2017 July California Bar

yost
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby yost » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:47 pm

jman77 wrote:Update on the survey results RE: lowering cut score:

http://apps.calbar.ca.gov/cbe/docs/agen ... 002006.pdf

"In the report submitted to the Committee of Bar Examiners at its meeting on July 31, staff presented the Standard Setting Study report and, based on the study findings, recommended that the Committee consider two options: 1) maintain the current cut score of 1440, or 2)reduce the cut score to 1414 on an interim basis. After reviewing public comments submitted during the public comment period, staff now recommended that the Committee consider a third option: reducing the cut score to 1390.

Staff presents this third option for three reasons. First, in response to public comments urging further reduction to 1390; second, because 1390 falls within the confidence interval from the study; and third, in light of the analysis showing the positive impact on diversity and access that
a lower cut score may produce."

Also (you will need to register for free if you don't already have a subscription): http://www.therecorder.com/id=120279693 ... PassScore#

"A California State Bar committee stocked with law school deans recommended on Wednesday that the Supreme Court reduce the bar exam passing score from 144 to as low as 135.

The Law School Council endorsed setting the state’s passing score between 135 and 139, a lower range than the 141 to 144 that a previous bar-commissioned study had suggested. A 135 score is the most common pass score, or cut score, in other states. An Aug. 25 letter signed by 19 of 21 ABA-approved law school deans recommended the score be temporarily set between 133 and 139 while the bar completes its analysis.

Council members and others referred to findings from a report released by the bar on Wednesday that looked at what the passage rates would have been for exam-takers in July 2008 and July 2016 if the passing score, or cut score, had been lower. At 135, the success rate would have jumped dramatically, from 43 percent to 66 overall and by 114 percent for African-Americans and by 75 percent for Hispanic test-takers."

"A joint meeting of the bar’s committee of bar examiners and the committee on admissions and education meets Thursday to consider its own score recommendation. The bar’s board of trustees will make final recommendations to the state Supreme Court in September."


Wow, that's huge.

InterAlia1961
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Thu Aug 31, 2017 2:08 pm

Thanks for posting. I hope they come to a decision before results come out in Nov.

133CaliCutscore
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:56 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby 133CaliCutscore » Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:57 pm

Wow!! Thank you for sharing.

mcmand
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:45 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby mcmand » Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:54 am

Looks like California's lawyers do not want us to pass-go.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... n_the_same

The gist: the committee voted 13-1 to keep it the same, and the survey showed 80% of lawyers wanted it to be the same. Big surprise, only 2% of us who took the test this past July want it to stay the same.

Board of trustees meets next week, and then it goes to Supreme Court for a decision. I'm not optimistic. Sometimes I hate this profession's protectionist bullshit.

dimetech
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby dimetech » Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:20 am

Pardon me for being the outlier here, but I'm pretty sure answer to remedy a exam failure in general is to study and work harder, not petition for a lower passing score threshold. That applies to any test I've ever taken in my life, and even more so when you are talking about being licensed and representing clients who can literally lose their liberty/life. The profession doesn't need more lawyers, it needs BETTER lawyers. Flame on, but it's just reality and no amount millennial entitlement will change that (speaking as a millennial).

If you go back from a couple years ago to beyond, the pass rate has always been about 60-70% (at least for ABA students. The cut score was always the same (1440) and people did just fine. Now when the rates drop, suddenly it's because CA's cut score is "unreasonably high." Compared to what? Other states where the law is less complicated than in CA?

It's the law schools admissions/standards fault, not the cut score. Not very hard to see and I'm guessing the court won't be easily swayed by a sympathy argument to change the score. Just my 2 cents.

mcmand
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:45 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby mcmand » Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:49 am

dimetech wrote:Pardon me for being the outlier here, but I'm pretty sure answer to remedy a exam failure in general is to study and work harder, not petition for a lower passing score threshold. That applies to any test I've ever taken in my life, and even more so when you are talking about being licensed and representing clients who can literally lose their liberty/life. The profession doesn't need more lawyers, it needs BETTER lawyers. Flame on, but it's just reality and no amount millennial entitlement will change that (speaking as a millennial).

If you go back from a couple years ago to beyond, the pass rate has always been about 60-70% (at least for ABA students. The cut score was always the same (1440) and people did just fine. Now when the rates drop, suddenly it's because CA's cut score is "unreasonably high." Compared to what? Other states where the law is less complicated than in CA?

It's the law schools admissions/standards fault, not the cut score. Not very hard to see and I'm guessing the court won't be easily swayed by a sympathy argument to change the score. Just my 2 cents.


Just because many people passed it doesn't mean it's a valid test. That's a false premise. No one has proved up that memorizing lots of law that you will not likely practice makes you a more competent attorney. The test should be reworked entirely.

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby SmokeytheBear » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:08 am

mcmand wrote:
dimetech wrote:Pardon me for being the outlier here, but I'm pretty sure answer to remedy a exam failure in general is to study and work harder, not petition for a lower passing score threshold. That applies to any test I've ever taken in my life, and even more so when you are talking about being licensed and representing clients who can literally lose their liberty/life. The profession doesn't need more lawyers, it needs BETTER lawyers. Flame on, but it's just reality and no amount millennial entitlement will change that (speaking as a millennial).

If you go back from a couple years ago to beyond, the pass rate has always been about 60-70% (at least for ABA students. The cut score was always the same (1440) and people did just fine. Now when the rates drop, suddenly it's because CA's cut score is "unreasonably high." Compared to what? Other states where the law is less complicated than in CA?

It's the law schools admissions/standards fault, not the cut score. Not very hard to see and I'm guessing the court won't be easily swayed by a sympathy argument to change the score. Just my 2 cents.


Just because many people passed it doesn't mean it's a valid test. That's a false premise. No one has proved up that memorizing lots of law that you will not likely practice makes you a more competent attorney. The test should be reworked entirely.


This is the perfect answer.

And that there have been enough studies done now that show that test taking like this isn't the best test of aptitude across a broad swath of people.

dimetech
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby dimetech » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:19 am

mcmand wrote:
dimetech wrote:Pardon me for being the outlier here, but I'm pretty sure answer to remedy a exam failure in general is to study and work harder, not petition for a lower passing score threshold. That applies to any test I've ever taken in my life, and even more so when you are talking about being licensed and representing clients who can literally lose their liberty/life. The profession doesn't need more lawyers, it needs BETTER lawyers. Flame on, but it's just reality and no amount millennial entitlement will change that (speaking as a millennial).

If you go back from a couple years ago to beyond, the pass rate has always been about 60-70% (at least for ABA students. The cut score was always the same (1440) and people did just fine. Now when the rates drop, suddenly it's because CA's cut score is "unreasonably high." Compared to what? Other states where the law is less complicated than in CA?

It's the law schools admissions/standards fault, not the cut score. Not very hard to see and I'm guessing the court won't be easily swayed by a sympathy argument to change the score. Just my 2 cents.


Just because many people passed it doesn't mean it's a valid test. That's a false premise. No one has proved up that memorizing lots of law that you will not likely practice makes you a more competent attorney. The test should be reworked entirely.


I actually agree with this somewhat. It's valid in the sense that it's the standard that every attorney past and present was held to. Doesn't mean it's the best way though. I worked for a bar review company for a couple years before law school, and I've questioned how they test attorney competence. I personally believe the test should be 100% PTs, as it's the closest real world application. However, until they change the format (which would take literally years of planning), they must keep the standards the same year to year. Changing the cut score doesn't address the issue, but adopting a new format may. Fat chance of that happening any time soon though.

jman77
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:22 am

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 bar examinee 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?

dimetech
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby dimetech » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:27 am

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. Hitting the books and less Netflix is.

jman77
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:33 am

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.

dimetech
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby dimetech » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:48 am

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.

jman77
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:01 pm

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. CA law is more complicated than NY law to the tune of 10 points? The more complicated the laws, the higher the cut score should be? Assuming that is true, wouldn't the fact that the laws are more complicated in and of itself already weed out those who are incompetent without the need for raising the score?

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.

dimetech
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby dimetech » Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:16 pm

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?

justanotheruser
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:22 pm

mcmand wrote:Looks like California's lawyers do not want us to pass-go.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... n_the_same

The gist: the committee voted 13-1 to keep it the same, and the survey showed 80% of lawyers wanted it to be the same. Big surprise, only 2% of us who took the test this past July want it to stay the same.

Board of trustees meets next week, and then it goes to Supreme Court for a decision. I'm not optimistic. Sometimes I hate this profession's protectionist bullshit.


What exactly is the impact/effect of the committee's 13 to 1 vote? Is it merely an opinion survey or something more? Also, I understand the Trustees will make the final recommendations to Cal. Supreme Court, but the court will read the same studies that we've been reading and more, right?

jman77
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:33 pm

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?
Last edited by jman77 on Fri Sep 01, 2017 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jman77
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:01 pm

jman77 wrote:
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?


As to your 3rd point... you have heard about the UBE, right? It pays to keep abreast of current events every now and then...
Last edited by jman77 on Fri Sep 01, 2017 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alt123
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Alt123 » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:01 pm

It's funny because this most recent exchange in this thread was basically encapsulated by the results memo:

Independent of the role played by the CBX in testing competence, comments from those
opposed to lowering the cut score often expressed the view that those who failed the exam
lacked the discipline, grit, or work ethic to succeed in passing the bar and by implication, to be a
competent attorney. These comments focused on personal traits or character rather than skills
or knowledge acquired through learning and training. These comments – as shown in the
examples quoted below – reveal deeply embedded cultural values and often suggest intergenerational
attitudinal differences, as one comment started by stating “This is typical Millenial
[sic] Stuff!”.


I passed because of sheer grit and directed effort. I graduated as a special student from
a California accredited law school while being the sole supporter of a family of 5.”

“To me, the declining pass rate seems to be more of a millennial problem (I say this as a
millennial). Students don't want to work hard for anything, they expect it to be given to
them.
If they're not willing to put in the work, they should not be admitted as lawyers.”

maxmartin
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:02 pm

Everyone knows this high cut score is arbitrary, there is no real science or social reason behind it. They should stop this nonsense show of public studying and commenting. CA supreme court should take swift action, like the Oregon supreme court, to either reduce or maintain the cut score, regardless whatever bullshit bar committee spews. Just pick a cut score and get on with it. I am not aware Oregon has any study done lol.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/another- ... age-score/

justanotheruser
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:10 pm

justanotheruser wrote:
mcmand wrote:Looks like California's lawyers do not want us to pass-go.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... n_the_same

The gist: the committee voted 13-1 to keep it the same, and the survey showed 80% of lawyers wanted it to be the same. Big surprise, only 2% of us who took the test this past July want it to stay the same.

Board of trustees meets next week, and then it goes to Supreme Court for a decision. I'm not optimistic. Sometimes I hate this profession's protectionist bullshit.


What exactly is the impact/effect of the committee's 13 to 1 vote? Is it merely an opinion survey or something more? Also, I understand the Trustees will make the final recommendations to Cal. Supreme Court, but the court will read the same studies that we've been reading and more, right?
.

User avatar
CAnow
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby CAnow » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:42 pm

justanotheruser wrote:
mcmand wrote:Looks like California's lawyers do not want us to pass-go.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... n_the_same

The gist: the committee voted 13-1 to keep it the same, and the survey showed 80% of lawyers wanted it to be the same. Big surprise, only 2% of us who took the test this past July want it to stay the same.

Board of trustees meets next week, and then it goes to Supreme Court for a decision. I'm not optimistic. Sometimes I hate this profession's protectionist bullshit.


What exactly is the impact/effect of the committee's 13 to 1 vote? Is it merely an opinion survey or something more? Also, I understand the Trustees will make the final recommendations to Cal. Supreme Court, but the court will read the same studies that we've been reading and more, right?


It probably has the same effect as a Cavaliers fan commenting on a news article saying the team should not to trade Irving for Isaiah. No effect whatsoever.

User avatar
CAnow
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby CAnow » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:46 pm

mcmand wrote:Looks like California's lawyers do not want us to pass-go.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... n_the_same

The gist: the committee voted 13-1 to keep it the same, and the survey showed 80% of lawyers wanted it to be the same.


Of course they want it to be the same. And it's certainly not because they have some noble idea that society needs to be protected from lawyers who scored below 1440. All they are interested in is protecting their own share of the legal market.

InterAlia1961
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:02 pm

If after reducing the number of days from three to two and giving equal weight to both the MBE and the essay portion, the July 2017 scores increase, even by a few percentage points, I doubt that the cut score will be lowered, at least not in time to help July takers. The argument will be that scores will likely increase with the new format. Although, I think the argument for 1390 is coherent. It's the cut off point for a re-read. If they lower it to 1390, I've passed the CBX every time I've taken it. If the lower it to 1414, I've passed it twice. Sigh.

The ridiculously long wait for results is bad enough. This drama about the cut score borders on Jerry Springer's antics--just stand back and watch 'em brawl. C'mon California. Get it together, and quickly. This cut-score debate is just adding to the stress.

Hahalollawl
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:00 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Hahalollawl » Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:46 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:If after reducing the number of days from three to two and giving equal weight to both the MBE and the essay portion, the July 2017 scores increase, even by a few percentage points, I doubt that the cut score will be lowered, at least not in time to help July takers. The argument will be that scores will likely increase with the new format. Although, I think the argument for 1390 is coherent. It's the cut off point for a re-read. If they lower it to 1390, I've passed the CBX every time I've taken it. If the lower it to 1414, I've passed it twice. Sigh.

The ridiculously long wait for results is bad enough. This drama about the cut score borders on Jerry Springer's antics--just stand back and watch 'em brawl. C'mon California. Get it together, and quickly. This cut-score debate is just adding to the stress.


I was under the impression they would be making a decision on the cut score before results are released. Though I guess it's possible they would know the passing statistics but they just wouldn't release them.

InterAlia1961
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Sat Sep 02, 2017 11:13 am

Hahalollawl wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:If after reducing the number of days from three to two and giving equal weight to both the MBE and the essay portion, the July 2017 scores increase, even by a few percentage points, I doubt that the cut score will be lowered, at least not in time to help July takers. The argument will be that scores will likely increase with the new format. Although, I think the argument for 1390 is coherent. It's the cut off point for a re-read. If they lower it to 1390, I've passed the CBX every time I've taken it. If the lower it to 1414, I've passed it twice. Sigh.

The ridiculously long wait for results is bad enough. This drama about the cut score borders on Jerry Springer's antics--just stand back and watch 'em brawl. C'mon California. Get it together, and quickly. This cut-score debate is just adding to the stress.


I was under the impression they would be making a decision on the cut score before results are released. Though I guess it's possible they would know the passing statistics but they just wouldn't release them.


One of the reasons CA results take so long is that unlike other jurisdictions, CA doesn't release results until they have compiled the statistics. Other states release the results first and then the stats. CA releases all of it at the same time.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], thecogito and 4 guests