Top Law Schools

http://www.ncbex.org/news/july-2017-mbe-score/

So now NCBE's panic can end

Does this mean that the NCBE has graded all of the scantrons for every UBE district? If so, UBE jurisdictions should ****** tell us

Edit for the lazy:

SEP 20, 2017

July 2017 average MBE score shows an increase
The national average MBE score for July 2017 was 141.7, an increase of about 1.4 points over the July 2016 average score of 140.3. This increase continues the general upward trend in July scores that started last year. The reliability of the July 2017 MBE was 0.93; the same as it was in July 2016 when it reached an all-time high. 46,626 examinees took the MBE in July 2017, an increase of 108 compared to July 2016.

Jurisdictions are currently in the process of grading the written components of the bar exam; once this process is completed, bar exam scores will be calculated and passing decisions reported by jurisdictions.

ConfusedL1 wrote:Does this mean that the NCBE has graded all of the scantrons for every UBE district? If so, UBE jurisdictions should ****** tell us

From what I've been told, all scantrons were scanned and reports were issued by late August. The head of NCBE gave an interview where she released that number in early September. Don't have the link on hand, but, yeah. We've known the national average for a couple of weeks now. Nice to see it's super-official.

The average in February 2017 was 134 though.

ConfusedL1 wrote:Does this mean that the NCBE has graded all of the scantrons for every UBE district? If so, UBE jurisdictions should ****** tell us

Edit for the lazy:

SEP 20, 2017

July 2017 average MBE score shows an increase
The national average MBE score for July 2017 was 141.7, an increase of about 1.4 points over the July 2016 average score of 140.3. This increase continues the general upward trend in July scores that started last year. The reliability of the July 2017 MBE was 0.93; the same as it was in July 2016 when it reached an all-time high. 46,626 examinees took the MBE in July 2017, an increase of 108 compared to July 2016.

Jurisdictions are currently in the process of grading the written components of the bar exam; once this process is completed, bar exam scores will be calculated and passing decisions reported by jurisdictions.

Would be nice if we could view our MBE scores on the NCBE website

Bimmerfan wrote:

ConfusedL1 wrote:Does this mean that the NCBE has graded all of the scantrons for every UBE district? If so, UBE jurisdictions should ****** tell us

Edit for the lazy:

SEP 20, 2017

July 2017 average MBE score shows an increase
The national average MBE score for July 2017 was 141.7, an increase of about 1.4 points over the July 2016 average score of 140.3. This increase continues the general upward trend in July scores that started last year. The reliability of the July 2017 MBE was 0.93; the same as it was in July 2016 when it reached an all-time high. 46,626 examinees took the MBE in July 2017, an increase of 108 compared to July 2016.

Jurisdictions are currently in the process of grading the written components of the bar exam; once this process is completed, bar exam scores will be calculated and passing decisions reported by jurisdictions.

Would be nice if we could view our MBE scores on the NCBE website

That would be great. In Kentucky where I took it, you have to reach a minimum score on both the essays and the MBE, and the majority of failures are on the MBE side. That means the majority of people who fail each year could be told so in just a couple of weeks, instead of waiting months to find out how they did on the essays. But they won't release anything until all the essays are graded. In a perfect world, they would release the MBE scores across the board whenever they become available. Then people would know that it's over for them, there's still hope, and/or if there is hope, how realistic it is that they picked up the additional points in the other events (if in a jurisdiction that does the holistic approach).

I cannot see any downside in providing people with this information.

I know my situation is not the norm but my results are supposed to post on the 29th of September. My lease is up on the 30th. If I passed, I'm supposed to start a new job 100 miles away in a different city on October 2nd. If not, I have to stay where I'm at take a second shot at it. It would be really really really nice to know if I'd conclusively failed this thing when the MBE scaling was complete. But instead, I'm waiting, debating whether I should start packing or not.

dans1006 wrote:

Bimmerfan wrote:Would be nice if we could view our MBE scores on the NCBE website

I cannot see any downside in providing people with this information.

The downside is that NCBE would be dealing with more disgruntled examinees which is something NCBE is averse to doing. For example, for as far back as I have score reports (1990s), NCBE used to always release the MBE subscores (i.e. your percentile for Contracts, Con Law, etc). However, in February 2014, NCBE announced that they would no longer release the MBE subscores because they were unnecessary and unreliable. According to NCBE:

In summary, subscores are being eliminated for the following reasons:
• they do not add any information that is not already present in the scaled total scores,
• they are insufficiently reliable to meet testing standards or even for use in guiding student study or curriculum management by law schools,
• over a decade of research has concluded that they are not statistically distinct from the scaled total scores,
• they are often misinterpreted by stakeholders, and
• their continued use would make the MBE too inflexible to respond to the changing legal environment.

See http://seperac.com/pdf/830214-be-abridg ... scores.pdf

Then, amazingly, NCBE decided in 2016 that the subscores were once again important and would be reported (even though based on NCBE’s 2014 logic the 2017 subscores would be even more unreliable since a 2014 MBE subscore was based on 30-31 items while a 2017 MBE subscore was based on only 25 items per MBE subject).

See http://seperac.com/pdf/2016_0831_moeser ... scores.pdf

In my opinion, NCBE stopped releasing the subscores because Civil Procedure was being introduced to the MBE in February 2015 and they didn’t want examinees contacting the bar examiners or appealing because the examinee had good percentiles for Contracts, Con Law, etc and then a bad percentile for Civil Procedure. Personally, I knew quite a few examinees who probably failed in 2015-2016 solely due to Civil Procedure being added to the MBE (however, I can't say for certain because the MBE subscores were not released).

I look at the scores of maybe 500 examinees a year and about 10-20 of these examinees ask me about appealing their scores. I can only imagine how many more examinees contact the bar examiners about appealing their scores. Now suppose an examinee receives his/her MBE score early, makes a life decision based on it, and later fails. These examinees would be much more likely to contact the bar examiners and try to seek some sort of recourse.

Since relative-grading is used by the bar examiners (meaning you are compared to everyone else taking the exam), a high MBE score doesn’t guarantee passing. There is a great paper on it here:
http://seperac.com/pdf/Touro-A%20Reply% ... inhaus.pdf

FYI, due to the increase in MBE, about 2,500 more July examinees should pass. I break-down the July pass rates based on MBE here:
http://seperac.com/pdf/Seperac%20Screen ... %20MBE.png

JoeSeperac wrote:

dans1006 wrote:

Bimmerfan wrote:Would be nice if we could view our MBE scores on the NCBE website

I cannot see any downside in providing people with this information.

The downside is that NCBE would be dealing with more disgruntled examinees which is something NCBE is averse to doing. For example, for as far back as I have score reports (1990s), NCBE used to always release the MBE subscores (i.e. your percentile for Contracts, Con Law, etc). However, in February 2014, NCBE announced that they would no longer release the MBE subscores because they were unnecessary and unreliable. According to NCBE:

In summary, subscores are being eliminated for the following reasons:
• they do not add any information that is not already present in the scaled total scores,
• they are insufficiently reliable to meet testing standards or even for use in guiding student study or curriculum management by law schools,
• over a decade of research has concluded that they are not statistically distinct from the scaled total scores,
• they are often misinterpreted by stakeholders, and
• their continued use would make the MBE too inflexible to respond to the changing legal environment.

See http://seperac.com/pdf/830214-be-abridg ... scores.pdf

Then, amazingly, NCBE decided in 2016 that the subscores were once again important and would be reported (even though based on NCBE’s 2014 logic the 2017 subscores would be even more unreliable since a 2014 MBE subscore was based on 30-31 items while a 2017 MBE subscore was based on only 25 items per MBE subject).

See http://seperac.com/pdf/2016_0831_moeser ... scores.pdf

In my opinion, NCBE stopped releasing the subscores because Civil Procedure was being introduced to the MBE in February 2015 and they didn’t want examinees contacting the bar examiners or appealing because the examinee had good percentiles for Contracts, Con Law, etc and then a bad percentile for Civil Procedure. Personally, I knew quite a few examinees who probably failed in 2015-2016 solely due to Civil Procedure being added to the MBE (however, I can't say for certain because the MBE subscores were not released).

I look at the scores of maybe 500 examinees a year and about 10-20 of these examinees ask me about appealing their scores. I can only imagine how many more examinees contact the bar examiners about appealing their scores. Now suppose an examinee receives his/her MBE score early, makes a life decision based on it, and later fails. These examinees would be much more likely to contact the bar examiners and try to seek some sort of recourse.

Since relative-grading is used by the bar examiners (meaning you are compared to everyone else taking the exam), a high MBE score doesn’t guarantee passing. There is a great paper on it here:
http://seperac.com/pdf/Touro-A%20Reply% ... inhaus.pdf

FYI, due to the increase in MBE, about 2,500 more July examinees should pass. I break-down the July pass rates based on MBE here:
http://seperac.com/pdf/Seperac%20Screen ... %20MBE.png

I'm not sure I follow the logic that releasing the MBE numbers early would lead to more (instead of just earlier) challenges and headaches for the NCBE.

Also, with the paper, I thought the scaling of the MBE score was meant to keep it in line with previous years' tests; not to achieve a desired curve in the way law school tests are "scaled". I may be missing something based on a lack of understanding of the UBE, but that part of the author's argument seems misplaced.

One problem that I see with releasing MBE scores early is that it takes away a certain level of autonomy from the individual testing states. Sure, a lot of states are moving to the UBE, where things are, with no pun intended, quite uniform. But take states like Tennessee, Florida, Virginia, and, yes, Kentucky. Each of these states have flirted with and declined to move to the UBE (though I understand Tennessee is once again strongly considering it) because they want to preserve the autonomy of testing.

Now imagine you're a member of the state board. Every year you already have hordes of examinees hounding you to get their scores out earlier and struggle to corral graders for the essays. You get challenges, calls for regrading, and, yes, pleading ad nauseam. Now imagine the examinees get this information earlier. They get their hopes up, make life choices, and then go ape **** when they find out that, contrary to their decent-looking MBE score, they failed anyway. Desperate people do even more desperate things.

Look, I get the anxiety. I'm nervous as hell and have life choices to make of my own immediately after I get my results. Moreover, if I knew my MBE score, I think I'd have a good idea of the outcome. Still, I don't think it would be a good idea....not even for NCBE to do an MBE Score Service and give you one of the reports on whether you can waive in to another state strictly based on your MBE.

I think I'm just looking at this from a very Kentucky-centric perspective. In Kentucky, if you passed the MBE, statistically speaking, you passed the bar. The people who pass the MBE and fail the essay portion is generally in the single digit range. So I'm not considering all the other issues that this might cause in different jurisdictions.

In a week, I sincerely hope I no longer care about this topic.

dans1006 wrote:I think I'm just looking at this from a very Kentucky-centric perspective. In Kentucky, if you passed the MBE, statistically speaking, you passed the bar. The people who pass the MBE and fail the essay portion is generally in the single digit range. So I'm not considering all the other issues that this might cause in different jurisdictions.

In a week, I sincerely hope I no longer care about this topic.

While TN doesn't have a cut score, it's much the same. People don't fail because of essays (normally, anyway).

But I get it. Waiting sucks. You'll be lucky to know a full week before we do.

diogenes89 wrote:One problem that I see with releasing MBE scores early is that it takes away a certain level of autonomy from the individual testing states. Sure, a lot of states are moving to the UBE, where things are, with no pun intended, quite uniform. But take states like Tennessee, Florida, Virginia, and, yes, Kentucky. Each of these states have flirted with and declined to move to the UBE (though I understand Tennessee is once again strongly considering it) because they want to preserve the autonomy of testing.

Now imagine you're a member of the state board. Every year you already have hordes of examinees hounding you to get their scores out earlier and struggle to corral graders for the essays. You get challenges, calls for regrading, and, yes, pleading ad nauseam. Now imagine the examinees get this information earlier. They get their hopes up, make life choices, and then go ape **** when they find out that, contrary to their decent-looking MBE score, they failed anyway. Desperate people do even more desperate things.

Look, I get the anxiety. I'm nervous as hell and have life choices to make of my own immediately after I get my results. Moreover, if I knew my MBE score, I think I'd have a good idea of the outcome. Still, I don't think it would be a good idea....not even for NCBE to do an MBE Score Service and give you one of the reports on whether you can waive in to another state strictly based on your MBE.

Each state still grades he essay portion, you still have plenty autonomy to make it harder or easier.
Challenge or regrade what? For all UBE jurisdictions and a majority of other states, the score is final, there is no challenge or regrade procedure. Take it or leave it! Lol

dans1006 wrote: I'm not sure I follow the logic that releasing the MBE numbers early would lead to more (instead of just earlier) challenges and headaches for the NCBE.

In my opinion, if changing a policy would result in more challenges/headaches, the bar examiners (who are often full-time attorneys serving as bar examiners part-time) will not do it. For example, in New York, failing examinees receive a score report that details their exam scores, including their individual essay and MPT scores. In contrast, passing examinees only receive their MBE score and total UBE score. With each exam, passing examinees ask me whether they can obtain their individual essay and MPT scores. I can only imagine how many more passing examinees contact NYBOLE to ask for their individual essay and MPT scores. NYBOLE would actually be saving themselves time and energy by giving the same score report to passing examinees. Furthermore, failing examinees can order a copy of their essays by paying $40, but passing examinees cannot. Why not? While I have some theories on this, I think part of the rationale for these different policies is because it could open up NYBOLE to more challenges/headaches.

dans1006 wrote:Also, with the paper, I thought the scaling of the MBE score was meant to keep it in line with previous years' tests; not to achieve a desired curve in the way law school tests are "scaled". I may be missing something based on a lack of understanding of the UBE, but that part of the author's argument seems misplaced.

Bar licensure exams have less to do with minimum competency (their purported intent) and more to do with economic protectionism. For example, in a few states (Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, and South Dakota), less than 100 examinees take that state's bar exam each year. With such a small group, one would think that could be possible for each and every candidate to be qualified to practice law. However, the 20-year pass rate average for these states was between 64%-82%. In Alaska, the highest pass rate over the past ten years was 70%; in Vermont, the highest pass rate over the past ten years was 71%; in North Dakota, the highest pass rate over the past ten years was 83%; and in South Dakota, the highest pass rate over the past ten years was 94%. In the Kleinhaus article, she talks about how relative grading can sometimes lead to situations where minimally competent examinees can still fail the exam because the others in the pool were exceptionally competent. For example, with relative grading, if the seven current justices of the New York Court of Appeals were the only persons to sit for the New York Bar exam, at least two of the justices would fail the exam based on the cut score. However, if criterion-based grading was used (as with the CPA exam), then all seven current justices of the New York Court of Appeals could pass the exam.

JoeSeperac wrote:In Alaska, the highest pass rate over the past ten years was 70%

Dang, that makes the 280 look even worse.

Nonconsecutive wrote:

JoeSeperac wrote:In Alaska, the highest pass rate over the past ten years was 70%

Dang, that makes the 280 look even worse.

The J17 Alaska pass rate should be better than last July (where it was 45% passing). In examining the average pass rates in Alaska over the past 21 years of reported information, the July Overall Pass Rate is 64.3% (990 Overall Passers/1,539 Overall Takers from 1995-2016). The February ABA First-Timers Pass Rate is 78.5% while the July ABA First-Timers Pass Rate is 77%. The February ABA Repeaters Pass Rate is 36% while the July ABA Repeaters Pass Rate is 29.1%.