cricketlove00 wrote:First, I think you're giving too much credit to law students studying for the bar.
Second, I'll never understand the MBE's "defend until we die" mantra. They've said the test hasn't changed, but we all know it has. They've added civ pro and they've introduced topics in the MBE that were not heavily tested, or at all, in prior years.
I think it's patently ridiculous that the NCBE won't admit that the test has gotten tougher. Adding an entirely new body of law a few years back obviously increases the difficulty level. When it comes to going from 10 experimental questions to 25, I might have previously been persuaded that this shouldn't change anything in terms of difficulty, but after having taken the exam, I wonder how many of those non-counting questions ended up eating up a ton of my time. In practice, I was always done with 30-45 minutes to spare. On both actual MBE sessions, I was sprinting at the end. I think this is because I ended up reading and re-reading and, yes, even re-re-reading some of those long ass Civ Pro questions that didn't immediately make sense to me. Chances are some of those were just poorly written experimental questions that resulted in zero points for me but amounted to a huge time suck.
With all that said, the NCBE does have a point that there was a real, and consequential dip in the admission standards in law school admissions and, yes, we shouldn't be surprised that passage rates dipped. I just think they're using that, which is one factor, and trying to use it as a complete explanation when it's that coupled with additional factors, like the introduction of Civ Pro and the change in the format.