Top Law Schools

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

kwabedi wrote: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.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

kwabedi wrote: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.

correlation / causation arguments aside --I would bet plummeting LSAT scores from the T14 down Are a contributing factor

I felt fine walking out of the MBE this time, and felt awful in July. This stat certainly doesn't help me continue feeling fine.

anyone that would take out 200k for a chance to be in the 20-year-running object #1/#2 worst profession, is dumb. dumb people fail the bar.

I felt fine this time, much better than July, now I am worried

I felt like absolute shit coming out of it. If I fail, it will be because of the MBE.

We still have a month wait in Texas.

Oh no. I'm a repeater, received 139 on MBE in July. I felt Feb was equally difficult. Now I'm really nervous, was hoping the curve would work in my favor vs. July.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

kwabedi wrote: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.

UVAIce wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

kwabedi wrote: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

No one said it was? But I think one of the issues people have raised is whether the bar people have changed the exam sufficiently that people are not getting properly prepared and therefore failing. If you take a prep course and actually study the vast majority of people can pass the bar, but if the prep courses don't have the right info to prep people properly, that's a possible cause. And if the lower pass rate is a result of lower entrance scores over all, the lower ranked schools aren't the root cause of that.

While the decline in scores from '14 to '15 might be attributable to a change in the test format, the decline from February '15 to February '16 would not be. Moreover, if the right material is not currently being taught by bar preparation courses, that would explain a decrease in scores from prior periods, but would not account for the continual year over year decline seen in recent years. The material being tested in the MBE has not changed every single year.

It appears that the average MBE score is determined each year using a process called "equating." There is subset of questions in each MBE test that has been tested in prior exams. When the NCBE states that people taking the test have been doing worse than in prior years, I suspect that they are basing this statement on the fact that people taking the same set of common questions, which have been tested for multiple years, have been doing worse than test takers of these common questions in prior years. Civil procedure questions were certainly not included in the set of common questions for the '15 test takers, because they were never included in prior years. Thus, the fact that people perhaps did relatively poorly on civil procedure questions compared to other topics for which the review companies "adequately" prepared test takers could not account for the fall in equated test scores in '15.

Using equalization, if the February '16 test takers did exactly as well on the set of common questions as the February 2000 test takers (for example), but the raw scores of the February '16 test takers were lower than the raw scores of the February 2000 test takers (perhaps because of the addition of civil procedure or because the questions have become lengthier and more complicated), the adjustment fact from raw to scaled scores should have been higher on the February '16 test, to make the mean score in '16 equal to the mean score in 2000. That apparently is not what happened.

In '15, it may not be surprising that scores went down as compared to '14. The addition of civil procedure forced people to spend less time studying the six subject matters that had been tested in prior years that made up the common questions used for equating scores. In fact, it may be surprising that scores did not go down more in '15 (based on some articles, perhaps this was because scores were abnormally suppressed in '14 due to examsoft problems).

But the test format did not change from Feb '15 to Feb '16, and test takers had to prepare for seven subjects in both tests. Thus, the decline in equated scores had to be due to some other factor than a change in test format. And that is why the NCBE appears to be so confident that the only factor that would account for the decline in equated scores is the changed make up of entering law school classes. And why they believe that the continuing decline in average LSAT scores will likely result in a continuing downward trend in MBE scores.

DueProcessDoWheelies wrote:I felt fine walking out of the MBE this time, and felt awful in July. This stat certainly doesn't help me continue feeling fine.

I may be looking for a reason to be optimistic, but I think this is actually a good thing for people in our situation. Like you, I felt absolutely terrible about the July MBE. My feelings were confirmed when I scored in the 24th percentile and failed. However, I had a much, much different feeling before, during, and after the February MBE. In fact, based on my general peruse of this forum and conversations with other re-takers (first timers), it seems that most re-takers had a better overall feeling of the Feb. MBE compared to the July MBE. I would say almost all of them had almost the exact reactions for both exams as you and I had (terrible in July and better in February). In my opinion, there was a reason we felt terrible about the July MBE. Simply put, our performance sucked.

I am not saying every re-taker passed. However, at least generally speaking, your initial gut reaction is probably indicative of your overall performance, especially if you are a re-taker and have a basis for comparison.

sluj11 wrote:

DueProcessDoWheelies wrote:I felt fine walking out of the MBE this time, and felt awful in July. This stat certainly doesn't help me continue feeling fine.

I may be looking for a reason to be optimistic, but I think this is actually a good thing for people in our situation. Like you, I felt absolutely terrible about the July MBE. My feelings were confirmed when I scored in the 24th percentile and failed. However, I had a much, much different feeling before, during, and after the February MBE. In fact, based on my general peruse of this forum and conversations with other re-takers (first timers), it seems that most re-takers had a better overall feeling of the Feb. MBE compared to the July MBE. I would say almost all of them had almost the exact reactions for both exams as you and I had (terrible in July and better in February). In my opinion, there was a reason we felt terrible about the July MBE. Simply put, our performance sucked.

I am not saying every re-taker passed. However, at least generally speaking, your initial gut reaction is probably indicative of your overall performance, especially if you are a re-taker and have a basis for comparison.

I also felt like crap (and failed) in July and felt much better this time.

Really hoping that next Monday will be good to me!

THE_U wrote:

sluj11 wrote:

DueProcessDoWheelies wrote:I felt fine walking out of the MBE this time, and felt awful in July. This stat certainly doesn't help me continue feeling fine.

I may be looking for a reason to be optimistic, but I think this is actually a good thing for people in our situation. Like you, I felt absolutely terrible about the July MBE. My feelings were confirmed when I scored in the 24th percentile and failed. However, I had a much, much different feeling before, during, and after the February MBE. In fact, based on my general peruse of this forum and conversations with other re-takers (first timers), it seems that most re-takers had a better overall feeling of the Feb. MBE compared to the July MBE. I would say almost all of them had almost the exact reactions for both exams as you and I had (terrible in July and better in February). In my opinion, there was a reason we felt terrible about the July MBE. Simply put, our performance sucked.

I am not saying every re-taker passed. However, at least generally speaking, your initial gut reaction is probably indicative of your overall performance, especially if you are a re-taker and have a basis for comparison.

I also felt like crap (and failed) in July and felt much better this time.

Really hoping that next Monday will be good to me!

I definitely agree! Plus repeaters generally score similar or improve on MBE scores, not decrease. Fingers crossed.

sluj11 wrote:

DueProcessDoWheelies wrote:I felt fine walking out of the MBE this time, and felt awful in July. This stat certainly doesn't help me continue feeling fine.

I may be looking for a reason to be optimistic, but I think this is actually a good thing for people in our situation. Like you, I felt absolutely terrible about the July MBE. My feelings were confirmed when I scored in the 24th percentile and failed. However, I had a much, much different feeling before, during, and after the February MBE. In fact, based on my general peruse of this forum and conversations with other re-takers (first timers), it seems that most re-takers had a better overall feeling of the Feb. MBE compared to the July MBE. I would say almost all of them had almost the exact reactions for both exams as you and I had (terrible in July and better in February). In my opinion, there was a reason we felt terrible about the July MBE. Simply put, our performance sucked.

I am not saying every re-taker passed. However, at least generally speaking, your initial gut reaction is probably indicative of your overall performance, especially if you are a re-taker and have a basis for comparison.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but given the equalization that goes on between different administrations of the exams, this is probably not entirely meaningful. Also, everybody I know felt absolutely terrible about July 2015, even those who eventually pulled down high scaled scores. It was apparently an especially hard MBE.

You did likely increase your scores for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure your comfort level is necessarily indicative of the increase.

BVest wrote:

sluj11 wrote:

DueProcessDoWheelies wrote:I felt fine walking out of the MBE this time, and felt awful in July. This stat certainly doesn't help me continue feeling fine.

I may be looking for a reason to be optimistic, but I think this is actually a good thing for people in our situation. Like you, I felt absolutely terrible about the July MBE. My feelings were confirmed when I scored in the 24th percentile and failed. However, I had a much, much different feeling before, during, and after the February MBE. In fact, based on my general peruse of this forum and conversations with other re-takers (first timers), it seems that most re-takers had a better overall feeling of the Feb. MBE compared to the July MBE. I would say almost all of them had almost the exact reactions for both exams as you and I had (terrible in July and better in February). In my opinion, there was a reason we felt terrible about the July MBE. Simply put, our performance sucked.

I am not saying every re-taker passed. However, at least generally speaking, your initial gut reaction is probably indicative of your overall performance, especially if you are a re-taker and have a basis for comparison.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but given the equalization that goes on between different administrations of the exams, this is probably not entirely meaningful. Also, everybody I know felt absolutely terrible about July 2015, even those who eventually pulled down high scaled scores. It was apparently an especially hard MBE.

You did likely increase your scores for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure your comfort level is necessarily indicative of the increase.

That's fair. I guess I need to clarify my position. Of course, the comfort level of the re-taker alone is not necessarily indicative of the increase. Instead, being better prepared and knowing the law substantially better are the most likely causes of the comfort level after the test, which is likely the case for most re-takers (first timers) with a basis for comparison. If you felt like you knew the law significantly better the second time and felt better after the exam, you probably did alright. This is because the individual has something to compare his or her performance to.

Personally, I did not know any re-takers that took the July MBE. I agree that most (probably 99%) felt terrible after it. However, of the 99% I spoke with after the exam, all took the exam for the first time and none had a basis for comparison.

But yes, the July MBE was very difficult. I wonder, however, if the cause was because I was not as prepared. I'm hoping it is the case.

sluj11 wrote:

BVest wrote:

sluj11 wrote:

DueProcessDoWheelies wrote:I felt fine walking out of the MBE this time, and felt awful in July. This stat certainly doesn't help me continue feeling fine.

I may be looking for a reason to be optimistic, but I think this is actually a good thing for people in our situation. Like you, I felt absolutely terrible about the July MBE. My feelings were confirmed when I scored in the 24th percentile and failed. However, I had a much, much different feeling before, during, and after the February MBE. In fact, based on my general peruse of this forum and conversations with other re-takers (first timers), it seems that most re-takers had a better overall feeling of the Feb. MBE compared to the July MBE. I would say almost all of them had almost the exact reactions for both exams as you and I had (terrible in July and better in February). In my opinion, there was a reason we felt terrible about the July MBE. Simply put, our performance sucked.

I am not saying every re-taker passed. However, at least generally speaking, your initial gut reaction is probably indicative of your overall performance, especially if you are a re-taker and have a basis for comparison.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but given the equalization that goes on between different administrations of the exams, this is probably not entirely meaningful. Also, everybody I know felt absolutely terrible about July 2015, even those who eventually pulled down high scaled scores. It was apparently an especially hard MBE.

You did likely increase your scores for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure your comfort level is necessarily indicative of the increase.

That's fair. I guess I need to clarify my position. Of course, the comfort level of the re-taker alone is not necessarily indicative of the increase. Instead, being better prepared and knowing the law substantially better are the most likely causes of the comfort level after the test, which is likely the case for most re-takers (first timers) with a basis for comparison. If you felt like you knew the law significantly better the second time and felt better after the exam, you probably did alright. This is because the individual has something to compare his or her performance to.

Personally, I did not know any re-takers that took the July MBE. I agree that most (probably 99%) felt terrible after it. However, of the 99% I spoke with after the exam, all took the exam for the first time and none had a basis for comparison.

But yes, the July MBE was very difficult. I wonder, however, if the cause was because I was not as prepared. I'm hoping it is the case.

How you felt after the exam is likely irrelevant because you don't know to what extent the good feeling was caused by your being better prepared versus the test being easier.

The optimal outcome would have been to walk out of the exam feeling that you did well based on all of your hard studying, with everyone else saying that the exam was brutal. That would allow you to attribute your good feelings solely to a better state of preparedness.

BVest wrote:

sluj11 wrote:

DueProcessDoWheelies wrote:I felt fine walking out of the MBE this time, and felt awful in July. This stat certainly doesn't help me continue feeling fine.

I may be looking for a reason to be optimistic, but I think this is actually a good thing for people in our situation. Like you, I felt absolutely terrible about the July MBE. My feelings were confirmed when I scored in the 24th percentile and failed. However, I had a much, much different feeling before, during, and after the February MBE. In fact, based on my general peruse of this forum and conversations with other re-takers (first timers), it seems that most re-takers had a better overall feeling of the Feb. MBE compared to the July MBE. I would say almost all of them had almost the exact reactions for both exams as you and I had (terrible in July and better in February). In my opinion, there was a reason we felt terrible about the July MBE. Simply put, our performance sucked.

I am not saying every re-taker passed. However, at least generally speaking, your initial gut reaction is probably indicative of your overall performance, especially if you are a re-taker and have a basis for comparison.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but given the equalization that goes on between different administrations of the exams, this is probably not entirely meaningful. Also, everybody I know felt absolutely terrible about July 2015, even those who eventually pulled down high scaled scores. It was apparently an especially hard MBE.

You did likely increase your scores for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure your comfort level is necessarily indicative of the increase.

I'm just listening to what my lawyer friend told me after July.

"If you think you passed, then you passed."

After July I didn't feel that way at all. I realize many people felt the same way because the MBE may as well have been written in Arabic, but I walked out of the February exam thinking "there is no way I failed this time."

Tzhs wrote:

sluj11 wrote:

BVest wrote:

sluj11 wrote:

DueProcessDoWheelies wrote:I felt fine walking out of the MBE this time, and felt awful in July. This stat certainly doesn't help me continue feeling fine.

I may be looking for a reason to be optimistic, but I think this is actually a good thing for people in our situation. Like you, I felt absolutely terrible about the July MBE. My feelings were confirmed when I scored in the 24th percentile and failed. However, I had a much, much different feeling before, during, and after the February MBE. In fact, based on my general peruse of this forum and conversations with other re-takers (first timers), it seems that most re-takers had a better overall feeling of the Feb. MBE compared to the July MBE. I would say almost all of them had almost the exact reactions for both exams as you and I had (terrible in July and better in February). In my opinion, there was a reason we felt terrible about the July MBE. Simply put, our performance sucked.

I am not saying every re-taker passed. However, at least generally speaking, your initial gut reaction is probably indicative of your overall performance, especially if you are a re-taker and have a basis for comparison.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but given the equalization that goes on between different administrations of the exams, this is probably not entirely meaningful. Also, everybody I know felt absolutely terrible about July 2015, even those who eventually pulled down high scaled scores. It was apparently an especially hard MBE.

You did likely increase your scores for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure your comfort level is necessarily indicative of the increase.

That's fair. I guess I need to clarify my position. Of course, the comfort level of the re-taker alone is not necessarily indicative of the increase. Instead, being better prepared and knowing the law substantially better are the most likely causes of the comfort level after the test, which is likely the case for most re-takers (first timers) with a basis for comparison. If you felt like you knew the law significantly better the second time and felt better after the exam, you probably did alright. This is because the individual has something to compare his or her performance to.

Personally, I did not know any re-takers that took the July MBE. I agree that most (probably 99%) felt terrible after it. However, of the 99% I spoke with after the exam, all took the exam for the first time and none had a basis for comparison.

But yes, the July MBE was very difficult. I wonder, however, if the cause was because I was not as prepared. I'm hoping it is the case.

How you felt after the exam is likely irrelevant because you don't know to what extent the good feeling was caused by your being better prepared versus the test being easier.


The optimal outcome would have been to walk out of the exam feeling that you did well based on all of your hard studying, with everyone else saying that the exam was brutal. That would allow you to attribute your good feelings solely to a better state of preparedness.

I think we're saying the same thing.

DueProcessDoWheelies wrote:

BVest wrote:

sluj11 wrote:

DueProcessDoWheelies wrote:I felt fine walking out of the MBE this time, and felt awful in July. This stat certainly doesn't help me continue feeling fine.

I may be looking for a reason to be optimistic, but I think this is actually a good thing for people in our situation. Like you, I felt absolutely terrible about the July MBE. My feelings were confirmed when I scored in the 24th percentile and failed. However, I had a much, much different feeling before, during, and after the February MBE. In fact, based on my general peruse of this forum and conversations with other re-takers (first timers), it seems that most re-takers had a better overall feeling of the Feb. MBE compared to the July MBE. I would say almost all of them had almost the exact reactions for both exams as you and I had (terrible in July and better in February). In my opinion, there was a reason we felt terrible about the July MBE. Simply put, our performance sucked.

I am not saying every re-taker passed. However, at least generally speaking, your initial gut reaction is probably indicative of your overall performance, especially if you are a re-taker and have a basis for comparison.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but given the equalization that goes on between different administrations of the exams, this is probably not entirely meaningful. Also, everybody I know felt absolutely terrible about July 2015, even those who eventually pulled down high scaled scores. It was apparently an especially hard MBE.

You did likely increase your scores for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure your comfort level is necessarily indicative of the increase.

I'm just listening to what my lawyer friend told me after July.

"If you think you passed, then you passed."

After July I didn't feel that way at all. I realize many people felt the same way because the MBE may as well have been written in Arabic, but I walked out of the February exam thinking "there is no way I failed this time."

I walked out this February thinking "If what I put forth wasn't minimally competent, then I don't know what that term means."
Hoping for good news come early May...

Ok - Sorry - but let's look at this...

The law school admissions test is an exam about what? About nothing to do with law. The LSAT does NOT predict how you will do in law school.

Law school does not predict how you will do on the bar.

Your law school (except for a few) does not teach you how to succeed on the bar exam. Instead you are left to pay an outside program who comes in to teach you 30 topics in 8 weeks or less. Some people can rapidly memorize without understanding - those people will do well on the bar. Some people can memorize and have minimal understanding...they will do ok. Some people need to sit with things and absorb them - those people will likely be repeaters. Some people will never be successful at the bar. What does that prove or disprove? Nothing.

Show me a law office where you are asked to - in less than 30 minutes - answer a question about an area of law you do not practice - without the ability to conduct research. Show me a law office where you would ever blindly advise a client in a subject matter that you do not generally practice in. You won't. You'd tell the client you would do some research and get back with them.

The theory of success for my super spendy bar program? Try to make your essay answers look like everyone else's. The bar graders aren't really going to actually read every answer...some will just get marked passing because they look like a right answer would look. So their theory for success on the bar exam - try to avoid anyone reading what you wrote...

To me - that's not going to indicate that you will be successful if you pass - it indicates you're good at bullshitting. I sat in the Feb bar with people who graduated summa cum laude of my tier 1 law school - who failed the July bar. I watched as complete idiots from my school received passing grades on the bar and were sworn in ahead of their more capable peers. I can only assume - after watching some of those less capable persons ramble and stutter through even the easiest questions for three years and several moot court rounds - that the reason they passed was because their essays were some of the "look like the answers that are right" - not because they were actually right.

If they want to know why the scores are dropping - look at the testing. Maybe some of those answers that aren't being read should be. Maybe some of the people who are failing actually DID know what they were talking about - just thought for themselves instead of parroting back bar review bullshit. Maybe the exam - and it's administration - are to blame for the lower scores - and not the students themselves. Listening to the insults flying from the powers that be - about how students are less skilled - how law schools are accepting lower caliber students - it's blame shifting. If you want to fix what is wrong - you can't operate on the healthy leg - you need to operate on the broken one. Some students will fail - it's a given - but you shouldn't pass because you're lucky - you should pass because you're capable. For each student that passes because their essays don't get read, remaining students move down the curve. The idiot who squeaked through because their essays didn't get read could be your next attorney - while the brilliant student who was knocked down to one point below passing because of the idiot - will be waiting to take the bar in July.

slavetothebar wrote:Ok - Sorry - but let's look at this...

The law school admissions test is an exam about what? About nothing to do with law. The LSAT does NOT predict how you will do in law school.

Law school does not predict how you will do on the bar.

Eventual Pass Rates: 1991 Matriculants

Mean LSAT Score (Old) Mean LSAT Score (New) (Est.) Percentage Passing Bar
29.39 146 77.63
33.05 152 88.44
33.85 154 89.04
36.07 157 91.88
37.50 160 96.68

Source :http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2015/12 ... rates.html


If the number of Sub 146 LSAT scores admitted to Law School Increases dramatically, its likely that bar passage rates will continue to plummet.

slavetothebar wrote:Ok - Sorry - but let's look at this...

...

I agree with this. It's troubling how little the bar exam reflects actual practice, which means it's troubling how the bar exam determines who is in and who is out. And being "out" doesn't mean you won't ever be in...you might have to take the exam a few times. But at what cost? Students are putting off their careers, their health, their lives, over this exam. It's not just money--it's time and flexibility. The exams are all offered on the same two/three days of the year, and only twice a year. You have to decide on a jurisdiction and stick with it. After retaking the exam this February, the absurdity of it all really hit me. The MBE is SIX HOURS of multiple choice spanning (now) 7 practice areas, you have under two minutes for each question, and the questions are designed to trick you. How in the hell did this come to be the standard of who becomes an attorney? Easy grading? Standardization and statistics? I understand why a drop in LSAT scores might correlate with a drop in MBE scores (the skills necessary to conquer one are probably similar to those necessary to conquer the other), but to argue that either of those things are bringing down our profession or the quality of practicing attorneys? No. Law school admissions and the bar exam need serious reworking.

Has anyone in here besides me thought about the possibility of confirmation bias/self-fulfilling prophecy? Both with takers and graders? All I hear is that the quality of law school applicants is decreasing (mostly in terms of LSAT scores), which means applicants will be less able to pass the bar. Is it possible one or both groups of people are confirming this theory in practice? Just a thought. (See http://abovethelaw.com/2016/04/multista ... ecade-low/ for phrases like "fruitless journeys" and "dumbing down of the legal profession.")