the problem. Like math- I have trouble memorizing the legal formulas and rules but somehow still easily come up with the correct answer using what I consider the short form of common sense methodology. Common sense is not worth anything on the bar exam if it can not be articulated with a legal rule based rational as its foundation. I can see the problem I have in responding to a question in HINDSIGHT. The trouble is , that when I work on a problem I see the answer so clearly but in that moment just don't ever seem to realize the elements I have missed articulating. I have to get used to writing out EVERY THOUGHT in working through a question- even those that seem so ridiculously obvious that the don't seem significant like " A car is a consumer good".

I haven't yet reviewed the federal rules of evidence which is about 8% of the total exam as it is heavily tested in both the essay and the multistate part. So that is actually good as my multistate scores which have been at 67% will definitely increase after that study.

In other news, I finally beat my children in a round of the Passing the Bar Exam Game this weekend. This time I have to admit the youngest had a HUGE LEAD but then I got a card which said "switch places with any player" So I swapped with her to put myself ahead to her tears and wails and full blown tantrum. She has to work on that being a gracious team player thing. It was actually kind of amusing to see her so competitive and so upset to have lost her lead.

I was stuck on Torts on the board which I also have not reviewed yet. OH YEAH That is ALSO a heavily tested area- again about 8% of the exam. I spent a ton of time on constitutional law and real estate and criminal law. Torts is really quite easy compared to constitutional law and real property- so once I brush up on that my MBE score will go up further.

So I finally won a game of Passing the Bar against kids, however it was because the opponent then quit and I took the win through her default.

The real bar exam is fortunately also less of a game of chance.

�

�