MBE average score at 33-year low Forum

[JazzOne]

But the online version isn't really any different from the "live" version, right? I had a live class with actual lecturers in front of me but you couldn't really ask questions any more than you could online - you still just emailed the instructors. You got the exact same lecture they taped and put online. I'm not sure how watching the video in a classroom or even watching the lecturer in a classroom delivered any different an experience, education-wise.

We could ask questions after the lecture or during breaks, and some did. But the main thing for me with the live lectures was that (1) I had to get out of bed and going at time certain, (2) I couldn't turn on the TV, surf, or do something else distracting while listening to the lectures, and (3) I didn't have to put all my other study materials out of the way or maintain a separate space for watching lectures. Plus it gave me the opportunity to see other people, which, during bar study, is nice... even if it's just a bunch of other co-neurotic fellow travelers.

e: But you're right. You get the exact same lecture.

In regard to the "canned" comment, at least for barbri, if you do the lecture immediately according to the schedule, it's "canned" in that it was from 6 months ago (actually 5 or 7... it turns out the two administrations are not 6 months apart). If you wait a couple days, the lectures are a recording of the live lecture from the day you were supposed to the lecture (assuming your schedule is the same as the live-lecture town's schedule, which is not always the case).

This is very surprising to me. I had no idea that BARBRI updated its videos regularly. I have watched both BARBRI's and Kaplan's videos for my state. Both sets of videos appeared to have been recorded in a studio because there are no students in the room. Since the law doesn't change from year to year, I figured they would just recycle the same videos until there is a substantial change in law. The artificial nature of the lectures makes them extremely difficult to watch. There is no background noise, and the cadence of the speaker feels unnatural. Plus, it takes nearly twice as long to listen to the lecture as it does to read the corresponding outline, so I don't see what purpose the lectures serve unless a particular student has a singular need for auditory learning, in which case law was probably a poor choice of profession.

A good bar prep instructor should do more than read a scripted lecture in front of a camera.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think the idea behind the lectures is that it requires a little more active learning to listen for the material missing in the outline and filling it in, rather than just reading a complete outline. I think I probably retain better something I take notes on (the lecture) than just read (the outline). But I am terrible at taking notes on written material.

I'm sure some subjects change more than others and so some videos get updated more drastically than others, but I thought they were updated yearly, too. There are usually comments about the testing patterns/frequency that seem up to date. I think also sometimes lecturers change from year to year (not many but it can happen).

I don't think the lectures are that bad though - they're not peculiarly hard to listen to or anything. No background noise in a lecture isn't a problem for paying attention, and the only thing I found weird about the cadence is that I'm so used to there being an opportunity to ask questions. In any case, they're not really instructors - they're lecturers (and they at least seem to come up with the outlines - otherwise why would you care that Chemerinksy is doing your con law outline?).

[JazzOne]

I think the idea behind the lectures is that it requires a little more active learning to listen for the material missing in the outline and filling it in, rather than just reading a complete outline. I think I probably retain better something I take notes on (the lecture) than just read (the outline). But I am terrible at taking notes on written material.

I'm sure some subjects change more than others and so some videos get updated more drastically than others, but I thought they were updated yearly, too. There are usually comments about the testing patterns/frequency that seem up to date. I think also sometimes lecturers change from year to year (not many but it can happen).

I don't think the lectures are that bad though - they're not peculiarly hard to listen to or anything. No background noise in a lecture isn't a problem for paying attention, and the only thing I found weird about the cadence is that I'm so used to there being an opportunity to ask questions. In any case, they're not really instructors - they're lecturers (and they at least seem to come up with the outlines - otherwise why would you care that Chemerinksy is doing your con law outline?).

I work in the bar prep industry, so I am completely biased. Nonetheless, the research on the psychology of learning suggests that lectures are a very poor medium for memory retention. Recorded lectures are even worse because they totally preclude the possibility of interacting with the lecturer. The lack of background noise wasn't really the problem I was trying to articulate; rather, I find it odd to listen to a lecturer who never stops talking. I don't see how a lecturer can be truly effective when he is so disengaged from his audience. A skilled live speaker is able to sense the audience's reception of the material and adjust the pace accordingly. Rather than watching a video of someone droning on and on, I would prefer to view a high-quality presentation that correlates with the material. Legal texts (especially bar prep materials) are woefully lacking in visual aids and diagrams.

As to your last question, why would anyone care that Chemerinsky wrote the outline? For purposes of bar prep, the correct answer is that no one should care. The con law section of the MBE does not test the finer points of law. An interactive teaching model would be superior to any static outline prepared by Chemerinsky or anyone else for that matter.

I think it's unconscionable that law schools fail to prepare students for the bar exam, and I also find it objectionable that bar prep companies charge a fortune for a product that does not comport with current research on best teaching practices.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Oh, I agree generally with your comments about good teaching and lecturing and so on. But then I don't think almost anything about legal education comports with best teaching practices. I didn't mean to say that bar classes are great - it was just that I don't think anything has changed significantly enough in the last couple of years to result in lower test scores. The live lectures were just as much "never stop talking" as the recorded ones. And I also don't think reading an outline is a good way to learn material - making outlines is one thing, but reading ones that someone else has prepared has always been useless to me.

I suspect that for reaching the number of students they reach in the time that's allowed, the prep companies aren't terrible. It's not really about teaching/learning, though, just mass delivery of a product.

(Re: Chemerinksky - it's not that you need his take on the finer points of con law, but I think the people doing the lectures are the ones who came up with the lectures, at the least. So they're not literally only reading a script, is what I meant.)

[zot1]

I liked the online lectures... being in a room full of people panicking wouldn't have been helpful. Also, being able to watch lectures at a faster speed made my days a lot shorter.

I felt prepared going into the MBE, nevertheless I walked out feeling completely loss. Even though Themis uses old exam questions, I didn't necessarily feel that the majority of the questions were similar.

[sd5289]

I felt prepared going into the MBE, nevertheless I walked out feeling completely loss. Even though Themis uses old exam questions, I didn't necessarily feel that the majority of the questions were similar.

I did too, but didn't feel nearly as panicky as the reactions I saw on TLS afterward (and that of course made me wonder if I'd missed something), but I ended up doing more than fine on the MBE. Everyone I know thought their prep company MBE questions weren't very similar to the actual MBE questions. Seems to be a trend each year though, and most of us end up doing just fine on it.

[BVest]

I felt prepared going into the MBE, nevertheless I walked out feeling completely loss. Even though Themis uses old exam questions, I didn't necessarily feel that the majority of the questions were similar.

I did too, but didn't feel nearly as panicky as the reactions I saw on TLS afterward (and that of course made me wonder if I'd missed something), but I ended up doing more than fine on the MBE. Everyone I know thought their prep company MBE questions weren't very similar to the actual MBE questions. Seems to be a trend each year though, and most of us end up doing just fine on it.

I think it's a bit of an arms race where the prep co's come up with (or buy) questions more like the current MBE and the MBE shifts to stay ahead of the bar prep companies.

[fedtaxed]

I was shocked when I saw the MBE scores were so low. I did Barbri, and after doing those questions, the actual MBE was so easy. Granted, I haven't gotten results yet -- so maybe it was much harder than I thought and I just totally missed the boat. But I don't think that's true. This is my second state, and when I took the exam a few years ago, I did well on the MBE.

I guess my point is that I was most surprised to hear that people who'd taken a bar prep course didn't feel prepared for the MBE. I've heard Kaplan and Themis use questions similar to Barbri's. My thought is that if you can't learn from the test prep questions, then you're probably fighting the test.

[JazzOne]

Oh, I agree generally with your comments about good teaching and lecturing and so on. But then I don't think almost anything about legal education comports with best teaching practices.

I agree that the problems of legal education are not limited to bar prep. I believe that the university system is a dinosaur, and I have been railing against the lecture model of teaching for years. Here is a recent NPR article that echoes my criticisms of academic lectures: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/ ... t=20160414

I suspect that for reaching the number of students they reach in the time that's allowed, the prep companies aren't terrible. It's not really about teaching/learning, though, just mass delivery of a product.

I don't think their results are terrible, but their pricing is obscene. Plus, the article I linked above addresses this issue to a certain extent. The high passage rate of bar prep students tells us very little about how much the bar prep programs are contributing to their students' progress. My students have achieved 100% pass rate on the bar exam, and my experience with them leads me to believe that the major prep companies' teaching model is so flawed that it actually harms certain test takers who are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information contained in the books and lectures.

(Re: Chemerinksky - it's not that you need his take on the finer points of con law, but I think the people doing the lectures are the ones who came up with the lectures, at the least. So they're not literally only reading a script, is what I meant.)

OK, fair point. My criticisms of the bar prep companies are entirely self-serving. I want people to consider a better model of bar prep, which I developed through extensive research on learning psychology and testing psychology.

[JazzOne]

I liked the online lectures... being in a room full of people panicking wouldn't have been helpful. Also, being able to watch lectures at a faster speed made my days a lot shorter.

I felt prepared going into the MBE, nevertheless I walked out feeling completely loss. Even though Themis uses old exam questions, I didn't necessarily feel that the majority of the questions were similar.

Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree by focusing my criticism on the web-based format. My real gripe is with lectures in general. Basically, I think the problem with the bar prep model is that it bifurcates (to a certain extent) the processes of memorizing the law and practicing bar exam questions. I am developing an MBE module that combines the two processes. The research on learning psychology suggests that outlines and lectures result in poor recollection of the material. Solving problems is a far more efficient method of developing long-term memories. My module eschews lengthy outlines and lectures in favor of short lessons followed by targeted questions and problems to reinforce the concepts.

[minkylowlife]

I personally find lectures the only way I learn and retain information on the big concepts, but only audio lectures. I have to listen to them while I'm driving or otherwise doing something that keeps me distracted, but not TOO distracted.

[Tinafyi]

The existence of schools like Cooley and other TTTTTTTTs can be accredited to the 33 year low. IMO

Except they've been around for that whole time, so there's no real reason they should depress the scores now.

And I'm not certain how much of this is to blame on LSAT scores. If you look at the entry statistics for T-14 schools around 16-20 years ago the LSAT medians are not all that different.

Let me backtrack. What I meant was, schools like Cooley taking applicants scoring a 140 on the LSAT is the reason those same applicants can't pass the bar. They were never cut out for law school in the first place! The T-14 is definitely not to blame for this

Except I got a 143 on the LSAT. Graduated from Cooley in September 2015. And passed the Feb 2016 bar exam on my first try. The school is just fine and it's great that it gives you a chance. It's really up to the student and how much work they put into it. #notastereotype

[SunDevilSparky]

The existence of schools like Cooley and other TTTTTTTTs can be accredited to the 33 year low. IMO

Except they've been around for that whole time, so there's no real reason they should depress the scores now.

And I'm not certain how much of this is to blame on LSAT scores. If you look at the entry statistics for T-14 schools around 16-20 years ago the LSAT medians are not all that different.

Let me backtrack. What I meant was, schools like Cooley taking applicants scoring a 140 on the LSAT is the reason those same applicants can't pass the bar. They were never cut out for law school in the first place! The T-14 is definitely not to blame for this

Except I got a 143 on the LSAT. Graduated from Cooley in September 2015. And passed the Feb 2016 bar exam on my first try. The school is just fine and it's great that it gives you a chance. It's really up to the student and how much work they put into it. #notastereotype

I feel you. I was 10 years out of undergrad and scored a 143 and 148 on the LSAT. I started at Arizona Summit (formerly Phoenix School of Law) and transferred to Arizona State. I know that many will make the bigger picture argument when it comes to the overall quality of the students. However, I will be forever grateful that Summit gave me an opportunity. While my score said I wasn't cut out for law school, I still managed to earn dean's list, CALIs, and honors. One can overcome a low LSAT with hard work and determination. I'm still waiting on my bar results. I'm sure there are plenty of quality students at Cooley. Congrats on passing!

[Tinafyi]

The existence of schools like Cooley and other TTTTTTTTs can be accredited to the 33 year low. IMO

Except they've been around for that whole time, so there's no real reason they should depress the scores now.

And I'm not certain how much of this is to blame on LSAT scores. If you look at the entry statistics for T-14 schools around 16-20 years ago the LSAT medians are not all that different.

Let me backtrack. What I meant was, schools like Cooley taking applicants scoring a 140 on the LSAT is the reason those same applicants can't pass the bar. They were never cut out for law school in the first place! The T-14 is definitely not to blame for this

Except I got a 143 on the LSAT. Graduated from Cooley in September 2015. And passed the Feb 2016 bar exam on my first try. The school is just fine and it's great that it gives you a chance. It's really up to the student and how much work they put into it. #notastereotype

I feel you. I was 10 years out of undergrad and scored a 143 and 148 on the LSAT. I started at Arizona Summit (formerly Phoenix School of Law) and transferred to Arizona State. I know that many will make the bigger picture argument when it comes to the overall quality of the students. However, I will be forever grateful that Summit gave me an opportunity. While my score said I wasn't cut out for law school, I still managed to earn dean's list, CALIs, and honors. One can overcome a low LSAT with hard work and determination. I'm still waiting on my bar results. I'm sure there are plenty of quality students at Cooley. Congrats on passing!

Thank you I was in Phoenix's program to get in...I believe it was called AAMPLE? But didn't get in. I was on the dean's list and received honors at Cooley as well. And yes I completely agree, I will never forget the one school that gave me, the "unqualified student," a chance to change my life. Great hearing about your journey. Good luck with the results and stay positive!!

[reasonable_man]

The downward trend continues:

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/04/new-york ... -a-decade/

[L_William_W]

1) I attended law school in NYC (CUNY Law School). My grades were mediocre (mostly B's, two A's, three A-'s, three D's, 4 C's) and I had a low LSAT 151). I flunked the February 2014 and July 2014 NY Bar exam. I then took the February 2015 Bar exam in NJ and failed. I passed the July 2015 NJ Bar exam. My MBE increased from 123.2 to 130.2 since I changed my approach to the MBE (when I got a question wrong, I made a flashcard of the relevant rule). I also used a book that reflected the material that was on the MBE. 130.2 is still a low MBE, but in NJ, a strong performance on the essays can offset a weak MBE score.

What makes the NY Bar exam so difficult is that it's unpredictable. In NJ, there are seven subjects and they appear every year. I basically regurgitated the answers from some past exams. That wouldn't work in NY. The NY Bar exam also entails logic. In NJ, they only care about the correct answer. In NY, they care about the answer and explanation.

2) I'm so tired of these condescending remarks about the law school that people attended. Just because someone didn't attend Harvard or Columbia doesn't mean that they're a worthless simpleton. Why is it so wrong for a person who puts in the time to make a living? Not everyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

[reasonable_man]

1) I attended law school in NYC (CUNY Law School). My grades were mediocre (mostly B's, two A's, three A-'s, three D's, 4 C's) and I had a low LSAT 151). I flunked the February 2014 and July 2014 NY Bar exam. I then took the February 2015 Bar exam in NJ and failed. I passed the July 2015 NJ Bar exam. My MBE increased from 123.2 to 130.2 since I changed my approach to the MBE (when I got a question wrong, I made a flashcard of the relevant rule). I also used a book that reflected the material that was on the MBE. 130.2 is still a low MBE, but in NJ, a strong performance on the essays can offset a weak MBE score.

What makes the NY Bar exam so difficult is that it's unpredictable. In NJ, there are seven subjects and they appear every year. I basically regurgitated the answers from some past exams. That wouldn't work in NY. The NY Bar exam also entails logic. In NJ, they only care about the correct answer. In NY, they care about the answer and explanation.

2) I'm so tired of these condescending remarks about the law school that people attended. Just because someone didn't attend Harvard or Columbia doesn't mean that they're a worthless simpleton. Why is it so wrong for a person who puts in the time to make a living? Not everyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

I attended a worse law school than you did. And I'm sure that if we got into the specifics, you'd quickly agree that I had no silver spoon in my mouth at birth or any other time in my life.

My original proposition is that there should be a cutoff - a minimum of a 150 on the LSAT, for acceptance to law school, because the lower the LSAT score, the worse the chance at passing the bar exam. If the bar exams would remain at their current level of difficulty, what I'm suggesting would not be necessary, because people unfit to practice would be kept out by the bar exam. But by way of an example that you just used, Chief Judge Lippmann, on his way out the door, did his friends at the lower end of New York law schools a huge solid by approving the move to do away with the real NY bar in favor of, basically, the NJ bar exam. Having taken and passed both tests with many years between taking them, I can tell you that the NJ bar is way easier than the NY bar exam.

So now NY is just the latest state to approve an easier bar exam in response to a massive decline in bar pass rates (corresponding with some of the lowest LSAT scorers to ever sit for the exam taking the test). This is not a good thing for the profession or for the general public.

[Tanicius]

I'd agree that there needs to be a cutoff before law school, not after. That's practically my entire problem with the way the bar exam operates -- a bunch of arbitrarily difficult questions that don't track your ability to practice, but rather your ability to figure out the funky, artificial reasoning of a test writer and do so time pressures so ridiculous that you barely have time to go to the bathroom. All of this is done to people after they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a legal education, and the schools that provide that outrageously expensive education are often operated by the people who decide what the bar exam looks like.

[L_William_W]

There were people in my school with LSAT's in the upper 140's who passed the NY Bar. The LSAT and bar are two DIFFERENT exams. The LSAT entails pure logic. The bar tests both logic and the ability to write essays.

And again, I'm tired of this ivory tower BS, "This person isn't smart enough to attend law school. I'm so better than them." If a person was accepted to law school and passed their classes then they should be allowed to take the bar.

[rcharter1978]

1) I attended law school in NYC (CUNY Law School). My grades were mediocre (mostly B's, two A's, three A-'s, three D's, 4 C's) and I had a low LSAT 151). I flunked the February 2014 and July 2014 NY Bar exam. I then took the February 2015 Bar exam in NJ and failed. I passed the July 2015 NJ Bar exam. My MBE increased from 123.2 to 130.2 since I changed my approach to the MBE (when I got a question wrong, I made a flashcard of the relevant rule). I also used a book that reflected the material that was on the MBE. 130.2 is still a low MBE, but in NJ, a strong performance on the essays can offset a weak MBE score.

What makes the NY Bar exam so difficult is that it's unpredictable. In NJ, there are seven subjects and they appear every year. I basically regurgitated the answers from some past exams. That wouldn't work in NY. The NY Bar exam also entails logic. In NJ, they only care about the correct answer. In NY, they care about the answer and explanation.

2) I'm so tired of these condescending remarks about the law school that people attended. Just because someone didn't attend Harvard or Columbia doesn't mean that they're a worthless simpleton. Why is it so wrong for a person who puts in the time to make a living? Not everyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

I think the deal with law school is at some point you need to prove that you can put in effort and get good results.

Either you put in the effort at the LSAT, you put in the effort in law school, or you put in the effort at the bar. Or you put in effort in all three areas.

I think the LSAT can be gamed, the same way most standardized tests can be gamed....and I wish I had known that going into the LSAT.

Law school....to some degree was also about learning a system, putting in some effort and getting a good result.

And I know a lot of people who didn't do very well in law school, but were able to pass the bar the first time around....so I guess they were able to put in the effort and sort of game the bar exam.

In saying that, I think a person who can't put the effort into the LSAT and get a decent mark, may end up being the guy that isn't going to put the effort into law school, or the effort into the bar exam. But you can be pretty sure that the guy who put the effort into the LSAT (OR at least learned how to game a standardized test) is going to be be able to learn how to pass the bar.

There is nothing wrong with not going to a top law school....I guess because this site is called top law schools that people have their biases.

[rcharter1978]

I'd agree that there needs to be a cutoff before law school, not after. That's practically my entire problem with the way the bar exam operates -- a bunch of arbitrarily difficult questions that don't track your ability to practice, but rather your ability to figure out the funky, artificial reasoning of a test writer and do so time pressures so ridiculous that you barely have time to go to the bathroom. All of this is done to people after they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a legal education, and the schools that provide that outrageously expensive education are often operated by the people who decide what the bar exam looks like.

I think at some point, the federal government will get involved...especially if they have underwritten the debt. One of the most interesting proposals I've heard of is having the schools share the risk, or somehow co-sign loans. I think that would resolve a lot of different issues, because the school would have to take a stake in the students future success. Perhaps there are applicants in the 140's that you sincerely want to take a risk on because they can explain those scores, or because they have amazing undergraduate grades, or because you just get that special feeling from them. Maybe it makes the school push poor performing students out a little quicker, or tailor different solutions.

If schools have to share the risk I think things would be done a lot differently, some schools would probably close, but at this point, that may not be the worst thing in the world.

[JazzOne]

There were people in my school with LSAT's in the upper 140's who passed the NY Bar. The LSAT and bar are two DIFFERENT exams. The LSAT entails pure logic. The bar tests both logic and the ability to write essays.

And again, I'm tired of this ivory tower BS, "This person isn't smart enough to attend law school. I'm so better than them." If a person was accepted to law school and passed their classes then they should be allowed to take the bar.

The published research shows that there is a statistically significant correlation between LSAT score and bar passage.

[rcharter1978]

There were people in my school with LSAT's in the upper 140's who passed the NY Bar. The LSAT and bar are two DIFFERENT exams. The LSAT entails pure logic. The bar tests both logic and the ability to write essays.

And again, I'm tired of this ivory tower BS, "This person isn't smart enough to attend law school. I'm so better than them." If a person was accepted to law school and passed their classes then they should be allowed to take the bar.

The published research shows that there is a statistically significant correlation between LSAT score and bar passage.

A correlation without an explanation seems a little useless to me.

Why is there a correlation between the LSAT and the bar passage rate? Is it because people who have learned to take a standardized test like the LSAT are those more likely to be able to apply that to taking the bar exam? Do most people who do well on the LSAT take a prep course that prepares them to better handle a course like Barbri? Are these simply students that are more "plugged in?" Or is it really just a matter that students who do better on the LSAT are "smarter?"

I think it matters, because if it is simply a case of accepting people who aren't very bright into law school, and this is the reason for lower LSAT scores/bar passage rates....there is really nothing you can do about that. You can't give people intelligence. But if its a matter of learning how to take a standardized test, how to "game" the test, getting prepared for the Bar, the way that students with higher LSAT scores prepped for the LSAT than schools may be able to do something about that.

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

I scored a 160 on the LSAT (80th %ile at the time I took it), and failed the bar the first time. Passed in February, however, with a 148 MBE, so I'm glad I'm not contributing to poor MBE averages again.

[JazzOne]

A correlation without an explanation seems a little useless to me.

It's not useless. It tells us that there is a persistent overlap between the skills tested on the LSAT and those tested on the bar exam. What's useless is anecdotal evidence about people at your law school. My post was a reply to your comment that the "LSAT and bar are two DIFFERENT exams." Obviously, the contents of the exams differ, but it should be equally obvious that certain weaknesses (e.g., slow reading speed or poor logic skills) will be problematic on both exams.

I was also replying to your suggestion that, "If a person was accepted to law school and passed their classes then they should be allowed to take the bar." No one argued otherwise, so your point is a bit of a straw man. The actual argument in this thread is that law schools should not accept students with below-average LSAT scores. Whether we agree or disagree, the argument is not completely unreasonable since the existing research bears out a relationship between LSAT score and bar passage.

I think it matters, because if it is simply a case of accepting people who aren't very bright into law school, and this is the reason for lower LSAT scores/bar passage rates....there is really nothing you can do that. You can't give people intelligence. But if its a matter of learning how to take a standardized test, how to "game" the test, getting prepared for the Bar, the way that students with higher LSAT scores prepped for the LSAT than schools may be able to do something about that.

It is definitely possible to teach low LSAT scorers how to improve their testing skills. I have helped many low LSAT scorers pass the bar exam in my state. However, most of my students took the bar exam several times before working with me and wasted many thousands of dollars on top of their law school expenses. Very few law schools are teaching bar review or testing strategies, so that raises the question of whether those schools are doing a disservice to their students and to the profession by admitting applicants who have little chance of passing the bar exam. None of those points is elitist. There is no "ivory tower BS" here. It's an academic debate based on research.