fear_no_evil wrote:jman77 wrote:34percent wrote:a male human wrote:catechumen wrote:Former CA levels? That is just not good enough. There is no reason the CA bar should be the hardest in the country. To put this in perspective there are states like Missouri that has a pass rate of something like 90%+ at times. Or states like Wisconsin that auto admit anyone who graduated from a Wisconsin law school... (IE 100% pass rate if you graduated from an in state law school...)
There is no need for the pass rate to be that high, but the pass rate should reflect how CA students compare to lawyers nationwide. Given that time and again CA students score higher on the MBE's and the ethics exam, the pass rate should reflect that CA students are better students than the national average, and thus allow for higher than national average pass rate. A pass rate between 70-75% seems not at all unreasonable, if not higher. This is a test of so called minim competence after all. That's a pretty low bar to clear... The standard should reflect that. Virtually everyone taking it already has a JD. This elitism and economic protectionism needs to end!a male human wrote:maxmartin wrote:1414 is such an odd number, I think the passing score will be between 1400 and 1420 with incremental 5 points. What is the regular Kx SoL? 2 years? If so, the court should at least make the new passing score retroactively for the past 2 years!
I briefly skimmed through the memo posted earlier, and it seems like 1414 is one standard deviation away from mean of the distribution of scores (or something like that). I didn't read deeply enough to see the rationale behind choosing one standard deviation, but it seems like moving it to 1414 in simulation of past exams would have increased the pass rate by 5-15% or so depending on the demographic based on race, sex, accreditation. I think it was about 8% overall, which I think is pretty good and would restore the pass rates back to their former levels.
I see your point and understand the frustration, and the thing to keep in mind is that this is a case of "being demanding about something I never knew I needed."
Why are former CA levels not good enough? It's been accepted for decades, and it's in light of recent trends that the S.Ct. is reconsidering the proposal by the State Bar.
We like to talk about abysmal pass rates like 34.5%, but what most (including myself) don't like to talk about is that first timers at ABA-accredited schools have a pass rate of 65%-ish. Much higher if we look at high-ranking schools like Stanford or Boalt.
So one of the issues is CA allowing people who may not be ready to study law and graduate law school, almost like a "scam." These so-called California-accredited schools take people with LSATs in the 140s and GPAs below 3.0. Do you think they should be automatically admitted to the bar? I don't think so. And don't get me started about the overpopulation of lawyers in CA.
I'm not saying that you're incapable if you graduate from unnamed schools--not at all! I know at least one person who graduated from an unaccredited school and passed the CA bar in two tries. Two implications here: (1) Most of them will not pass easily. (2) Yet it is more than possible to pass the CA bar.
It's always been up to you, not some outside bureaucracy, not Barbri. This isn't just about knowing the law. It's about beating the test, not being minimally competent (although the bar for "minimum competence" has gone up the last few years). It teaches you to figure things out, to pass the bar, to better serve clients.
Or they're just evil; who knows? Sorry if I sound out of touch or condescending (passed 3 years ago after all). I would rather set a high standard for ourselves, and I'm here to offer help if people are willing to consider alternatives to fear.
I agree with what you're saying, and also agree with looking at the underlying stats, i.e. what you said about first time ABA schools and their pass rate.
Having passed on my second try, from a CBA school, at 41 years old, not having taken Barbri, I can say, this test can be passed, but it takes effort and dedication. I am totally opposed to lowering the score, even had I not passed I would be opposed to it. Having been in a school where I could look around the room and know who would never pass the bar, I believe that is the real issue, taking peoples money who have no chance to ever pass the bar, and thus allowing these students to drag down the %.
I am sure it's not what people in this forum want to hear, but I am filled with satisfaction knowing I passed the 3 day CA bar, and I will tell you this, if I can do it, anyone who actually studies can do it, but you have to study the right way. I think that many just don't know how to approach studying for it and law schools are shitty about that. But lowering the score, to allow unqualified people to pass, it just demeans the whole profession.
It makes me sad to see all these people hoping and wishing for lower scores, shouldn't the goal be to write better exams, for you to have a better understanding of the law. Let's face some facts of life, not everyone gets everything they want, some things, like being an attorney, take a ton of effort and even then some never pass. But don't give up, study hard, and regardless of the cut score, you can pass the test.
I am personally indifferent with respect to maintaining or lowering the cut score, but I don't think you completely understand the issue here. It's not so much a matter of letting unqualified people in as it is a question of whether the current cut score in CA is reasonable. Did you take a look at the summary of the study in the CA bar resolution/memo someone posted yesterday? CA's cut score is significantly higher than cut scores in most other jurisdictions (about 9-10 pts. higher) and there is only one other jurisdiction in the entire nation with a cut score approximating CA's.
The question is, is there really something unique about practicing law in CA that justifies the significantly higher cut score? Are transactions/cases more complex here than, say, in NY? The real issue is that it's likely that candidates who otherwise possess the minimum competency may be unjustifiably excluded from practicing in CA because of the higher cut score. The point is not to lower the cut score to the point where every Tom, Dick and Harry can get into the profession. Rather, the point is to lower it to a reasonable level so that people who are qualified are not unduly excluded.
If you think there is a legitimate reason the cut score in CA needs to be significantly higher than in other jurisdictions, I'd be interested to hear what you think that reason is.
ETA: I passed the 2014 NY bar and took the July 2017 CA bar.
FYI, At least 2 jurisdictions have lowered their cut score within the past year: Nevada 140 -138, and Montana 270-266.
I'm willing to bet California will lower to at least the recommended 1410.
Lower to 1330 and retro to 2008 to repair past injustices -
2018 moving forward, 1350 - let the malpractice cases rise, then we can readjust. (Highly doubt that would be the case)