dimetech wrote: jman77 wrote: dimetech wrote: jman77 wrote: dimetech wrote:
jman77 wrote:In addition to the argument of the original poster being substantively incorrect (as pointed out in the previous responses), it is also factually inaccurate. No one is petitioning for a lower cut score. It was the court itself that directed the bar to look into the matter of potentially lowering the score. People were simply responding to the survey. Did the original poster really believe those who just took the bar would respond to the survey by saying the cut score should be unchanged?
Actually it is you that is factually inaccurate. I don't care WHO ordered the survey, etc. Irrelevant. CA law school deans have been petitioning for this change since before you even considered law school. It's a money business. When they started losing money bc of the lower pass rates and potentially losing accreditation, they got proactive about a lower score.
And obviously July 2017 takers want the score lowered. What's your point? They aren't exactly unbiased, if you catch my drift. Good luck dude, but a hope and a prayer for a lower score is NOT the answer.
I don't need luck. They can increase the score to 155 for all I care. I'd still pass based on my MBE performance alone. That's beside the point. The point is that the CA cut score is unreasonably high -- just compare it to the cut score for other states. Are you saying lawyers in NY are less competent than in CA because of CA's higher cut score? NY's cut score is ~10 points lower than CA's. The bar should be a test for minimum competence, not a means for economic protectionism.
Also, I'm not a recent graduate. I've been a practicing attorney for a couple of years but just moved to CA recently.
Read up on actual studies conducted by various research groups before you spew your condescending BS all over this forum.
Whether it's too high or not is an opinion, and will never be considered "unreasonably high" because that is a factual determination that cannot be made by weighing it against other states with a different (and most certainly less-complex) set of laws. Ever wonder why Delaware is the one state with the higher rate? Could it have something to do with the fact that 90% of corporations are incorporated there? Ya, corporate law ISN'T more complex than duty, breach, causation, and damages. No need weed out the people that can barely understand negligence though as long we keep lowering that score.
I know this forum is a bastion for hope, but Jesus Christ, your opinion is not fact.
Haha! Industry custom can be a basis for determining reasonableness. Even a 1L knows that. Actually, your argumentation here and the fact that you passed the CA bar can be Exhibit A for the proposition that the bar exam as currently constructed is not in fact a valid measure of competence.
See, I can be a condescending prick as well... we're done here.
1. Torts concept. Go argue it applies to bar licensure to the Cal Supreme Court. And if you want to go medical/professional standard route, it's in the same locality, not nationally. 2. It's a factor to consider, not grounds for determining reasonableness. Go read your barbri outline again. 3. Fuck, if all states are the same, why don't we just have one standard system. Shit, let's just get rid of the states in general. No need for differentiation. Mad yet?
Once again, you're a July 2017 bar taker and you're biased. Not credible. CEC 780. Oh wait, I'm sure you didn't even study CA law because you're a MBE genius, right?
I studied CA law for 3 days by reading smartbarprep outlines. And yes, I do extremely well on the MBE (based on my score in the NY bar and all the Barbri simulations). Frankly, I didn't think the CA bar was all that tough, although it was a bit tougher than NY.
Again, I personally don't care what the cut score is. From a selfish personal perspective, it would be beneficial to me for the cut score to be higher. Less competition. But again, that is not the point. Not going to rehash that.
You keep speaking in general terms and concepts without providing specific persuasive evidence about why the CA cut score should be higher. Your arguments so far: 1) it's been that way in the past, why shouldn't it be that way now (if everyone adhered to this way of thinking we'd still be living in the Stone Age); 2) more complicated laws necessitate higher cut score (as I argued previously, if the subject matter of the test is inherently more difficult, setting a higher cut score does not accomplish any substantive purpose with respect to weeding out incompetent candidates); and 3) each state is just different, period (your argument here would have a modicum of persuasiveness if the cut scores were uniformly dispersed; instead, you have a clustering of cut scores within a narrow range and 1 or 2 outliers, which brings us back to the basic question of what's so special about the outliers that necessitate the significantly higher cut score). Is that really the best you can do?
And no, industry custom is not only applicable to torts. It has general applicability. Even in contracts. Even in other areas.
Again, you're Exhibit A... you keep harping on bias. You do realize the same could be said about you, right? Obviously, you want to let fewer people in to protect your own interests. See what I did there?