Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

So Fox is pimping it's new show, "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" to no end. I'll avoid obvious comments about how we are breeding a nation of idiots and admit that I watched the show last night. The production value was pretty low as the show was obviously thrown together at the last moment to fill the after-Idol time slot, but I have to say that watching it made me feel pretty good about myself while stuck in the midst of the confidence killer better known as the California Bar Exam. It was pretty funny watching the contestants flail around trying to answer questions such as, what ship did the pilgrims arrive on?

At times, failing the California bar made me feel about as dumb as a fifth grader, but watching the show served as a welcome reminder that no matter how stupid I might feel at the moment, there are still plenty of others out there who are infinitely dumber.

Fuck the MBE

I thought the morning session was relatively easy, but that the afternoon session was actually really difficult. It seemed that whoever is responsible for drafting the exam basically reformulated the exam to ensure that PMBR lost whatever advantage it might once have had before losing the lawsuit. It seemed to test a level of detail not otherwise contained in Conviser, and instead focused on the more obscure and technical areas of the MBE subjects. I won't hazard a guess as to how I did, but can only hope that I did well enough to make up whatever ground I lost on the essays.

A theory of sorts

Blawgin' asks a question that I've been thinking about a lot lately:

I think February is harder. It's not as straightforward. Does it make a difference that it's mostly repeaters when it comes to grading, do you think?

I don't think there's any question that today's exam was significantly more difficult than the first day last July. After failing, I couldn't shake the feeling that the July bar was probably the most strait forward exam I would ever see. The cross-overs were virtually non-existent, and the fact patterns weren't as bad as they could have been. I think today's exam confirmed this impression. It was not strait forward (except for crim law - unless I'm missing something) and if today is any indication, I would imagine that we haven't seen the last of the cross-over's.

I think that in some ways a more difficult exam is to our advantage. Yeah, it sucked pretty bad, but judging from the chatter around me, I don't think anyone felt particularly good about any of it. In contrast, last summer the general consensus seemed to be more of relief than a general sense of horror. I didn't feel particularly good coming out of the summer exam, but many people did. In the end I think that the more difficult the exam, the greater margin of error there is for us. If you couldn't remember the rules for shareholder agreements, keep in mind that most people couldn't either, whereas everyone more or less had negligence down so missing a minor issue in July could have been fatal. In other words, a more difficult exam gives us more latitude relative to our fellow test takers.

Anyway, I have no idea if this is actually true, just a couple of thoughts, I'm pretty beat so pardon the typos and run on sentences.

While we were typing...

The markets took a massive hit today, looks like the economy (and the job market) will probably follow.

Also, apparently Hollywood Madam Jody "Baby Doll" Gibson's little black book was just unsealed, much to the chagrin of a few notable celebrities.

Word

While buying a pack of smokes overheard someone ask another bar examinee if he raised the contingency fee issue in the second question. I know its mean, but hearing stuff like this makes me feel a little better.

Overheard today at the bar...

Heard two people behind me vehemently arguing about how many times Sakai failed the bar...I had no idea that he might have failed the bar once, much less several times. I don't think that failing the bar should be seen as rendering someone unfit to give advice or teach bar review courses. In fact I think in some ways its preferable. Those who pass the bar have no idea why they did, other than perhaps some vague impression that certain sections went better than others. On the other hand, after getting tests and scores back, those of us who fail have a pretty good idea how and where we went wrong. Anyway, more curious as a point of trivia then anything else.

Did anyone else find question two appalling???

That question really sucked, I also could have used an additional hour for question one. But question three was a welcome relief after the first two. The PT was okay, I probably over did it on the facts, but then again, it could have been much worse. Also could have done without the lights turning off halfway through the PT exam this afternoon. For the amount of money we pay to take this fucker, you think the least they could do is not fuck shit up.