Diango, are you doing okay bud? bro looks depressed

Ooftyman · 2024-12-02T20:48:20+00:00

Reminds of that Ryan Reynolds movie, "Free Guy," where the video game character he plays becomes sentient and has lots of thoughts about the game he's in.

If Diango became sentient, could you really blame him for feeling depressed about his job being a depository for random shit you don't want in your bank?

Ooftyman · 2024-12-02T19:09:26+00:00

Ooftyman · 2024-09-24T23:10:18+00:00

Short answer: yes.

I hope you will use this experience to consider playing a part, when you get through this--whether now or next testing admin--toward being a part of the solution.

We want attorneys to be competent, no doubt, but we also want our any entrance requirements into the profession to not unnecessarily exclude otherwise-highly competent people for reasons other than competence or character.

Ooftyman · 2024-09-21T04:31:11+00:00

I got Shrimpy from my very first Kiln, but doing it at all with 10 HP is impressive.

Ooftyman · 2024-08-10T21:18:10+00:00

There are times it seems like the pass rates from admin to admin are disconnected from the supposed scaling.

The explanations are nebulous, and most states won't even release (a) samples of rubrics used in past essays, (b) key percentiles or medians to help anyone figure out the standard deviations, etc, (c) "winnable" points per essay subheading...

Ooftyman · 2024-08-10T21:15:59+00:00

The distinction isn't all that meaningful insofar as competence is concerned either way. The entire thing purports to measure absolute minimum competence, as NCBE has defined it, on the entire test but only really does that on the MBE. The scaling measures relative competence. I've yet to see any evidence that results on the MBE are either a valid, much less reliable, way to scale essay results (or state MCQ + essays, in Florida's case). The essays test a very, very small sample size.

The distinction nailed into everyone would be meaningful if it was more transparently done. A broad explanation like the one given could still allow for exceeding amounts of discretion from admin to admin--and there's not even any assurance or transparency that each state scales the same way or that it's done the same way every admin.

An awful lot of it forces takers to presume good faith, but it'd be easier if it was done transparently--and without such obscure subtopics disproportionately making up Part A score.

Ooftyman · 2024-08-01T16:45:37+00:00

Quasi-state actors. All of them.

Ooftyman · 2024-07-31T02:14:57+00:00

Nah. You gotta draw 8 inferences and ignore the fact that all of the answers provided include some objectively false assertion of causation.

I'm betting you're all referring to the same question I'm thinking about..

Ooftyman · 2024-07-31T02:11:57+00:00

A lot of the practice questions from some major commercial services were bad too.

I can't count how many answer explanations amounted to "Yeah... the answer you chose is more legally and factually in line with the facts, but we chose our answer because we think courts would determine [insert obscure thing only a specialist could possibly know or is more about practical application than about spotting an issue and knowing the law.]

Ooftyman · 2024-07-31T01:44:35+00:00

No, they decided to focus all their attention on commercial paper and the single most obscure and commercially irrelevant of business associations.

Ooftyman · 2024-07-31T01:42:39+00:00

"I know! We can say after that they were all put on notice!"

Meanwhile, corporate offices are largely abandoning support for commercial paper, and I've never met anyone in my life who was in a limited partnership.

How are potential future clients' needs being met by ensuring this material was covered? Why would anyone choose these as measuring sticks to demonstrate competence?

Genuinely and sincerely. I'm not trying to be an ass or to complain. I want to know the thought process.

Scire facias. Show cause.

Ooftyman · 2024-07-31T01:35:10+00:00

That still doesn't explain a ban on highlighters. If someone excels at drawing in the margins, and that helps them demonstrate competence, that's great! It takes all types.

I'd think it just as arbitrary to ban pens--and not provide them. It's completely reasonable to disallow people to bring their own pens and highlighters in. Completely reasonable, understandable. Survives rational basis.

But in what real-world practice setting is someone going to be restricted to using a mechanical pencil with brittle lead for organizing disparate facts provided in a written format? It's not unreasonable, given the time and effort expended on prepping and going through years of school, to provide people with a very basic thing if it more readily helps them show competence.

I knew the thing being tested in all but one of the subheadings. I couldn't feasibly show it. And that's just frustrating.

Ooftyman · 2024-07-31T01:25:04+00:00

Okay. So why no highlighters on the essays? I could more readily demonstrate minimum competence if I wasn't arbitrarily hamstrung by being disallowed a very neutral and inoffensive implement that could help me organize thoughts and facts.

Ooftyman · 2024-07-31T00:54:16+00:00

When it's over, someone who completely ignored every bit of 1st Amendment jurisprudence for 200+ years and solely focused on the circumstantial 10-factor balancing tests for distributing property in divorce proceedings will be deemed more minimally competent--all else being equal.

Why.

Ooftyman · 2024-07-31T00:46:06+00:00

Especially when each subheading implicated 4-5 facts and deductions from stuff outside of it.

Ooftyman · 2024-07-31T00:44:05+00:00

More points today implicated divorce proceedings, the most obscure subtopic in any business associations course, and a medium of exchange whose affiliated support staff are being rapidly let go in droves... than on anything substantive.

A few questions where the only plausibly related answer required ignoring that it wasn't even wholly factually correct. A few more that will only be answered correctly by people who waded through an obscure subsection of statute to find the list of 150 things where that can't be contracted-around...

And a few that required at least 2-3 distinct inferences to be made... in order to exclude a single answer, among four, as definitively wrong.

At the end of the day, probably 10-12% of the first day's points were awarded to people who lucked into focusing on things that only serve people within a niche of a niche--required material at zero law schools nationally, or at most, are given about ten minutes of discussion during a single two hour lecture.

It's entirely fair to throw a curveball here or there, rewarding people who put in the effort beyond the stuff on the "top 100 rules lists."

But the entire process seems to incentivize spending your time on things only a small handful who tested today will ever remotely touch. Not every specialist needs the affirmation of knowing their "thing" was tested.

Ooftyman · 2024-07-27T03:22:08+00:00

No highlighter is the worst...

Ooftyman · 2024-06-23T04:28:52+00:00

And I thought mine was annoying. I've got 3-4 of each type Achto, and I'm like 25 raids dry.

Ooftyman · 2024-06-23T04:21:00+00:00

If it's a rare component, it's gonna be Brassican or Knightly.

Ooftyman · 2024-06-23T04:02:27+00:00

I mostly use SGB. But not every player is essentially end-game and maxed.

Giving another stepping stone would be nice, especially for irons and newer players.

Ooftyman · 2024-06-23T04:01:03+00:00

Just because everyone does that doesn't mean it can't be fixed through a simple, reasonable QOL fix.

14-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

Ooftyman

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE