2017 July California Bar Forum

[dimetech]

Yr a bigger moron than I realized. Thanks for that email tho. Might be able to put it to good use. You also need to get your trigger points under control.

Haha, good luck using that email. As if I was going to give out info publicly that could be tied to me. Now, either email me or put up a similar email I can reach you at, or GTFO of this forum you little b*tch. Put up or shut up, remember?

Now we all know what you are. Talk a big game but can't back up with action. Just more BS posts like all your other posts here. Just another little troll. Run along now, troll.

Uh oh. Yr getting mad again. Count to 10 and breeeeeathe...

[jman77]

Yr a bigger moron than I realized. Thanks for that email tho. Might be able to put it to good use. You also need to get your trigger points under control.

Haha, good luck using that email. As if I was going to give out info publicly that could be tied to me. Now, either email me or put up a similar email I can reach you at, or GTFO of this forum you little b*tch. Put up or shut up, remember?

Now we all know what you are. Talk a big game but can't back up with action. Just more BS posts like all your other posts here. Just another little troll. Run along now, troll.

Uh oh. Yr getting mad again. Count to 10 and breeeeeathe...

Haha, run along, troll. We already know you're full of BS. Seriously man, why are you so invested in this thread when you didn't even take the bar? You were actually posting in a thread that's not even relevant to you past midnight. That's just pathetic. I suppose I'm at fault as well for feeding the troll. No more.

[gaddockteeg]

https://www.courthousenews.com/californ ... standards/

A good summary of whats going on.

[justanotheruser]

https://www.courthousenews.com/californ ... standards/

A good summary of whats going on.

This was an interesting paragraph:

And the state bar’s deference means that fierce advocates on both sides – those who advocate for reducing the cut score to increase passage rates and those who want to maintain the current high standards in the state’s legal profession – will likely be disappointed.

Wonder if this suggests that the court lowering it to 1390 would still disappoint the law school deans who recommended a range of 1330-1370. Or whether both sides may be disappointed if the court adopts the middle recommendation of 1414.

[Alt123]

Wonder when the court will decide?

[cbx2016]

Everyone knows this high cut score is arbitrary, there is no real science or social reason behind it. They should stop this nonsense show of public studying and commenting. CA supreme court should take swift action, like the Oregon supreme court, to either reduce or maintain the cut score, regardless whatever bullshit bar committee spews. Just pick a cut score and get on with it. I am not aware Oregon has any study done lol.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/another- ... age-score/

The difference with Oregon is that they are adopting the UBE, and, as their law deans pointed out, the cut score of 142 is radically out of sync with other UBE jdxs. So they moved to a more comparable cut.

Ironically, Oregon's bar exam was basically the UBE prior to adoption (and cut change), since they mostly use MBE/MEE/MPT anyhow, but reserved the right to substitute some MEE for state drafted questions on subjects like fed tax and Oregon civ pro.

Either way, Oregon were in a place to change their cut score to reflect the adoption of UBE in full. Not sure if moving to a 2 day exam in CA is the same kind of triggering event, and in any case, CA do not have the benefit of looking at 20+ other jdx to eyeball a cut score change.

Edit: If you are interested in the original petition to the Oregon Supreme Court by its Board of Bar Examiners and the deans of the 3 Oregon law schools: http://uomatters.com/wp-content/uploads ... Aug-17.pdf

[jman77]

Everyone knows this high cut score is arbitrary, there is no real science or social reason behind it. They should stop this nonsense show of public studying and commenting. CA supreme court should take swift action, like the Oregon supreme court, to either reduce or maintain the cut score, regardless whatever bullshit bar committee spews. Just pick a cut score and get on with it. I am not aware Oregon has any study done lol.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/another- ... age-score/

The difference with Oregon is that they are adopting the UBE, and, as their law deans pointed out, the cut score of 142 is radically out of sync with other UBE jdxs. So they moved to a more comparable cut.

Ironically, Oregon's bar exam was basically the UBE prior to adoption (and cut change), since they mostly use MBE/MEE/MPT anyhow, but reserved the right to substitute some MEE for state drafted questions on subjects like fed tax and Oregon civ pro.

Either way, Oregon were in a place to change their cut score to reflect the adoption of UBE in full. Not sure if moving to a 2 day exam in CA is the same kind of triggering event, and in any case, CA do not have the benefit of looking at 20+ other jdx to eyeball a cut score change.

Edit: If you are interested in the original petition to the Oregon Supreme Court by its Board of Bar Examiners and the deans of the 3 Oregon law schools: http://uomatters.com/wp-content/uploads ... Aug-17.pdf

That was an interesting read. My sense is that the court will pick 1414 as an interim cut score applicable to the July 2017 bar exam as a compromise to both sides, then will study or direct the bar to study the following: 1) the effect of the shift to the 2-day exam independent of the lower cut score; 2) the combined effect of the 1414 cut score and the shift to the 2-day exam; and 3) the potential combined effect of an even lower cut score (or a range of cut scores). Based on the study(ies), the court will then set a permanent cut score applicable to all future exams. Overall, I still anticipate that the cut score will be lowered permanently to a level that more closely approximates the national average. However, I don't think the court will be prepared to change the cut score significantly without any further basis (e.g., the study(ies) based on the July 2017 bar exam results). 1414 seems to be a safe/noncontroversial compromise at this time.

The fact that the court stripped the bar of the authority to set the cut score can't be ignored and can logically be interpreted as a signal that the court is unhappy with what's happening in CA, doesn't like what the state bar has been doing and doesn't trust the state bar to get it right and/or favors increasing the pass rate (likely by lowering the cut score). What other plausible reason can there be for the court's action?

[justanotheruser]

Everyone knows this high cut score is arbitrary, there is no real science or social reason behind it. They should stop this nonsense show of public studying and commenting. CA supreme court should take swift action, like the Oregon supreme court, to either reduce or maintain the cut score, regardless whatever bullshit bar committee spews. Just pick a cut score and get on with it. I am not aware Oregon has any study done lol.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/another- ... age-score/

The difference with Oregon is that they are adopting the UBE, and, as their law deans pointed out, the cut score of 142 is radically out of sync with other UBE jdxs. So they moved to a more comparable cut.

Ironically, Oregon's bar exam was basically the UBE prior to adoption (and cut change), since they mostly use MBE/MEE/MPT anyhow, but reserved the right to substitute some MEE for state drafted questions on subjects like fed tax and Oregon civ pro.

Either way, Oregon were in a place to change their cut score to reflect the adoption of UBE in full. Not sure if moving to a 2 day exam in CA is the same kind of triggering event, and in any case, CA do not have the benefit of looking at 20+ other jdx to eyeball a cut score change.

Edit: If you are interested in the original petition to the Oregon Supreme Court by its Board of Bar Examiners and the deans of the 3 Oregon law schools: http://uomatters.com/wp-content/uploads ... Aug-17.pdf

That was an interesting read. My sense is that the court will pick 1414 as an interim cut score applicable to the July 2017 bar exam as a compromise to both sides, then will study or direct the bar to study the following: 1) the effect of the shift to the 2-day exam independent of the lower cut score; 2) the combined effect of the 1414 cut score and the shift to the 2-day exam; and 3) the potential combined effect of an even lower cut score (or a range of cut scores). Based on the study(ies), the court will then set a permanent cut score applicable to all future exams. Overall, I still anticipate that the cut score will be lowered permanently to a level that more closely approximates the national average. However, I don't think the court will be prepared to change the cut score significantly without any further basis (e.g., the study(ies) based on the July 2017 bar exam results). 1414 seems to be a safe/noncontroversial compromise at this time.

The fact that the court stripped the bar of the authority to set the cut score can't be ignored and can logically be interpreted as a signal that the court is unhappy with what's happening in CA, doesn't like what the state bar has been doing and doesn't trust the state bar to get it right and/or favors increasing the pass rate (likely by lowering the cut score). What other plausible reason can there be for the court's action?

Your rationale is well taken.

Would be curious though, given that 1390 is on the table, why/if the court would be deferential enough to pick 1414 over that.

[gaddockteeg]

Everyone knows this high cut score is arbitrary, there is no real science or social reason behind it. They should stop this nonsense show of public studying and commenting. CA supreme court should take swift action, like the Oregon supreme court, to either reduce or maintain the cut score, regardless whatever bullshit bar committee spews. Just pick a cut score and get on with it. I am not aware Oregon has any study done lol.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/another- ... age-score/

The difference with Oregon is that they are adopting the UBE, and, as their law deans pointed out, the cut score of 142 is radically out of sync with other UBE jdxs. So they moved to a more comparable cut.

Ironically, Oregon's bar exam was basically the UBE prior to adoption (and cut change), since they mostly use MBE/MEE/MPT anyhow, but reserved the right to substitute some MEE for state drafted questions on subjects like fed tax and Oregon civ pro.

Either way, Oregon were in a place to change their cut score to reflect the adoption of UBE in full. Not sure if moving to a 2 day exam in CA is the same kind of triggering event, and in any case, CA do not have the benefit of looking at 20+ other jdx to eyeball a cut score change.

Edit: If you are interested in the original petition to the Oregon Supreme Court by its Board of Bar Examiners and the deans of the 3 Oregon law schools: http://uomatters.com/wp-content/uploads ... Aug-17.pdf

That was an interesting read. My sense is that the court will pick 1414 as an interim cut score applicable to the July 2017 bar exam as a compromise to both sides, then will study or direct the bar to study the following: 1) the effect of the shift to the 2-day exam independent of the lower cut score; 2) the combined effect of the 1414 cut score and the shift to the 2-day exam; and 3) the potential combined effect of an even lower cut score (or a range of cut scores). Based on the study(ies), the court will then set a permanent cut score applicable to all future exams. Overall, I still anticipate that the cut score will be lowered permanently to a level that more closely approximates the national average. However, I don't think the court will be prepared to change the cut score significantly without any further basis (e.g., the study(ies) based on the July 2017 bar exam results). 1414 seems to be a safe/noncontroversial compromise at this time.

The fact that the court stripped the bar of the authority to set the cut score can't be ignored and can logically be interpreted as a signal that the court is unhappy with what's happening in CA, doesn't like what the state bar has been doing and doesn't trust the state bar to get it right and/or favors increasing the pass rate (likely by lowering the cut score). What other plausible reason can there be for the court's action?

Your rationale is well taken.

Would be curious though, given that 1390 is on the table, why/if the court would be deferential enough to pick 1414 over that.

Agreed, I'd actually argue that 139 is the actual compromise since the real dichotomy seems to be "stay at 144" vs "lower to 135."

[justanotheruser]

Everyone knows this high cut score is arbitrary, there is no real science or social reason behind it. They should stop this nonsense show of public studying and commenting. CA supreme court should take swift action, like the Oregon supreme court, to either reduce or maintain the cut score, regardless whatever bullshit bar committee spews. Just pick a cut score and get on with it. I am not aware Oregon has any study done lol.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/another- ... age-score/

The difference with Oregon is that they are adopting the UBE, and, as their law deans pointed out, the cut score of 142 is radically out of sync with other UBE jdxs. So they moved to a more comparable cut.

Ironically, Oregon's bar exam was basically the UBE prior to adoption (and cut change), since they mostly use MBE/MEE/MPT anyhow, but reserved the right to substitute some MEE for state drafted questions on subjects like fed tax and Oregon civ pro.

Either way, Oregon were in a place to change their cut score to reflect the adoption of UBE in full. Not sure if moving to a 2 day exam in CA is the same kind of triggering event, and in any case, CA do not have the benefit of looking at 20+ other jdx to eyeball a cut score change.

Edit: If you are interested in the original petition to the Oregon Supreme Court by its Board of Bar Examiners and the deans of the 3 Oregon law schools: http://uomatters.com/wp-content/uploads ... Aug-17.pdf

That was an interesting read. My sense is that the court will pick 1414 as an interim cut score applicable to the July 2017 bar exam as a compromise to both sides, then will study or direct the bar to study the following: 1) the effect of the shift to the 2-day exam independent of the lower cut score; 2) the combined effect of the 1414 cut score and the shift to the 2-day exam; and 3) the potential combined effect of an even lower cut score (or a range of cut scores). Based on the study(ies), the court will then set a permanent cut score applicable to all future exams. Overall, I still anticipate that the cut score will be lowered permanently to a level that more closely approximates the national average. However, I don't think the court will be prepared to change the cut score significantly without any further basis (e.g., the study(ies) based on the July 2017 bar exam results). 1414 seems to be a safe/noncontroversial compromise at this time.

The fact that the court stripped the bar of the authority to set the cut score can't be ignored and can logically be interpreted as a signal that the court is unhappy with what's happening in CA, doesn't like what the state bar has been doing and doesn't trust the state bar to get it right and/or favors increasing the pass rate (likely by lowering the cut score). What other plausible reason can there be for the court's action?

Your rationale is well taken.

Would be curious though, given that 1390 is on the table, why/if the court would be deferential enough to pick 1414 over that.

Agreed, I'd actually argue that 139 is the actual compromise since the real dichotomy seems to be "stay at 144" vs "lower to 135."

I believe the ABA law school deans suggested 133-137 while the state bar is willing to go as low as 139. Maybe the court cuts the difference and goes with 138 hahaha?

[jman77]

Everyone knows this high cut score is arbitrary, there is no real science or social reason behind it. They should stop this nonsense show of public studying and commenting. CA supreme court should take swift action, like the Oregon supreme court, to either reduce or maintain the cut score, regardless whatever bullshit bar committee spews. Just pick a cut score and get on with it. I am not aware Oregon has any study done lol.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/another- ... age-score/

The difference with Oregon is that they are adopting the UBE, and, as their law deans pointed out, the cut score of 142 is radically out of sync with other UBE jdxs. So they moved to a more comparable cut.

Ironically, Oregon's bar exam was basically the UBE prior to adoption (and cut change), since they mostly use MBE/MEE/MPT anyhow, but reserved the right to substitute some MEE for state drafted questions on subjects like fed tax and Oregon civ pro.

Either way, Oregon were in a place to change their cut score to reflect the adoption of UBE in full. Not sure if moving to a 2 day exam in CA is the same kind of triggering event, and in any case, CA do not have the benefit of looking at 20+ other jdx to eyeball a cut score change.

Edit: If you are interested in the original petition to the Oregon Supreme Court by its Board of Bar Examiners and the deans of the 3 Oregon law schools: http://uomatters.com/wp-content/uploads ... Aug-17.pdf

That was an interesting read. My sense is that the court will pick 1414 as an interim cut score applicable to the July 2017 bar exam as a compromise to both sides, then will study or direct the bar to study the following: 1) the effect of the shift to the 2-day exam independent of the lower cut score; 2) the combined effect of the 1414 cut score and the shift to the 2-day exam; and 3) the potential combined effect of an even lower cut score (or a range of cut scores). Based on the study(ies), the court will then set a permanent cut score applicable to all future exams. Overall, I still anticipate that the cut score will be lowered permanently to a level that more closely approximates the national average. However, I don't think the court will be prepared to change the cut score significantly without any further basis (e.g., the study(ies) based on the July 2017 bar exam results). 1414 seems to be a safe/noncontroversial compromise at this time.

The fact that the court stripped the bar of the authority to set the cut score can't be ignored and can logically be interpreted as a signal that the court is unhappy with what's happening in CA, doesn't like what the state bar has been doing and doesn't trust the state bar to get it right and/or favors increasing the pass rate (likely by lowering the cut score). What other plausible reason can there be for the court's action?

Your rationale is well taken.

Would be curious though, given that 1390 is on the table, why/if the court would be deferential enough to pick 1414 over that.

Agreed, I'd actually argue that 139 is the actual compromise since the real dichotomy seems to be "stay at 144" vs "lower to 135."

I think you both make good points. I think the crucial factor is how deferential the court will be. I just think that 1414 is the safe choice as it's still a lowering of the cut score (as a concession to those who strongly feel the cut score should be lowered) and it's the minimum decrease for which there is currently a basis (as a concession to those who are adamant that the current cut score should be maintained). Once the court has had a chance to see a study incorporating the changes brought about by the change in the bar exam format, it will have a stronger basis to lower the cut score even further.

Even though it makes a lot of sense to just lower the cut score to more closely approximate the national average, there is a political component to making such a move and the court will need to have a more solid basis for its action.

On a related note, I think public comments submitted by practicing attorneys, law students and those who are looking to get admitted should be considered but discounted for obvious reasons. I tried to read through the comments posted by the bar together with the news release regarding the recommendation, but so far all I've seen are comments by persons belonging to one of those 3 groups. Does anyone know if comments were actually solicited and received from the general public (you know, the people whose interests are supposedly being safeguarded by the cut score)?

[maxmartin]

Everyone knows this high cut score is arbitrary, there is no real science or social reason behind it. They should stop this nonsense show of public studying and commenting. CA supreme court should take swift action, like the Oregon supreme court, to either reduce or maintain the cut score, regardless whatever bullshit bar committee spews. Just pick a cut score and get on with it. I am not aware Oregon has any study done lol.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/another- ... age-score/

The difference with Oregon is that they are adopting the UBE, and, as their law deans pointed out, the cut score of 142 is radically out of sync with other UBE jdxs. So they moved to a more comparable cut.

Ironically, Oregon's bar exam was basically the UBE prior to adoption (and cut change), since they mostly use MBE/MEE/MPT anyhow, but reserved the right to substitute some MEE for state drafted questions on subjects like fed tax and Oregon civ pro.

Either way, Oregon were in a place to change their cut score to reflect the adoption of UBE in full. Not sure if moving to a 2 day exam in CA is the same kind of triggering event, and in any case, CA do not have the benefit of looking at 20+ other jdx to eyeball a cut score change.

Edit: If you are interested in the original petition to the Oregon Supreme Court by its Board of Bar Examiners and the deans of the 3 Oregon law schools: http://uomatters.com/wp-content/uploads ... Aug-17.pdf

That was an interesting read. My sense is that the court will pick 1414 as an interim cut score applicable to the July 2017 bar exam as a compromise to both sides, then will study or direct the bar to study the following: 1) the effect of the shift to the 2-day exam independent of the lower cut score; 2) the combined effect of the 1414 cut score and the shift to the 2-day exam; and 3) the potential combined effect of an even lower cut score (or a range of cut scores). Based on the study(ies), the court will then set a permanent cut score applicable to all future exams. Overall, I still anticipate that the cut score will be lowered permanently to a level that more closely approximates the national average. However, I don't think the court will be prepared to change the cut score significantly without any further basis (e.g., the study(ies) based on the July 2017 bar exam results). 1414 seems to be a safe/noncontroversial compromise at this time.

The fact that the court stripped the bar of the authority to set the cut score can't be ignored and can logically be interpreted as a signal that the court is unhappy with what's happening in CA, doesn't like what the state bar has been doing and doesn't trust the state bar to get it right and/or favors increasing the pass rate (likely by lowering the cut score). What other plausible reason can there be for the court's action?

Your rationale is well taken.

Would be curious though, given that 1390 is on the table, why/if the court would be deferential enough to pick 1414 over that.

Agreed, I'd actually argue that 139 is the actual compromise since the real dichotomy seems to be "stay at 144" vs "lower to 135."

I think you both make good points. I think the crucial factor is how deferential the court will be. I just think that 1414 is the safe choice as it's still a lowering of the cut score (as a concession to those who strongly feel the cut score should be lowered) and it's the minimum decrease for which there is currently a basis (as a concession to those who are adamant that the current cut score should be maintained). Once the court has had a chance to see a study incorporating the changes brought about by the change in the bar exam format, it will have a stronger basis to lower the cut score even further.

Even though it makes a lot of sense to just lower the cut score to more closely approximate the national average, there is a political component to making such a move and the court will need to have a more solid basis for its action.

On a related note, I think public comments submitted by practicing attorneys, law students and those who are looking to get admitted should be considered but discounted for obvious reasons. I tried to read through the comments posted by the bar together with the news release regarding the recommendation, but so far all I've seen are comments by persons belonging to one of those 3 groups. Does anyone know if comments were actually solicited and received from the general public (you know, the people whose interests are supposedly being safeguarded by the cut score)?

What kind study is needed? What information can an additional study provide? So far no study from CA or other states yielded any real useful information. CA bar in its current form is a disguised UBE LOL. Cut score in itself is an inherent arbitrary thing. The court should just pick a score a few points above national average if they want to keep so called CA high standard. LMAO.

[jman77]

Everyone knows this high cut score is arbitrary, there is no real science or social reason behind it. They should stop this nonsense show of public studying and commenting. CA supreme court should take swift action, like the Oregon supreme court, to either reduce or maintain the cut score, regardless whatever bullshit bar committee spews. Just pick a cut score and get on with it. I am not aware Oregon has any study done lol.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/another- ... age-score/

The difference with Oregon is that they are adopting the UBE, and, as their law deans pointed out, the cut score of 142 is radically out of sync with other UBE jdxs. So they moved to a more comparable cut.

Ironically, Oregon's bar exam was basically the UBE prior to adoption (and cut change), since they mostly use MBE/MEE/MPT anyhow, but reserved the right to substitute some MEE for state drafted questions on subjects like fed tax and Oregon civ pro.

Either way, Oregon were in a place to change their cut score to reflect the adoption of UBE in full. Not sure if moving to a 2 day exam in CA is the same kind of triggering event, and in any case, CA do not have the benefit of looking at 20+ other jdx to eyeball a cut score change.

Edit: If you are interested in the original petition to the Oregon Supreme Court by its Board of Bar Examiners and the deans of the 3 Oregon law schools: http://uomatters.com/wp-content/uploads ... Aug-17.pdf

That was an interesting read. My sense is that the court will pick 1414 as an interim cut score applicable to the July 2017 bar exam as a compromise to both sides, then will study or direct the bar to study the following: 1) the effect of the shift to the 2-day exam independent of the lower cut score; 2) the combined effect of the 1414 cut score and the shift to the 2-day exam; and 3) the potential combined effect of an even lower cut score (or a range of cut scores). Based on the study(ies), the court will then set a permanent cut score applicable to all future exams. Overall, I still anticipate that the cut score will be lowered permanently to a level that more closely approximates the national average. However, I don't think the court will be prepared to change the cut score significantly without any further basis (e.g., the study(ies) based on the July 2017 bar exam results). 1414 seems to be a safe/noncontroversial compromise at this time.

The fact that the court stripped the bar of the authority to set the cut score can't be ignored and can logically be interpreted as a signal that the court is unhappy with what's happening in CA, doesn't like what the state bar has been doing and doesn't trust the state bar to get it right and/or favors increasing the pass rate (likely by lowering the cut score). What other plausible reason can there be for the court's action?

Your rationale is well taken.

Would be curious though, given that 1390 is on the table, why/if the court would be deferential enough to pick 1414 over that.

Agreed, I'd actually argue that 139 is the actual compromise since the real dichotomy seems to be "stay at 144" vs "lower to 135."

I think you both make good points. I think the crucial factor is how deferential the court will be. I just think that 1414 is the safe choice as it's still a lowering of the cut score (as a concession to those who strongly feel the cut score should be lowered) and it's the minimum decrease for which there is currently a basis (as a concession to those who are adamant that the current cut score should be maintained). Once the court has had a chance to see a study incorporating the changes brought about by the change in the bar exam format, it will have a stronger basis to lower the cut score even further.

Even though it makes a lot of sense to just lower the cut score to more closely approximate the national average, there is a political component to making such a move and the court will need to have a more solid basis for its action.

On a related note, I think public comments submitted by practicing attorneys, law students and those who are looking to get admitted should be considered but discounted for obvious reasons. I tried to read through the comments posted by the bar together with the news release regarding the recommendation, but so far all I've seen are comments by persons belonging to one of those 3 groups. Does anyone know if comments were actually solicited and received from the general public (you know, the people whose interests are supposedly being safeguarded by the cut score)?

What kind study is needed? What information can an additional study provide? So far no study from CA or other states yielded any real useful information. CA bar in its current form is a disguised UBE LOL. Cut score in itself is an inherent arbitrary thing. The court should just pick a score a few points above national average if they want to keep so called CA high standard. LMAO.

I agree with you in theory but that's not how things work in real life. There is a political angle to matters like this, there are formalities to be followed, competing interests trying to push their respective agenda, etc. The court can't just pick a score no matter how sensible it may seem. There has to be a piece of paper that says what the cut score should be and why that the court can show to all concerned parties to justify its decision. Right now, that piece of paper says the cut score should be 1440, 1414 or 1390.

The methodology of the study supporting the current recommendation has been widely criticized for being flawed and self-serving. That study is also inherently flawed because it was based on results related to the old bar exam format. The impact of the change in number of days and distribution between the MBE and CA sections should be a factor in determining the specific cut score within the reasonable range.

Ideally, the next study would be commissioned by the court itself and conducted by an entity or person independently engaged by the court itself, and not by the state bar. Additionally, it would do a more thorough inquiry into the reasons for the cut scores adopted by other jurisdictions (the current study just glosses over it) and whether or not such cut scores have resulted in said jurisdictions admitting more incompetent lawyers relative to CA. As the Oregon bar petition posted a few comments above indicated, the fact that all other comparable jurisdictions have lower cut scores (significantly lower, in fact) suggests that minimal competency can be possible with a cut score that is more in line with the other cut scores.

I'm all for lowering the cut score to bring it close to the national average. However, I also think that each state should have the discretion to set its own specific cut score, within reason. My only gripe with CA really is not that it has a different cut score, but that its cut score is such a ridiculous outlier compared to all other jurisdictions (so is DE's for that matter). 2, 3, 4 points higher? Sure. But 9-10 points higher? Come on.

[InterAlia1961]

The reason Delaware's cut score is so high is that somewhere around 90% of all American corporations are incorporated there. It's my understanding that the Delaware State Bar keeps the score high to ensure that they are admitting competent attorneys who can practice at the corporate level. I'm not sure if California has a similar situation, although, the vast majority of patents issued in the U.S. are issued to California residents.

I read an article where a law school professor asked if the score were currently at 1390, would there be a reason to raise it? I thought it was an interesting angle. At any rate, I don't think they lower it. I'm not hoping for it either. I'm just ordering a more current study guide, and going again. 1440 or Bust.

[jman77]

The reason Delaware's cut score is so high is that somewhere around 90% of all American corporations are incorporated there. It's my understanding that the Delaware State Bar keeps the score high to ensure that they are admitting competent attorneys who can practice at the corporate level. I'm not sure if California has a similar situation, although, the vast majority of patents issued in the U.S. are issued to California residents.

I read an article where a law school professor asked if the score were currently at 1390, would there be a reason to raise it? I thought it was an interesting angle. At any rate, I don't think they lower it. I'm not hoping for it either. I'm just ordering a more current study guide, and going again. 1440 or Bust.

I'm not sure I understand the argument for the high DE cut score. I'm pretty sure not everyone who sits for the DE exam intends to be a corporate lawyer it ends up being one. If the DE bar is truly concerned about ensuring that those who in fact want to work as corporate attorneys are truly "competent" at corporate law, then the answer would not be to raise the cut score but to require additional training and certification in corporate law after the candidate passes the bar exam. That's similar to how physicians have to do a residency/fellowship in their respective fields of specialization.

I don't see why someone who's not going to practice corporate law should be subjected to a higher standard (than minimum competency) because the state bar wants to ensure that those who do practice corporate law are "competent" at it.

[InterAlia1961]

Again, it's my understanding after reading more articles than I want to admit on the subject. It's worth noting, that there doesn't appear to be a controversy in Delaware about the cut score. The noise is coming from CA. I'm not counting on them changing to 1390 or even 1414. I don't think I got to 1440 this time, and the rational thing to do based on that assumption is to start studying again, holding myself to the highest standard. If you think you didn't pass unless they lower the score, doing nothing but hopping for a lower score is not the best course of action.

[jman77]

Again, it's my understanding after reading more articles than I want to admit on the subject. It's worth noting, that there doesn't appear to be a controversy in Delaware about the cut score. The noise is coming from CA. I'm not counting on them changing to 1390 or even 1414. I don't think I got to 1440 this time, and the rational thing to do based on that assumption is to start studying again, holding myself to the highest standard. If you think you didn't pass unless they lower the score, doing nothing but hopping for a lower score is not the best course of action.

This goes beyond you and me. I'm pretty confident I passed even based on the current cut score. I passed NY with a 165.2 MBE and all my Barbri simulated tests (when I was studying for the NY and CA bar exams) have been consistently in that range. If the court decides to stick with 1440, I would personally shrug my shoulders but I'd still continue to advocate a cut score that's more in line with the national mean. This is about those who study hard and do everything they're supposed to do, but are only truly capable of getting a 135, 136 or 137. Someone here posted that they'd taken the bar 3 times. With a cut score of 1390, they'd have passed the bar all 3 times. With a cut score of 1414, they'd already have passed the bar 1 time.

Is that person, and other persons who can truly only manage a 137 in spite of their very best efforts minimally competent to practice law? Should they be allowed to earn a living in their chose profession? 95% of the jurisdictions say yes. CA and DE say no. As of yet, no one has really been able to articulate convincingly why.

Also, there is controversy in DE as well. It's just not as prominent and loud as in CA, likely because the number of people who take the DE bar is a fraction of those who take the CA bar.

[InterAlia1961]

Again, it's my understanding after reading more articles than I want to admit on the subject. It's worth noting, that there doesn't appear to be a controversy in Delaware about the cut score. The noise is coming from CA. I'm not counting on them changing to 1390 or even 1414. I don't think I got to 1440 this time, and the rational thing to do based on that assumption is to start studying again, holding myself to the highest standard. If you think you didn't pass unless they lower the score, doing nothing but hopping for a lower score is not the best course of action.

This goes beyond you and me. I'm pretty confident I passed even based on the current cut score. I passed NY with a 165.2 MBE and all my Barbri simulated tests (when I was studying for the NY and CA bar exams) have been consistently in that range. If the court decides to stick with 1440, I would personally shrug my shoulders but I'd still continue to advocate a cut score that's more in line with the national mean. This is about those who study hard and do everything they're supposed to do, but are only truly capable of getting a 135, 136 or 137. Someone here posted that they'd taken the bar 3 times. With a cut score of 1390, they'd have passed the bar all 3 times. With a cut score of 1414, they'd already have passed the bar 1 time.

Is that person, and other persons who can truly only manage a 137 in spite of their very best efforts minimally competent to practice law? Should they be allowed to earn a living in their chose profession? 95% of the jurisdictions say yes. CA and DE say no. As of yet, no one has really been able to articulate convincingly why.

Also, there is controversy in DE as well. It's just not as prominent and loud as in CA, likely because the number of people who take the DE bar is a fraction of those who take the CA bar.

Me. I'm the one who has taken four times now. The three prior times I was at 1390, 1410, and 1425 before the reread. Failed on the reread. Of course I can get to 1440. My problem is the drive to CA. 1900 miles, one way. It's a truly terrifying drive and expensive. By the time I get there, I'm exhausted. I have a day, this time two, to adjust, which is difficult when you consider that I'm from a town of 819 residents...counting the bears. So, yes, I can get there. I will get there. I think I'm competent to practice law. I've successfully represented myself in a couple of matters.

Oh, and there is no way you'd convince me to fly. Sorry. Terrified of flying. I even let some goofball "hypnotize" me back in 2011 so I would be comfortable flying into LAX. Yeah. That didn't work.

I just don't think I got there this time. I'm basing that on my experiences the last three times as compared to those who I know passed it. Like you, they knew and were sure they passed it right after. I'm not. I struggled on two of the essays, and even though I did my best on each MBE question, I felt like the answer was just out of my reach most of the time. I'm happy to hear you think you passed, though. From my experience, it's a good sign.

[maxmartin]

The reason Delaware's cut score is so high is that somewhere around 90% of all American corporations are incorporated there. It's my understanding that the Delaware State Bar keeps the score high to ensure that they are admitting competent attorneys who can practice at the corporate level. I'm not sure if California has a similar situation, although, the vast majority of patents issued in the U.S. are issued to California residents.

I read an article where a law school professor asked if the score were currently at 1390, would there be a reason to raise it? I thought it was an interesting angle. At any rate, I don't think they lower it. I'm not hoping for it either. I'm just ordering a more current study guide, and going again. 1440 or Bust.

LOL do you even know most corp lawyers do? Bar exam is literally irrelevant to corporate practice.

[AT9]

The reason Delaware's cut score is so high is that somewhere around 90% of all American corporations are incorporated there. It's my understanding that the Delaware State Bar keeps the score high to ensure that they are admitting competent attorneys who can practice at the corporate level. I'm not sure if California has a similar situation, although, the vast majority of patents issued in the U.S. are issued to California residents.

I read an article where a law school professor asked if the score were currently at 1390, would there be a reason to raise it? I thought it was an interesting angle. At any rate, I don't think they lower it. I'm not hoping for it either. I'm just ordering a more current study guide, and going again. 1440 or Bust.

LOL do you even know most corp lawyers do? Bar exam is literally irrelevant to corporate practice.

Do you know what Delaware corporate lawyers do? The majority are doing corp. lit, IP, or bankruptcy. The bar exam is more applicable to most DE corporate lawyers than their NYC corporate transactional counterparts.

They keep the score high and other admission requirements onerous because the DE bar is super protectionist.

[InterAlia1961]

The reason Delaware's cut score is so high is that somewhere around 90% of all American corporations are incorporated there. It's my understanding that the Delaware State Bar keeps the score high to ensure that they are admitting competent attorneys who can practice at the corporate level. I'm not sure if California has a similar situation, although, the vast majority of patents issued in the U.S. are issued to California residents.

I read an article where a law school professor asked if the score were currently at 1390, would there be a reason to raise it? I thought it was an interesting angle. At any rate, I don't think they lower it. I'm not hoping for it either. I'm just ordering a more current study guide, and going again. 1440 or Bust.

LOL do you even know most corp lawyers do? Bar exam is literally irrelevant to corporate practice.

Actually, I do know what corporate lawyers do. I know several, two in the banking industry. I did not, however, post that the opinion regarding the DE cut score was mine. Try to keep up. The bar exam is not irrelevant to practicing corporate law. If you don't pass. You don't practice. See how that works?

Again, I doubt that the cut score will be lowered in the near future. It makes no sense to do so without first waiting to see how the new format affected the pass rate. I'm not counting on or hoping for a lowered score.

[InterAlia1961]

The reason Delaware's cut score is so high is that somewhere around 90% of all American corporations are incorporated there. It's my understanding that the Delaware State Bar keeps the score high to ensure that they are admitting competent attorneys who can practice at the corporate level. I'm not sure if California has a similar situation, although, the vast majority of patents issued in the U.S. are issued to California residents.

I read an article where a law school professor asked if the score were currently at 1390, would there be a reason to raise it? I thought it was an interesting angle. At any rate, I don't think they lower it. I'm not hoping for it either. I'm just ordering a more current study guide, and going again. 1440 or Bust.

LOL do you even know most corp lawyers do? Bar exam is literally irrelevant to corporate practice.

Do you know what Delaware corporate lawyers do? The majority are doing corp. lit, IP, or bankruptcy. The bar exam is more applicable to most DE corporate lawyers than their NYC corporate transactional counterparts.

They keep the score high and other admission requirements onerous because the DE bar is super protectionist.

Sorry, I'm not buying the "protectionist" argument. However, after seeing reports that lowering the cut score to 1390 would raise the pass rate among some non-Caucasian groups by as much as 114%, I can see where someone might make an argument that the current cut score reflects a racial bias.

[InterAlia1961]

Here's a debrief of Q2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeEpszYurXY

[esq]

Everyone knows this high cut score is arbitrary, there is no real science or social reason behind it. They should stop this nonsense show of public studying and commenting. CA supreme court should take swift action, like the Oregon supreme court, to either reduce or maintain the cut score, regardless whatever bullshit bar committee spews. Just pick a cut score and get on with it. I am not aware Oregon has any study done lol.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/another- ... age-score/

The difference with Oregon is that they are adopting the UBE, and, as their law deans pointed out, the cut score of 142 is radically out of sync with other UBE jdxs. So they moved to a more comparable cut.

Ironically, Oregon's bar exam was basically the UBE prior to adoption (and cut change), since they mostly use MBE/MEE/MPT anyhow, but reserved the right to substitute some MEE for state drafted questions on subjects like fed tax and Oregon civ pro.

Either way, Oregon were in a place to change their cut score to reflect the adoption of UBE in full. Not sure if moving to a 2 day exam in CA is the same kind of triggering event, and in any case, CA do not have the benefit of looking at 20+ other jdx to eyeball a cut score change.

Edit: If you are interested in the original petition to the Oregon Supreme Court by its Board of Bar Examiners and the deans of the 3 Oregon law schools: http://uomatters.com/wp-content/uploads ... Aug-17.pdf

That was an interesting read. My sense is that the court will pick 1414 as an interim cut score applicable to the July 2017 bar exam as a compromise to both sides, then will study or direct the bar to study the following: 1) the effect of the shift to the 2-day exam independent of the lower cut score; 2) the combined effect of the 1414 cut score and the shift to the 2-day exam; and 3) the potential combined effect of an even lower cut score (or a range of cut scores). Based on the study(ies), the court will then set a permanent cut score applicable to all future exams. Overall, I still anticipate that the cut score will be lowered permanently to a level that more closely approximates the national average. However, I don't think the court will be prepared to change the cut score significantly without any further basis (e.g., the study(ies) based on the July 2017 bar exam results). 1414 seems to be a safe/noncontroversial compromise at this time.

The fact that the court stripped the bar of the authority to set the cut score can't be ignored and can logically be interpreted as a signal that the court is unhappy with what's happening in CA, doesn't like what the state bar has been doing and doesn't trust the state bar to get it right and/or favors increasing the pass rate (likely by lowering the cut score). What other plausible reason can there be for the court's action?

I want to agree with you here because it makes sense, 100 percent on the logic of it all. The problem here, though, is that we are dealing with a court, and a state court no less. No matter how much logic you bring to the table, most of the state courts I've dealt with are looking for the easiest alternative that will make it look as though they've done something reasonable, help them save face, and make a 1 o'clock tee time. They love it when you can do their job for them by spoon feeding them an answer that does this--they don't want to think about it too much, that would be hard and takes some effort. Why do you think the CA Bar is so adamant about spoon feeding the court it's decision?

PS: The Bar also has a face saving motive in being able to look as though it retained control over the court's decision, but underneath it all, I think the Bar very much understands that the court is inclined to be spoon fed its decision--especially if it can spoon feed a decision that ends up changing the score little to none (vindication would do a lot to reassure the Bar that it is the big fish in the pond).

[BulletTooth]

I want to agree with you here because it makes sense, 100 percent on the logic of it all. The problem here, though, is that we are dealing with a court, and a state court no less. No matter how much logic you bring to the table, most of the state courts I've dealt with are looking for the easiest alternative that will make it look as though they've done something reasonable, help them save face, and make a 1 o'clock tee time. They love it when you can do their job for them by spoon feeding them an answer that does this--they don't want to think about it too much, that would be hard and takes some effort. Why do you think the CA Bar is so adamant about spoon feeding the court it's decision?

PS: The Bar also has a face saving motive in being able to look as though it retained control over the court's decision, but underneath it all, I think the Bar very much understands that the court is inclined to be spoon fed its decision--especially if it can spoon feed a decision that ends up changing the score little to none (vindication would do a lot to reassure the Bar that it is the big fish in the pond).[/quote]

I don't think the California Supreme Court is some "state court" where the justices are looking to "make a 1 o'clock tee time," although I could be wrong. Please enlighten me. I also don't think they are waiting to be "spoon fed" some answer by the state bar. You're talking about justices who likely relish having the final say as to what California law is. The idea that they're inclined to being spoon fed their decisions flies in the face of what it means to be on any state supreme court. Maybe your conclusion is right, but I don't follow the argument at all.