MBE average score at 33-year low Forum

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

I walked out this February thinking "If what I put forth wasn't minimally competent, then I don't know what that term means."
Hoping for good news come early May...

Exactly. I took the Texas exam and failed by 16 points in July (out of 1000). I said "if I didn't do at least 16 points better, then I have no idea how I can possibly pass this thing."

[reasonable_man]

Back when I graduated, it was pretty well known that even the worst schools rejected most of the applicants under the 150 mark on the LSAT. As the world changed and less people applied, schools at the lowest end of the spectrum started a race for the bottom and began letting in students with sub-150 LSATs in droves. My own school now regularly accepts applicants under the 150 mark. In 05 when I applied, the median was over 155 and the low was like 153. I don't believe that the LSAT numbers dropping at a particular school from 160 to 157 will have an impact on bar pass rate. That seems silly. But when an entire graduating class is mostly comprised of sub-150 LSAT scorers (where they were once filled with Above-152 scorers), you're going to start to see an impact in your bar pass rate (and my school has seen a pretty bad impact). So I would submit that its not the lower LSAT scores that are the problem. Its the fact that there are too many schools accepting too many people that in the past would have been rejected. Now those students who lacked the basic skills needed to ever pass a bar exam are trying and failing to pass the bar.

[KTnKT]

Ok - Sorry - but let's look at this...

If they want to know why the scores are dropping - look at the testing. Maybe some of those answers that aren't being read should be. Maybe some of the people who are failing actually DID know what they were talking about - just thought for themselves instead of parroting back bar review bullshit. Maybe the exam - and it's administration - are to blame for the lower scores - and not the students themselves. Listening to the insults flying from the powers that be - about how students are less skilled - how law schools are accepting lower caliber students - it's blame shifting. If you want to fix what is wrong - you can't operate on the healthy leg - you need to operate on the broken one. Some students will fail - it's a given - but you shouldn't pass because you're lucky - you should pass because you're capable. For each student that passes because their essays don't get read, remaining students move down the curve. The idiot who squeaked through because their essays didn't get read could be your next attorney - while the brilliant student who was knocked down to one point below passing because of the idiot - will be waiting to take the bar in July.

Thank heaven. I get so sick of people blaming the students. My school has been trending higher caliber students (as defined by entrance GPA and LSAT) every year since before I was enrolled and yet the last year of bar grades have been the lowest in decades. Why is it so hard to believe that either the test isn't adequate to test what we have learned, or the prep process sucks, or the test itself is defunct?

I'm not saying that it is only cause, just that my school results seem to indicate there isn't a link between student quality and recent bar results.

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

Ok - Sorry - but let's look at this...

If they want to know why the scores are dropping - look at the testing. Maybe some of those answers that aren't being read should be. Maybe some of the people who are failing actually DID know what they were talking about - just thought for themselves instead of parroting back bar review bullshit. Maybe the exam - and it's administration - are to blame for the lower scores - and not the students themselves. Listening to the insults flying from the powers that be - about how students are less skilled - how law schools are accepting lower caliber students - it's blame shifting. If you want to fix what is wrong - you can't operate on the healthy leg - you need to operate on the broken one. Some students will fail - it's a given - but you shouldn't pass because you're lucky - you should pass because you're capable. For each student that passes because their essays don't get read, remaining students move down the curve. The idiot who squeaked through because their essays didn't get read could be your next attorney - while the brilliant student who was knocked down to one point below passing because of the idiot - will be waiting to take the bar in July.

Thank heaven. I get so sick of people blaming the students. My school has been trending higher caliber students (as defined by entrance GPA and LSAT) every year since before I was enrolled and yet the last year of bar grades have been the lowest in decades. Why is it so hard to believe that either the test isn't adequate to test what we have learned, or the prep process sucks, or the test itself is defunct?

I'm not saying that it is only cause, just that my school results seem to indicate there isn't a link between student quality and recent bar results.

Thank you! to both posters I quoted.

I read the statement by Erica Moeser about falling pass rates, and I was livid when she started blaming the students. She had the nerve to say we were "less able" than our predecessors. Not only is that incredibly insulting, it's failing to take any responsibility whatsoever.

I failed the July bar narrowly. I studied tirelessly from late May onward. I regurgitated so much law it was ridiculous. After 3 years of law school + that miserable studying I was clearly competent to be an attorney, I just had to pass this arbitrary test first.

Everyone I talked to walked out of the July MBE absolutely speechless. Like 3 years of law school + bar prep was all for nothing. It tested the must utterly ridiculous and nuanced minutia, and so many questions you just knew were designed to trick you. That's when I really realized that the bar (and the MBE) don't actually test to see if you are "minimally competent." It's hazing. And a rite of passage. That's all. They needed some kind of entry test, so they made this one up.

I'm not saying the test should be super easy. Of course it should be challenging. What I'm saying is that if you studied hard and really know the material-- you should pass. The examiners shouldn't try to trick you, then it becomes a test of seeing how good you are at passing their tricks than seeing how well you know the law. The July MBE seemed much more like the former. And thousands of bright, intelligent people who clearly knew the law well did not pass the exam.

While the February MBE felt more straightforward, I'm still critical of a 6-hour, 200 question multiple choice test determining your worth to enter into the profession. I learned as far back as high school that standardized tests don't do anything to test how well you know the material; they test how good you are at school and test-taking. That's it. To argue that the MBE actually tests your competence as an attorney is asinine.

I think I passed in February, but I think it's because I simply learned how to take the MBE and figured out how the examiners write their questions. I knew about the same amount of law as I knew in July.

Moeser can blame lower admission standards all she wants-- even if she's right... if someone with subpar UGPA and LSAT credentials makes it through 3 years and graduates, you can't really blame that stuff anymore. Law graduates are different from first-semester 1Ls, significantly. If anything, law schools are to blame for not doing a good enough job teaching bar subjects.

[not guilty]

I'm confused as to why this is a mystery?

The ABA (or whoever) can easily figure out these stats. As can each State.

As for the admission standards argument, I would like to point out one aspect....

These "crappy" schools operate as a business first, educator second. They accept loads of students, get their money, and slowly fail them out. Only the strong survive. Your argument about poor students doesn't hold as much weight as you think because many of them never sit for the bar.

Here is a look at a "for profit" school. My ex-roommate told me about this conversation during 1L:

Student: I want to graduate with at least a 3.0
Professor: well you need to beat the majority of your class. the exam is scaled based off of how well everyone does.
Student: scaled by the highest score?
Professor: the average score on the exam will be the 'C' which is a 2.0
Student: so if I fall below the average then I'll get a C-?
Professor: Yes, you'll get a 1.5 gpa in each class you're below the median. 1 semester probation for dropping below a 2.0.

He was able to do the math based off the info they released each semester. Sure enough 100 students in a class, 30 or so would get a C- which is a 1.5. A few "average" classes and a few "above average" classes each semester and he was always hovering around 2.5.

Most of you probably didn't deal with that. The lowest score in my class got a C usually. I believe the deviation scaled down from the highest grade but it never enabled the worst score to fail out. Not unless they bombed it.

[ReachTheBar79]

I wonder what Justice Cardozo would say about the NCBE's position. After all, he failed it 5 times.

[slavetothebar]

Here's the thing - Everything about being admitted to the bar is up in the air and left to the personal preference of some arbitrary person...

Getting admitted...

Undergrad GPA -

LSAT Score -

But there's no "magic number". Instead it's left someone to determine what pile you go into (accept/wait list/decline).

Personally, my backstory - I had a lengthy employment history in the legal field. I had an LSAT score of 158 and a GPA of 3.8 on a 4.0 scale.

I participated in undergrad mock trial, where I took home a fair amount of awards and had almost embarrassingly shinning letters of recommendation from my undergrad mock trial coach (who was the golden boy of the law school I was applying to) and the director of legal studies for my undergrad school.

I watched as a part time clerk in our office was admitted to two law schools with a 137 LSAT and 3.8 GPA. Yet my application was denied. I applied a second year - and again, I was denied. The third year I was wait listed then admitted. Both schools were approximately in the same geographic location and equally desirable as far as the level of students who would have applied. Both I and the former clerk passed the bar on our second attempts.

So now you have graduated from school - and it's time to take the bar. Yes, the MBE is scantron and your grade is your grade on that part, but you still have the other half of the bar exam - which is entirely open to opinions - Unless you land within the five point window no one else looks at your answers - No appeal process, no way to get your scores changed. You just need to pay and go through the process again.

[reasonable_man]

Ok - Sorry - but let's look at this...

If they want to know why the scores are dropping - look at the testing. Maybe some of those answers that aren't being read should be. Maybe some of the people who are failing actually DID know what they were talking about - just thought for themselves instead of parroting back bar review bullshit. Maybe the exam - and it's administration - are to blame for the lower scores - and not the students themselves. Listening to the insults flying from the powers that be - about how students are less skilled - how law schools are accepting lower caliber students - it's blame shifting. If you want to fix what is wrong - you can't operate on the healthy leg - you need to operate on the broken one. Some students will fail - it's a given - but you shouldn't pass because you're lucky - you should pass because you're capable. For each student that passes because their essays don't get read, remaining students move down the curve. The idiot who squeaked through because their essays didn't get read could be your next attorney - while the brilliant student who was knocked down to one point below passing because of the idiot - will be waiting to take the bar in July.

Thank heaven. I get so sick of people blaming the students. My school has been trending higher caliber students (as defined by entrance GPA and LSAT) every year since before I was enrolled and yet the last year of bar grades have been the lowest in decades. Why is it so hard to believe that either the test isn't adequate to test what we have learned, or the prep process sucks, or the test itself is defunct?

I'm not saying that it is only cause, just that my school results seem to indicate there isn't a link between student quality and recent bar results.

Thank you! to both posters I quoted.

I read the statement by Erica Moeser about falling pass rates, and I was livid when she started blaming the students. She had the nerve to say we were "less able" than our predecessors. Not only is that incredibly insulting, it's failing to take any responsibility whatsoever.

I failed the July bar narrowly. I studied tirelessly from late May onward. I regurgitated so much law it was ridiculous. After 3 years of law school + that miserable studying I was clearly competent to be an attorney, I just had to pass this arbitrary test first.

Everyone I talked to walked out of the July MBE absolutely speechless. Like 3 years of law school + bar prep was all for nothing. It tested the must utterly ridiculous and nuanced minutia, and so many questions you just knew were designed to trick you. That's when I really realized that the bar (and the MBE) don't actually test to see if you are "minimally competent." It's hazing. And a rite of passage. That's all. They needed some kind of entry test, so they made this one up.

I'm not saying the test should be super easy. Of course it should be challenging. What I'm saying is that if you studied hard and really know the material-- you should pass. The examiners shouldn't try to trick you, then it becomes a test of seeing how good you are at passing their tricks than seeing how well you know the law. The July MBE seemed much more like the former. And thousands of bright, intelligent people who clearly knew the law well did not pass the exam.

While the February MBE felt more straightforward, I'm still critical of a 6-hour, 200 question multiple choice test determining your worth to enter into the profession. I learned as far back as high school that standardized tests don't do anything to test how well you know the material; they test how good you are at school and test-taking. That's it. To argue that the MBE actually tests your competence as an attorney is asinine.

I think I passed in February, but I think it's because I simply learned how to take the MBE and figured out how the examiners write their questions. I knew about the same amount of law as I knew in July.

Moeser can blame lower admission standards all she wants-- even if she's right... if someone with subpar UGPA and LSAT credentials makes it through 3 years and graduates, you can't really blame that stuff anymore. Law graduates are different from first-semester 1Ls, significantly. If anything, law schools are to blame for not doing a good enough job teaching bar subjects.

This is why you only give the winning team a trophy... Letting everyone "win" or teaching kids that results don't matter lands us right about here.

[salsahips]

This is why you only give the winning team a trophy... Letting everyone "win" or teaching kids that results don't matter lands us right about here.

Fine, we'll get off your lawn.

[ReachTheBar79]

Ok - Sorry - but let's look at this...

If they want to know why the scores are dropping - look at the testing. Maybe some of those answers that aren't being read should be. Maybe some of the people who are failing actually DID know what they were talking about - just thought for themselves instead of parroting back bar review bullshit. Maybe the exam - and it's administration - are to blame for the lower scores - and not the students themselves. Listening to the insults flying from the powers that be - about how students are less skilled - how law schools are accepting lower caliber students - it's blame shifting. If you want to fix what is wrong - you can't operate on the healthy leg - you need to operate on the broken one. Some students will fail - it's a given - but you shouldn't pass because you're lucky - you should pass because you're capable. For each student that passes because their essays don't get read, remaining students move down the curve. The idiot who squeaked through because their essays didn't get read could be your next attorney - while the brilliant student who was knocked down to one point below passing because of the idiot - will be waiting to take the bar in July.

Thank heaven. I get so sick of people blaming the students. My school has been trending higher caliber students (as defined by entrance GPA and LSAT) every year since before I was enrolled and yet the last year of bar grades have been the lowest in decades. Why is it so hard to believe that either the test isn't adequate to test what we have learned, or the prep process sucks, or the test itself is defunct?

I'm not saying that it is only cause, just that my school results seem to indicate there isn't a link between student quality and recent bar results.

Thank you! to both posters I quoted.

I read the statement by Erica Moeser about falling pass rates, and I was livid when she started blaming the students. She had the nerve to say we were "less able" than our predecessors. Not only is that incredibly insulting, it's failing to take any responsibility whatsoever.

I failed the July bar narrowly. I studied tirelessly from late May onward. I regurgitated so much law it was ridiculous. After 3 years of law school + that miserable studying I was clearly competent to be an attorney, I just had to pass this arbitrary test first.

Everyone I talked to walked out of the July MBE absolutely speechless. Like 3 years of law school + bar prep was all for nothing. It tested the must utterly ridiculous and nuanced minutia, and so many questions you just knew were designed to trick you. That's when I really realized that the bar (and the MBE) don't actually test to see if you are "minimally competent." It's hazing. And a rite of passage. That's all. They needed some kind of entry test, so they made this one up.

I'm not saying the test should be super easy. Of course it should be challenging. What I'm saying is that if you studied hard and really know the material-- you should pass. The examiners shouldn't try to trick you, then it becomes a test of seeing how good you are at passing their tricks than seeing how well you know the law. The July MBE seemed much more like the former. And thousands of bright, intelligent people who clearly knew the law well did not pass the exam.

While the February MBE felt more straightforward, I'm still critical of a 6-hour, 200 question multiple choice test determining your worth to enter into the profession. I learned as far back as high school that standardized tests don't do anything to test how well you know the material; they test how good you are at school and test-taking. That's it. To argue that the MBE actually tests your competence as an attorney is asinine.

I think I passed in February, but I think it's because I simply learned how to take the MBE and figured out how the examiners write their questions. I knew about the same amount of law as I knew in July.

Moeser can blame lower admission standards all she wants-- even if she's right... if someone with subpar UGPA and LSAT credentials makes it through 3 years and graduates, you can't really blame that stuff anymore. Law graduates are different from first-semester 1Ls, significantly. If anything, law schools are to blame for not doing a good enough job teaching bar subjects.

This is why you only give the winning team a trophy... Letting everyone "win" or teaching kids that results don't matter lands us right about here.

Results matter in the practice of law, which is why the bar admission process should not be based on a standardized exam that does not reflect the true practice of law. Our clients won't care whether we know how to answer 200 multiple choice questions in 6 hours. Everyone knows that the bar exam has nothing to do with the practice of law.

[slavetothebar]

If anyone is interested - I have the 2016 Critical Pass cards - they were Life SAVERS! Bought them to study for the Feb exam - they were just what I needed to focus my studying without the distractions of wanting to quickly skim ahead in the books.

No writing on the cards, no highlighting, no bending - I'm OCD about keeping my stuff in like new shape. Selling new on Amazon for $140. These are essentially "new". I'll sell them for $125

I also have How to Write Bar Exam Essays by Racine - 2nd Edition - $5.00

[reasonable_man]

Ok - Sorry - but let's look at this...

If they want to know why the scores are dropping - look at the testing. Maybe some of those answers that aren't being read should be. Maybe some of the people who are failing actually DID know what they were talking about - just thought for themselves instead of parroting back bar review bullshit. Maybe the exam - and it's administration - are to blame for the lower scores - and not the students themselves. Listening to the insults flying from the powers that be - about how students are less skilled - how law schools are accepting lower caliber students - it's blame shifting. If you want to fix what is wrong - you can't operate on the healthy leg - you need to operate on the broken one. Some students will fail - it's a given - but you shouldn't pass because you're lucky - you should pass because you're capable. For each student that passes because their essays don't get read, remaining students move down the curve. The idiot who squeaked through because their essays didn't get read could be your next attorney - while the brilliant student who was knocked down to one point below passing because of the idiot - will be waiting to take the bar in July.

Thank heaven. I get so sick of people blaming the students. My school has been trending higher caliber students (as defined by entrance GPA and LSAT) every year since before I was enrolled and yet the last year of bar grades have been the lowest in decades. Why is it so hard to believe that either the test isn't adequate to test what we have learned, or the prep process sucks, or the test itself is defunct?

I'm not saying that it is only cause, just that my school results seem to indicate there isn't a link between student quality and recent bar results.

Thank you! to both posters I quoted.

I read the statement by Erica Moeser about falling pass rates, and I was livid when she started blaming the students. She had the nerve to say we were "less able" than our predecessors. Not only is that incredibly insulting, it's failing to take any responsibility whatsoever.

I failed the July bar narrowly. I studied tirelessly from late May onward. I regurgitated so much law it was ridiculous. After 3 years of law school + that miserable studying I was clearly competent to be an attorney, I just had to pass this arbitrary test first.

Everyone I talked to walked out of the July MBE absolutely speechless. Like 3 years of law school + bar prep was all for nothing. It tested the must utterly ridiculous and nuanced minutia, and so many questions you just knew were designed to trick you. That's when I really realized that the bar (and the MBE) don't actually test to see if you are "minimally competent." It's hazing. And a rite of passage. That's all. They needed some kind of entry test, so they made this one up.

I'm not saying the test should be super easy. Of course it should be challenging. What I'm saying is that if you studied hard and really know the material-- you should pass. The examiners shouldn't try to trick you, then it becomes a test of seeing how good you are at passing their tricks than seeing how well you know the law. The July MBE seemed much more like the former. And thousands of bright, intelligent people who clearly knew the law well did not pass the exam.

While the February MBE felt more straightforward, I'm still critical of a 6-hour, 200 question multiple choice test determining your worth to enter into the profession. I learned as far back as high school that standardized tests don't do anything to test how well you know the material; they test how good you are at school and test-taking. That's it. To argue that the MBE actually tests your competence as an attorney is asinine.

I think I passed in February, but I think it's because I simply learned how to take the MBE and figured out how the examiners write their questions. I knew about the same amount of law as I knew in July.

Moeser can blame lower admission standards all she wants-- even if she's right... if someone with subpar UGPA and LSAT credentials makes it through 3 years and graduates, you can't really blame that stuff anymore. Law graduates are different from first-semester 1Ls, significantly. If anything, law schools are to blame for not doing a good enough job teaching bar subjects.

This is why you only give the winning team a trophy... Letting everyone "win" or teaching kids that results don't matter lands us right about here.

Results matter in the practice of law, which is why the bar admission process should not be based on a standardized exam that does not reflect the true practice of law. Our clients won't care whether we know how to answer 200 multiple choice questions in 6 hours. Everyone knows that the bar exam has nothing to do with the practice of law.

Thanks. But I'm fairly certain that I'm in a better position to judge what clients care about.

[ReachTheBar79]

Ok - Sorry - but let's look at this...

If they want to know why the scores are dropping - look at the testing. Maybe some of those answers that aren't being read should be. Maybe some of the people who are failing actually DID know what they were talking about - just thought for themselves instead of parroting back bar review bullshit. Maybe the exam - and it's administration - are to blame for the lower scores - and not the students themselves. Listening to the insults flying from the powers that be - about how students are less skilled - how law schools are accepting lower caliber students - it's blame shifting. If you want to fix what is wrong - you can't operate on the healthy leg - you need to operate on the broken one. Some students will fail - it's a given - but you shouldn't pass because you're lucky - you should pass because you're capable. For each student that passes because their essays don't get read, remaining students move down the curve. The idiot who squeaked through because their essays didn't get read could be your next attorney - while the brilliant student who was knocked down to one point below passing because of the idiot - will be waiting to take the bar in July.

Thank heaven. I get so sick of people blaming the students. My school has been trending higher caliber students (as defined by entrance GPA and LSAT) every year since before I was enrolled and yet the last year of bar grades have been the lowest in decades. Why is it so hard to believe that either the test isn't adequate to test what we have learned, or the prep process sucks, or the test itself is defunct?

I'm not saying that it is only cause, just that my school results seem to indicate there isn't a link between student quality and recent bar results.

Thank you! to both posters I quoted.

I read the statement by Erica Moeser about falling pass rates, and I was livid when she started blaming the students. She had the nerve to say we were "less able" than our predecessors. Not only is that incredibly insulting, it's failing to take any responsibility whatsoever.

I failed the July bar narrowly. I studied tirelessly from late May onward. I regurgitated so much law it was ridiculous. After 3 years of law school + that miserable studying I was clearly competent to be an attorney, I just had to pass this arbitrary test first.

Everyone I talked to walked out of the July MBE absolutely speechless. Like 3 years of law school + bar prep was all for nothing. It tested the must utterly ridiculous and nuanced minutia, and so many questions you just knew were designed to trick you. That's when I really realized that the bar (and the MBE) don't actually test to see if you are "minimally competent." It's hazing. And a rite of passage. That's all. They needed some kind of entry test, so they made this one up.

I'm not saying the test should be super easy. Of course it should be challenging. What I'm saying is that if you studied hard and really know the material-- you should pass. The examiners shouldn't try to trick you, then it becomes a test of seeing how good you are at passing their tricks than seeing how well you know the law. The July MBE seemed much more like the former. And thousands of bright, intelligent people who clearly knew the law well did not pass the exam.

While the February MBE felt more straightforward, I'm still critical of a 6-hour, 200 question multiple choice test determining your worth to enter into the profession. I learned as far back as high school that standardized tests don't do anything to test how well you know the material; they test how good you are at school and test-taking. That's it. To argue that the MBE actually tests your competence as an attorney is asinine.

I think I passed in February, but I think it's because I simply learned how to take the MBE and figured out how the examiners write their questions. I knew about the same amount of law as I knew in July.

Moeser can blame lower admission standards all she wants-- even if she's right... if someone with subpar UGPA and LSAT credentials makes it through 3 years and graduates, you can't really blame that stuff anymore. Law graduates are different from first-semester 1Ls, significantly. If anything, law schools are to blame for not doing a good enough job teaching bar subjects.

This is why you only give the winning team a trophy... Letting everyone "win" or teaching kids that results don't matter lands us right about here.

Results matter in the practice of law, which is why the bar admission process should not be based on a standardized exam that does not reflect the true practice of law. Our clients won't care whether we know how to answer 200 multiple choice questions in 6 hours. Everyone knows that the bar exam has nothing to do with the practice of law.

Thanks. But I'm fairly certain that I'm in a better position to judge what clients care about.

No need to take this personally, but what makes you in a better position to know what clients care about....? No client wants an attorney to answer multiple choice questions. Clients want attorneys who win, settle, and handle cases and legal dilemmas.

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

This is why you only give the winning team a trophy... Letting everyone "win" or teaching kids that results don't matter lands us right about here.

Oh geez I hope THAT isn't what you took from my post. I wasn't saying that at all-- that we're all special and everyone should win. I was just saying the NCBE needs to do some re-evaluating, and shouldn't place blame on the students like that. The bar should actually test your knowledge of the law, not how good you are at passing the tricks they throw at you.

And let's be real here: the bar doesn't test how competent you are to be an attorney. You had 3 years of law school + internships for that. The bar is simply a rite of passage. Nothing more. You never would advise a client without looking up the law first. You would never write a memo or a client letter in 90 minutes flat without giving yourself extra time.

[Em_Banc]

And let's be real here: the bar doesn't test how competent you are to be an attorney. You had 3 years of law school + internships for that. The bar is simply a rite of passage. Nothing more. You never would advise a client without looking up the law first. You would never write a memo or a client letter in 90 minutes flat without giving yourself extra time.

The MPT is the only part of the exam remotely similar to practicing law. And it's a test of whose crap (on the most stressful day of the year) is least crappy. It's utter bs.

[reasonable_man]

No need to take this personally, but what makes you in a better position to know what clients care about....? No client wants an attorney to answer multiple choice questions. Clients want attorneys who win, settle, and handle cases and legal dilemmas.

Don't take this personally either - but for how long have you been practicing law?

[ReachTheBar79]

No need to take this personally, but what makes you in a better position to know what clients care about....? No client wants an attorney to answer multiple choice questions. Clients want attorneys who win, settle, and handle cases and legal dilemmas.

Don't take this personally either - but for how long have you been practicing law?

Are you implying that one who practices law is more equipped to know what clients want? Again, no client wants an attorney to answer multiple choice questions. The "academia" of the bar exam is unrelated to the practice of law. You said that you're in a better position to know what clients want....how so?

The dialogue between us proves to me that the bar exam doesn't measure one's intelligence. Sure, the bar exam is a beast. But the beast isn't reflective of the skill set required to be an intelligent and amazing attorney.

[NY_Sea]

No need to take this personally, but what makes you in a better position to know what clients care about....? No client wants an attorney to answer multiple choice questions. Clients want attorneys who win, settle, and handle cases and legal dilemmas.

Don't take this personally either - but for how long have you been practicing law?

Are you implying that one who practices law is more equipped to know what clients want? Again, no client wants an attorney to answer multiple choice questions. The "academia" of the bar exam is unrelated to the practice of law. You said that you're in a better position to know what clients want....how so?

The dialogue between us proves to me that the bar exam doesn't measure one's intelligence. Sure, the bar exam is a beast. But the beast isn't reflective of the skill set required to be an intelligent and amazing attorney.

Sooooo a couple things:

1) Don't insult his intelligence because you guys disagree... That's just petty.

2) While you're right that the average client doesn't care about your performance on the exam outside of the fact that you passed and got admitted to practice, I think there's a direct connection between the amount of time someone spends interacting with clients and knowing what they want. That's like me asking someone who has very little interaction with my girlfriend what type of movie she prefers or food she prefers.

Everyone take a lap lol

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

No need to take this personally, but what makes you in a better position to know what clients care about....? No client wants an attorney to answer multiple choice questions. Clients want attorneys who win, settle, and handle cases and legal dilemmas.

Don't take this personally either - but for how long have you been practicing law?

Are you implying that one who practices law is more equipped to know what clients want? Again, no client wants an attorney to answer multiple choice questions. The "academia" of the bar exam is unrelated to the practice of law. You said that you're in a better position to know what clients want....how so?

The dialogue between us proves to me that the bar exam doesn't measure one's intelligence. Sure, the bar exam is a beast. But the beast isn't reflective of the skill set required to be an intelligent and amazing attorney.

Sooooo a couple things:

1) Don't insult his intelligence because you guys disagree... That's just petty.

2) While you're right that the average client doesn't care about your performance on the exam outside of the fact that you passed and got admitted to practice, I think there's a direct connection between the amount of time someone spends interacting with clients and knowing what they want. That's like me asking someone who has very little interaction with my girlfriend what type of movie she prefers or food she prefers.

Everyone take a lap lol

Nothing in that post you quoted came off as insulting of anyone's intelligence, IMO

[NY_Sea]

No need to take this personally, but what makes you in a better position to know what clients care about....? No client wants an attorney to answer multiple choice questions. Clients want attorneys who win, settle, and handle cases and legal dilemmas.

Don't take this personally either - but for how long have you been practicing law?

Are you implying that one who practices law is more equipped to know what clients want? Again, no client wants an attorney to answer multiple choice questions. The "academia" of the bar exam is unrelated to the practice of law. You said that you're in a better position to know what clients want....how so?

The dialogue between us proves to me that the bar exam doesn't measure one's intelligence. Sure, the bar exam is a beast. But the beast isn't reflective of the skill set required to be an intelligent and amazing attorney.

Sooooo a couple things:

1) Don't insult his intelligence because you guys disagree... That's just petty.

2) While you're right that the average client doesn't care about your performance on the exam outside of the fact that you passed and got admitted to practice, I think there's a direct connection between the amount of time someone spends interacting with clients and knowing what they want. That's like me asking someone who has very little interaction with my girlfriend what type of movie she prefers or food she prefers.

Everyone take a lap lol

Nothing in that post you quoted came off as insulting of anyone's intelligence, IMO

That is what I was referring to... Seemed like a dig to me, but maybe not. I apologize if it wasn't.

[ReachTheBar79]

No need to take this personally, but what makes you in a better position to know what clients care about....? No client wants an attorney to answer multiple choice questions. Clients want attorneys who win, settle, and handle cases and legal dilemmas.

Don't take this personally either - but for how long have you been practicing law?

Are you implying that one who practices law is more equipped to know what clients want? Again, no client wants an attorney to answer multiple choice questions. The "academia" of the bar exam is unrelated to the practice of law. You said that you're in a better position to know what clients want....how so?

The dialogue between us proves to me that the bar exam doesn't measure one's intelligence. Sure, the bar exam is a beast. But the beast isn't reflective of the skill set required to be an intelligent and amazing attorney.

Sooooo a couple things:

1) Don't insult his intelligence because you guys disagree... That's just petty.

2) While you're right that the average client doesn't care about your performance on the exam outside of the fact that you passed and got admitted to practice, I think there's a direct connection between the amount of time someone spends interacting with clients and knowing what they want. That's like me asking someone who has very little interaction with my girlfriend what type of movie she prefers or food she prefers.

Everyone take a lap lol

Nothing in that post you quoted came off as insulting of anyone's intelligence, IMO

That is what I was referring to... Seemed like a dig to me, but maybe not. I apologize if it wasn't.

I did not write anything that was intended to insult anyone's actual intelligence. That said, the greatest measure of one's intelligence is kindness. Please note "reasonable man's" first post that insulted people as winners or losers, or whatever he said. But that is neither here nor there.

With regard to number 2 above: one can be a practicing attorney and not interacting with clients as much as someone who is not a practicing attorney (such as a legal assistant or paralegal). You and "reasonable man" seem to imply that one's practicing law gives that person a better insight as to what a client wants.

My bottom line point is that the bar exam is unrelated to the practice of law. Clients do not care about whether someone can answer 100 multiple choice questions in 3 hours. The only aspect of the bar exam that is somewhat similar to the practice of law is the MPT. Even then, the time restriction imposed on the MPT is unreasonable and unrealistic.

Stop overthinking. There was no need for "reasonable man" to mention "winners" and "losers" here. Kindness people! The bar exam has nothing to do with the actual practice of law and everyone knows it. *drops the mic*

[amk110]

What bothers me most about the nonsense Erica Moeser keeps spouting about the quality of law students declining is that she's a graduate from the only state we have that doesn't require one to take the exam to be admitted to the bar. Seems so... wrong... to spout off about how new generations of law students just aren't "capable" of taking an exam when you're from a state that doesn't even administer it to its graduates. And may not have even taken it yourself.

[reasonable_man]

My friend. If you don't think that after practicing for 8 years and building a pretty substantial client base that I am not keenly aware of what clients want, you're sadly mistaking. When you have the confidence and the cache (and more importantly the record) to sit down with a business owner and tell him you'll need $75,000 up front to get started; then I'll gladly listen to your opinion about what clients want. Until then, pull up a chair Jr. And pick that mic up off the floor because you didn't drop shit.

What clients want, particularly the ones that can afford to pay me over $400 an hour, is to win. They want a fucking killer that can win for them. One way or another - they want to win or they want to know right away that they can't win and how best to navigate a bad situation. Whatever contest it is, a trial, an appeal or the bar exam. Just win. I once passed a bar exam with 12 hours of studying after being out of school for 4 years. Again, common theme: win.

The win at all costs / killer instinct is something that allows you to over prepare when you're tired or just not into it, to track down the information in a case that no one else will and to just come out on top no matter what.

Want to know what they don't want to hear about? Excuses. The bar got harder. Boo hoo. They changed the questions around a little! My pinky toe hurt when I say for the test. Whaaa.

But you're probably right. I'm sure you know exactly what clients want.

[KTnKT]

Oh.m.g.

I'm not even sure what y'all are discussing at this point.

Summary: bar sucks and stresses nice people out until they argue in circles.

[reasonable_man]

Bar doesn't stress me out even one bit. I could sit down and pass one tomorrow.