NY may be going to UBE as of July... Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:40 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
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
MCG
- sideroxylon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:13 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
Thank you for that deep insight, Mary. We never knew that!MCG wrote: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
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:13 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
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.
-
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:57 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
One positive, is that NY takers may get their results back earlier...
- A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
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 wrote: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
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:40 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
Again, the purpose is to set and maintain a minimal standard of knowledge. That is all.
- LeDique
- Posts: 13462
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
No one is disagreeing with you, except well, you. *You* are the one asserting things like:MCG wrote:Again, the purpose is to set and maintain a minimal standard of knowledge. That is all.
MCG wrote: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
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
Anyone who can learn the material to pass the UBE can learn what they need to know to practice in NY.
-
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:41 am
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
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.LeDique wrote:No one is disagreeing with you, except well, you. *You* are the one asserting things like:MCG wrote:Again, the purpose is to set and maintain a minimal standard of knowledge. That is all.
MCG wrote: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.
-
- Posts: 8258
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
Yep.A. Nony Mouse wrote:Anyone who can learn the material to pass the UBE can learn what they need to know to practice in NY.
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:40 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
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
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:13 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
lolMCG wrote: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.
you really don't want to have to revise your materials, do you?
- A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
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.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- LeDique
- Posts: 13462
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
Well duh, her most expensive course is the NY specific one.sideroxylon wrote:lolMCG wrote: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.
you really don't want to have to revise your materials, do you?
- A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
lolLeDique wrote:Well duh, her most expensive course is the NY specific one.sideroxylon wrote:lolMCG wrote: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.
you really don't want to have to revise your materials, do you?
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:40 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
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.
-
- Posts: 1902
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
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.MCG wrote: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.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- sideroxylon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:13 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
How much New York law does the average New York attorney, particularly a foreign-trained New York attorney, use?MCG wrote: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.
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?
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:40 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
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
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:13 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
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.MCG wrote: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.
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
- Posts: 13462
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
If you've not heard any relevant arguments, you haven't been listening.
First:
As she explained in response to your non-sequitur:
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.
First:
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.A. Nony Mouse wrote: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.
As she explained in response to your non-sequitur:
A. Nony Mouse wrote: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 wrote: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
Then, as poster ajarofsoup notes:A. Nony Mouse wrote:Anyone who can learn the material to pass the UBE can learn what they need to know to practice in NY.
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:ajarofsoup wrote: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'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.MCG wrote:Again, the purpose is to set and maintain a minimal standard of knowledge. That is all.
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.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- LeDique
- Posts: 13462
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
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.
-
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:41 am
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
LeDique wrote: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
- Posts: 5036
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
looks like no UBE for July 2015
- kingofcream
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:52 am
Re: NY may be going to UBE as of July...
lol I wonder if making banal observations and losing arguments really helps these losers hock their shit.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login