NY may be going to UBE as of July... Forum

[MCG]

The purpose of the bar exam is to test for a minimal standard of knowledge, not character issues. The character and fitness committee examines for character issues.

MCG

[sideroxylon]

The purpose of the bar exam is to test for a minimal standard of knowledge, not character issues. The character and fitness committee examines for character issues.

MCG

Thank you for that deep insight, Mary. We never knew that!

[sideroxylon]

Ms. Gallagher, to be less snarky, would you be interested in starting a thread about preserving city skylines? I have a feeling that it'll get more traction here than a bar-prep expert opposing changes to the bar exam.

[AJS30]

One positive, is that NY takers may get their results back earlier...

[A. Nony Mouse]

The purpose of the bar exam is to test for a minimal standard of knowledge, not character issues. The character and fitness committee examines for character issues.

MCG

Yes, I know. When I said incompetent, I meant at their job, not mentally incompetent. I highly doubt the content of the bar exam makes any difference to who ends up able to be a competent lawyer.

[MCG]

Again, the purpose is to set and maintain a minimal standard of knowledge. That is all.

[LeDique]

Again, the purpose is to set and maintain a minimal standard of knowledge. That is all.

No one is disagreeing with you, except well, you. *You* are the one asserting things like:

I have other reservations about how well spending time preparing to take the UBE will prepare candidates for practicing law in New York, including doubting that the intensity and thoroughness will be the same.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Anyone who can learn the material to pass the UBE can learn what they need to know to practice in NY.

[jarofsoup]

Again, the purpose is to set and maintain a minimal standard of knowledge. That is all.

No one is disagreeing with you, except well, you. *You* are the one asserting things like:

I have other reservations about how well spending time preparing to take the UBE will prepare candidates for practicing law in New York, including doubting that the intensity and thoroughness will be the same.

I am not sure being able to pass the NY bar is a equivalent to being prepared to practice law in NY. I think the only thing that passing the NY bar proves is that you were prepared to take the NY bar.

[Danger Zone]

Anyone who can learn the material to pass the UBE can learn what they need to know to practice in NY.

Yep.

[MCG]

The question is only whether the UBE should be substituted for the New York bar exam. The considerations have in part to do with demonstrations of knowledge. The question is not whether bar candidates should be tested on New York law. Everyone agrees on that.

[sideroxylon]

The question is only whether the UBE should be substituted for the New York bar exam. The considerations have in part to do with demonstrations of knowledge. The question is not whether bar candidates should be tested on New York law. Everyone agrees on that.

lol

you really don't want to have to revise your materials, do you?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Eh, I didn't get tested on any state law. Hasn't slowed me down yet. The bar exam is simply a gatekeeping mechanism that doesn't have anything to do with preparing anyone to practice anywhere.

[LeDique]

The question is only whether the UBE should be substituted for the New York bar exam. The considerations have in part to do with demonstrations of knowledge. The question is not whether bar candidates should be tested on New York law. Everyone agrees on that.

lol

you really don't want to have to revise your materials, do you?

Well duh, her most expensive course is the NY specific one.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The question is only whether the UBE should be substituted for the New York bar exam. The considerations have in part to do with demonstrations of knowledge. The question is not whether bar candidates should be tested on New York law. Everyone agrees on that.

lol

you really don't want to have to revise your materials, do you?

Well duh, her most expensive course is the NY specific one.

lol

[MCG]

My arguments have already been stated, and they have not been objected to. My concern, in any event, is for the students, especially foreign-trained students, who will not learn as much New York law as they should if the exam is changed. To respond to the ad hominem suggestion that my views are merely reflections of personal gain or loss, the UBE is beneficial to me, because it contains two MPT tasks rather than just one. And I offer an MPT class and have published an MPT book. So the UBE is better for me. But that is not how I am looking at the proposed change. I do not believe that the UBE is better for the students. For the reasons stated.

[sparty99]

My arguments have already been stated, and they have not been objected to. My concern, in any event, is for the students, especially foreign-trained students, who will not learn as much New York law as they should if the exam is changed. To respond to the ad hominem suggestion that my views are merely reflections of personal gain or loss, the UBE is beneficial to me, because it contains two MPT tasks rather than just one. And I offer an MPT class and have published an MPT book. So the UBE is better for me. But that is not how I am looking at the proposed change. I do not believe that the UBE is better for the students. For the reasons stated.

It is pretty obvious that you have been out of the game for a while if you actually think that the bar exam is needed to learn state law. You learn state law by practicing in that state and gaining years of experience. Please stop acting like it is necessary and critical for lawyers to know New York state law. It isn't.

[sideroxylon]

My arguments have already been stated, and they have not been objected to. My concern, in any event, is for the students, especially foreign-trained students, who will not learn as much New York law as they should if the exam is changed. To respond to the ad hominem suggestion that my views are merely reflections of personal gain or loss, the UBE is beneficial to me, because it contains two MPT tasks rather than just one. And I offer an MPT class and have published an MPT book. So the UBE is better for me. But that is not how I am looking at the proposed change. I do not believe that the UBE is better for the students. For the reasons stated.

How much New York law does the average New York attorney, particularly a foreign-trained New York attorney, use?

Moreover, an ad hom is only a fallacy if it attacks something unrelated to the matter at hand. Your bias and financial interests are not unrelated.

You respond to our questioning of your motives with a non sequitur—the fact that you might recoup on MPT does not change the fact that you'd need to change your prep materials if the NY bar examination were to change.

Finally, do you think you're a better arbiter of what's good for law students than (A) the bar or (B) law students themselves? How dumb do you think we are, Mary?

[MCG]

My arguments have already been stated, and they have not been objected to. A good argument will stick to the topic, which is the quality of the exam as an examination. An ad hominem argument is always a fallacy. The argument of lack of qualifications is also an ad hominem argument. I have not heard any relevant arguments yet.

[sideroxylon]

My arguments have already been stated, and they have not been objected to. A good argument will stick to the topic, which is the quality of the exam as an examination. An ad hominem argument is always a fallacy. The argument of lack of qualifications is also an ad hominem argument. I have not heard any relevant arguments yet.

Your argument has been objected to directly and indirectly. People have pointed out false assumptions in your argument. Posters have noted not only the benefits of the UBE, but also that your argument seems to misrepresent what the role of the bar is.

An ad hominem is not always a fallacy, and if it is, it's a fallacy that we accept in our justice system, is it not? You can present evidence that goes to the credibility of a witness. If it's so fallacious, why do we allow it there?

For a Harvard graduate you disappoint me, Mary.

Let's talk about your awful arguments about city skylines next.

[LeDique]

If you've not heard any relevant arguments, you haven't been listening.

First:

I would love to know if there's any correlation between the rigor/state-law content of the bar exam and percentage of lawyers who get investigated by the state bar association for incompetence. I'm willing to bet there's almost none.

Here, Nony questions whether your rigor is even necessary to protect clients by questioning whether there is any empirical data to support the point. Does rigor, in fact, prevent malpractice complaints? I'm going to go ahead and guess no—that in the states that abandoned state specific bar exams in favor the UBE, malpractice complaints have not risen.

As she explained in response to your non-sequitur:

The purpose of the bar exam is to test for a minimal standard of knowledge, not character issues. The character and fitness committee examines for character issues.

MCG

Yes, I know. When I said incompetent, I meant at their job, not mentally incompetent. I highly doubt the content of the bar exam makes any difference to who ends up able to be a competent lawyer.

Anyone who can learn the material to pass the UBE can learn what they need to know to practice in NY.

Then, as poster ajarofsoup notes:

I am not sure being able to pass the NY bar is a equivalent to being prepared to practice law in NY. I think the only thing that passing the NY bar proves is that you were prepared to take the NY bar.

You don't really ever respond to the fundamental point that everyone in this thread is making that: the bar exam isn't aimed at testing for competence in practicing law and its a farce to pretend otherwise. It gets weird, because you've been posting basic agreement with that point:

Again, the purpose is to set and maintain a minimal standard of knowledge. That is all.

You're in a weird spot as a result because you need to simultaneously argue "it's just a minimal standard" and "it must be rigorous enough!" and you've yet to really resolve the tension between those two arguments even after it was pointed out to you.

You do make this other weird arg about the bar being necessary to learn state law, but that's clearly not the case: just think of all of the subjects it doesn't cover. As everyone is arguing, that's not what the bar does. And Nony's initial point is more than responsive to this: over 20 states don't test on state law and have no resulting issues.

If there's anyone not being responsive on the substance of this issue, it's you. Like I'd love to hear about why NY's bar & its purpose is so different from the other 49 states that it needs to test state law. That's a responsive (albeit wrong) argument you could make.

[LeDique]

Plus I think this questioning of your motivation is especially relevant in light of the fact your first only posts on top law school dot com slash forums are in this thread.

[jarofsoup]

Plus I think this questioning of your motivation is especially relevant in light of the fact your first only posts on top law school dot com slash forums are in this thread.

There is also already a reciprocity regime with NY even if the UBE is not adopted. Which also undercuts the significance of arguements against it.

[northwood]

looks like no UBE for July 2015

[kingofcream]

lol I wonder if making banal observations and losing arguments really helps these losers hock their shit.