Bar is hard Forum

[FinallyPassedTheBar]

Also keep in mind that the only reason why California has a 40% pass rate is because we let a whole bunch of people take the bar who would not be allowed to in other jurisdictions. Heck, you don’t even have to go to law school. Every sitting there’s like 40 or so applicants who went the apprenticeship route, and inevitably every single one of them fails. We also have a whole bunch of unaccredited scammy online and correspondence schools that accept anyone who has completed 60 units of community college.

When you take all those people away, our pass rate jumps to like 65%, which is still comparatively low, but not as crazy as 40%.

Less than 11 examinees for the summer 2018 CBX went the apprenticeship route.

[rcharter1978]

^^ I read this as 36 people total (6 of them first timers) did the apprenticeship thing. It's late so I might be missing something. But hey, at least one of them passed!

[justanotheruser]

Can confirm bar is hard. It took me the better part of two years to pass. And, of all exams, I passed the February 2018 CA bar. Now I'm officially a month into my new job with the State. Things will do get better.

[jptx]

[*]

Out-of-state attorneys who took the abbreviated 2018 attorney CBX had a 32% pass rate. That right there pretty much negates the "non-ABA" argument.

Out of state attorneys walk in with a misplaced sense of confidence, not realizing that they actually need to study hard because it’s a hard test that examines material that they haven’t used at all in the years out of law school. I would probably flunk the SAT if I took it now without studying for it. Doesn’t mean the test is broken.

And I think you completely missed my point. I never once said CA’s test wasn’t harder than other bar exams (which is what your post is implying). My point was that our bar exam NEEDS to be harder because we have a lot more idiots sitting for our bar than other states do. 33% either didn’t go to law school, or graduated from a non-ABA school that accepts and passes anyone with money. Other states don’t allow those people to sit for the bar. Until that changes, our test needs to stay exactly how it is. California doesn’t need any more utterly incompetent attorneys running around giving the rest of us bad names

The July 2018 32% pass rate on the attorney exam needs to be compared to the out of state attorneys who took the July 2018 two day exam which had a little over 50% pass rate. It is my opinion this disparity is in large part due to the fact that the essay portion of is scaled to what equates to a failing MBE score (or at least in the last few administrations was a failing score). Writing timed essays is a forte of students who are accepted into top tier law schools, and likely comprise the bulk of the 70+ scores on the essays(writing essays is engrained in their DNA). These people pass regardless of scaling. For those who have had their essay skills become rusty or their skills are not as good as those students from top tier law schools, but still know the law, will find essay scores in the 55 to 65 range. This is the barely pass or barely fail range and fits a lot of people including ABA (not top tier). If you take only the one day attorney exam, your score will be scaled down because of MBE scaling. If however, you score you take the MBE as long as you score in the 55 percentile or above, your essay score will not be scaled below passing. A 1440 on the last attorney exam (essay) put you in the 68 percentile of attorneys who took the one day exam. If you scored in the 60 percentile on the attorney exam you failed, but if you scored 60 percentile MBE and 60 percentile essay taking the two day exam you passed. The only logical explanation for the difference in the 1 day vs. 2 day attorney pass rate is MBE scaling assures the 1 day takers a lower pass rate.
The bar is suppose to be a competence test. In July 2018, California told 68% of attorneys licensed for more than 5 years in another state who sat for and completed the exam, that they lacked competence to practice in California. Intuitively to me this is wrong and the test too difficult unless we are saying that other states have a plethora of incompetent attorneys.
The more difficult question is what is competence? In California a lot of emphasis is placed on the test taking/studying/memorization skills of the taker, which gives top tier/ ABA students an edge because they excel in these skills which was the reason they were accepted in top tier schools. I have met some really smart people from top tier law schools, however, that are emotionally, practically, or ethically not suited to practice law. A good lawyer is able to assist people to obtain justice, and to further contribute to the intergrity of a system that fairly and efficiently dispenses justice. Yes intelligence and the ability to do legal reasoning is a large part of that but integrity/dedication probably is even more important, but not realistically testable. The most effective lawyers I see have integrity and dedication. Yes lawyers need intelligence and an understanding of legal reasoning as taught in law school, but they don't need off the charts intelligence and test taking skills. (There is a saying in Texas that C and D students are the best trial lawyers). There is a minimum competence/intelligence/legal reasoning level, but after that it is how you implement your services that counts toward making the system work and effecting justice.

[The Greyest Goose]

[*]

Out-of-state attorneys who took the abbreviated 2018 attorney CBX had a 32% pass rate. That right there pretty much negates the "non-ABA" argument.

Out of state attorneys walk in with a misplaced sense of confidence, not realizing that they actually need to study hard because it’s a hard test that examines material that they haven’t used at all in the years out of law school. I would probably flunk the SAT if I took it now without studying for it. Doesn’t mean the test is broken.

And I think you completely missed my point. I never once said CA’s test wasn’t harder than other bar exams (which is what your post is implying). My point was that our bar exam NEEDS to be harder because we have a lot more idiots sitting for our bar than other states do. 33% either didn’t go to law school, or graduated from a non-ABA school that accepts and passes anyone with money. Other states don’t allow those people to sit for the bar. Until that changes, our test needs to stay exactly how it is. California doesn’t need any more utterly incompetent attorneys running around giving the rest of us bad names

This is ridiculous. Out-of-State attorney have all passed a bar before and fully understand what taking a bar exam entails, so this doesn't make sense on its face. Other states also have 80%+ rates for those who are already attorney's, so California is egregious in this regard. The essays are also curved to an MBE score, so if you are not taking the MBE only portion, you need to be well ahead of the curve in order to pass.

California also does not "need" a harder test to weed out the less capable. The number of less capable people taking the exam should have no bearing on how difficult the exam is - it's a test of minimum competency. The idea that other states can have easier exams because everyone goes to an ABA accredited law school makes no sense, the exam is the test of competency, not the degree. Even if the lack of a degree indicated incompetence, passing the exam indicates competence, so there is no reason to make the exam significantly harder than other jurisdictions. Fundamentally California is saying there is a significant number of lawyers who are or would be qualified to practice in just about every other US jurisdiction, who are not competent enough to practice in California. That's absurd - the only state with enough distinction to even consider such a claim would be Louisiana.

It's protectionism, plain and simple, and the bars that ruthlessly employ such protectionism (like California or florida) should be sued. There is absolutely no need for it, its deeply unfair to otherwise qualified candidates, and its blatantly unconstitutional as employed.

https://lsr.nellco.org/suffolk_fp/38/

[rcharter1978]

[*]

Out-of-state attorneys who took the abbreviated 2018 attorney CBX had a 32% pass rate. That right there pretty much negates the "non-ABA" argument.

Out of state attorneys walk in with a misplaced sense of confidence, not realizing that they actually need to study hard because it’s a hard test that examines material that they haven’t used at all in the years out of law school. I would probably flunk the SAT if I took it now without studying for it. Doesn’t mean the test is broken.

And I think you completely missed my point. I never once said CA’s test wasn’t harder than other bar exams (which is what your post is implying). My point was that our bar exam NEEDS to be harder because we have a lot more idiots sitting for our bar than other states do. 33% either didn’t go to law school, or graduated from a non-ABA school that accepts and passes anyone with money. Other states don’t allow those people to sit for the bar. Until that changes, our test needs to stay exactly how it is. California doesn’t need any more utterly incompetent attorneys running around giving the rest of us bad names

The July 2018 32% pass rate on the attorney exam needs to be compared to the out of state attorneys who took the July 2018 two day exam which had a little over 50% pass rate. It is my opinion this disparity is in large part due to the fact that the essay portion of is scaled to what equates to a failing MBE score (or at least in the last few administrations was a failing score). Writing timed essays is a forte of students who are accepted into top tier law schools, and likely comprise the bulk of the 70+ scores on the essays(writing essays is engrained in their DNA). These people pass regardless of scaling. For those who have had their essay skills become rusty or their skills are not as good as those students from top tier law schools, but still know the law, will find essay scores in the 55 to 65 range. This is the barely pass or barely fail range and fits a lot of people including ABA (not top tier). If you take only the one day attorney exam, your score will be scaled down because of MBE scaling. If however, you score you take the MBE as long as you score in the 55 percentile or above, your essay score will not be scaled below passing. A 1440 on the last attorney exam (essay) put you in the 68 percentile of attorneys who took the one day exam. If you scored in the 60 percentile on the attorney exam you failed, but if you scored 60 percentile MBE and 60 percentile essay taking the two day exam you passed. The only logical explanation for the difference in the 1 day vs. 2 day attorney pass rate is MBE scaling assures the 1 day takers a lower pass rate.
The bar is suppose to be a competence test. In July 2018, California told 68% of attorneys licensed for more than 5 years in another state who sat for and completed the exam, that they lacked competence to practice in California. Intuitively to me this is wrong and the test too difficult unless we are saying that other states have a plethora of incompetent attorneys.
The more difficult question is what is competence? In California a lot of emphasis is placed on the test taking/studying/memorization skills of the taker, which gives top tier/ ABA students an edge because they excel in these skills which was the reason they were accepted in top tier schools. I have met some really smart people from top tier law schools, however, that are emotionally, practically, or ethically not suited to practice law. A good lawyer is able to assist people to obtain justice, and to further contribute to the intergrity of a system that fairly and efficiently dispenses justice. Yes intelligence and the ability to do legal reasoning is a large part of that but integrity/dedication probably is even more important, but not realistically testable. The most effective lawyers I see have integrity and dedication. Yes lawyers need intelligence and an understanding of legal reasoning as taught in law school, but they don't need off the charts intelligence and test taking skills. (There is a saying in Texas that C and D students are the best trial lawyers). There is a minimum competence/intelligence/legal reasoning level, but after that it is how you implement your services that counts toward making the system work and effecting justice.

You need some sort of examination as a gatekeeper. Unfortunately, I don't think any examination can test integrity, emotional stability or dedication. If anything the c&f is a basic screen for integrity and emotional stability. The fact that you go through years of law school and then study your butt off for 2 and a half months is some measure of dedication.

The essay portion of the exam tests your ability for legal analysis and, to some degree so does the MBE. But I think that putting in the work to pass the exam probably tests a lot more than just basic knowledge. And TBF, I don't think you need off the wall intelligence or legal reasoning skills to pass the bar. I think I'm reasonably intelligent but I'm no learned hand or chemirinsky and I managed to pass the bar.

[b290]

[*]

Out-of-state attorneys who took the abbreviated 2018 attorney CBX had a 32% pass rate. That right there pretty much negates the "non-ABA" argument.

Out of state attorneys walk in with a misplaced sense of confidence, not realizing that they actually need to study hard because it’s a hard test that examines material that they haven’t used at all in the years out of law school. I would probably flunk the SAT if I took it now without studying for it. Doesn’t mean the test is broken.

And I think you completely missed my point. I never once said CA’s test wasn’t harder than other bar exams (which is what your post is implying). My point was that our bar exam NEEDS to be harder because we have a lot more idiots sitting for our bar than other states do. 33% either didn’t go to law school, or graduated from a non-ABA school that accepts and passes anyone with money. Other states don’t allow those people to sit for the bar. Until that changes, our test needs to stay exactly how it is. California doesn’t need any more utterly incompetent attorneys running around giving the rest of us bad names

This is ridiculous. Out-of-State attorney have all passed a bar before and fully understand what taking a bar exam entails, so this doesn't make sense on its face. Other states also have 80%+ rates for those who are already attorney's, so California is egregious in this regard. The essays are also curved to an MBE score, so if you are not taking the MBE only portion, you need to be well ahead of the curve in order to pass.

California also does not "need" a harder test to weed out the less capable. The number of less capable people taking the exam should have no bearing on how difficult the exam is - it's a test of minimum competency. The idea that other states can have easier exams because everyone goes to an ABA accredited law school makes no sense, the exam is the test of competency, not the degree. Even if the lack of a degree indicated incompetence, passing the exam indicates competence, so there is no reason to make the exam significantly harder than other jurisdictions. Fundamentally California is saying there is a significant number of lawyers who are or would be qualified to practice in just about every other US jurisdiction, who are not competent enough to practice in California. That's absurd - the only state with enough distinction to even consider such a claim would be Louisiana.

It's protectionism, plain and simple, and the bars that ruthlessly employ such protectionism (like California or florida) should be sued. There is absolutely no need for it, its deeply unfair to otherwise qualified candidates, and its blatantly unconstitutional as employed.

https://lsr.nellco.org/suffolk_fp/38/

Thank you. Agreed, especially what I highlighted in green

I disagree with what I highlighted in blue. State bars have the right to be protectionist to conserve their local markets. Domestic legal services is as fundamental of a state interest as it gets. As long as such policies don't interfere with constitutional rights (they don't) and allow access to legal services (the whole point of regulation), it stands.

Also, Delaware is actually the most protectionist (try being licensed there without making an effort to be familiar with it) that I know, but you don't see you don't see the same problems in CA. Delaware's reason is to prevent the "horde" of corporate NYC/PHL/DC from obliterating its local market. Even Florida, which is as protectionist, doesn't put up the same barriers California does. Just be honest about it, and there wouldn't be any issue. Also, test takers are adults, and they know what they're getting into.

On top of it, if CA were to lower the pass mark from 1440 to 1420 (or even 1400), it STILL would be among the higher pass points in the country . CA could've left everything the same. The supposed "less capable" (i.e. non-ABA) candidates would still not pass and at least we're talking a (less egregious) 50% pass rate.

My $.02