Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or it could mean they came out of school knowing less than they needed to know to pass the bar exam in CA
This is demonstrably false. CA bar exam test takers score higher on average on the multi-state portion of the bar exam compared to other states. The lower bar passage rate is due to the high cut score. It’s unfortunate you make these uninformed statements even though the information is easily accessible.
or it could mean its because California is one of the few States where you don't have to go to Law School. I imagine this means there a lot of peoples whose Ego's or just with a what the hell attitude go and take the test and fail.
That doesn't seem to make up a significant number of people taking the CA bar exam. For instance, out of the 5,303 people who took the February 2018 CA bar exam, only 26 did so after completing the 4 year legal apprenticeship process needed to take the exam without going to an ABA accredited law school: https://www.thefashionlaw.com/kim-ka...ol%20graduates).
In 2014, out of the 83,963 people who took the bar exam throughout the country, only 60 did so via the apprenticeship program (CA is among less than a handful of states that allow this alternative method): https://priceonomics.com/how-to-be-a...to-law-school/
I wager this is largely because--absent being someone like Kim Kardashian--reputable firms will laugh in your face and throw you out the door if you seek employment this way
You should take that up with those who pushed to lower the score in order to have more minority applicants pass.
As I wrote before, there were legitimate reasons to lower the CA bar passing score, namely due to the fact that CA was out of whack with the rest of the nation and seemed to have a higher passing score as a way of limiting the number of attorneys in the state. That, to me, isn't a legitimate reason to set a passing score; it should only be about basic competency from where I stand.
Moving on, while such an effort to limit the number of attorneys should start way before the bar, I am ultimately not sure that the government can set limits on how many law school graduates there can be each year. While government could limit the number of law school seats at public universities, private universities that meet accreditation standards would be able to enroll as many students as they wish.
I don’t need to take it up with anyone. The court has finally decided to make the right move and not take a laissez-faire approach, as they have historically, after reviewing the most recent data. Those who are opposed to lowering the cut score should take it up with justices. It is, as they say, fait accompli.
I don’t need to take it up with anyone. The court has finally decided to make the right move and not take a laissez-faire approach, as they have historically, after reviewing the most recent data. Those who are opposed to lowering the cut score should take it up with justices. It is, as they say, fait accompli.
And, again, the court did so after being hounded by powerful legal organizations and professionals to increase the score as a way to increase diversity among the ranks, which made your comment to the OP bizarre. Everything else in your post was fine from where I stand. It's your attack on the OP for not being "nuanced" that I took issue with as the OP was responding claims that the California Supreme Court took this step after bowing to pressure from such groups for such a purpose.
This is demonstrably false. CA bar exam test takers score higher on average on the multi-state portion of the bar exam compared to other states. The lower bar passage rate is due to the high cut score. It’s unfortunate you make these uninformed statements even though the information is easily accessible.
It's actually not false. If the poster you responded to claimed that the exam takers knew less than what was needed to show basic competency, your rebuttal pointing to the multistate portion would be well taken. But it is absolutely correct that "they came out of school knowing less than they needed to know to pass the bar exam in CA." If they came out of school knowing what was necessary to pass the exam (or learned what was necessary to pass via bar review), then more would have passed the exam, regardless of the higher passing score required. That they didn't shows that there was a knowledge deficit. The point about whether CA should have had such a high passing score requirement doesn't change this fact.
And, again, the court did so after being hounded by powerful legal organizations and professionals to increase the score as a way to increase diversity among the ranks, which made your comment to the OP bizarre. Everything else in your post was fine from where I stand. It's your attack on the OP for not being "nuanced" that I took issue with as the OP was responding claims that the California Supreme Court took this step after bowing to pressure from such groups for such a purpose.
Of course the OP is decidedly lacking in nuance. The OP failed to mention that a number of underrepresented minorities, as well as test takers of all demographics, who failed to gain admission to the bar in California because of its cut score of 144, very likely would have been qualified in other states, including NY. California gaining more competent, diverse lawyers is a positive development for the legal profession and good for business. You think in-house counsel looking for outside representation isn’t gonna pay attention to the diversity, or lack thereof, in the firms competing for their business?
Again, the CA bar isn’t admitting unqualified lawyers by lowering its cut score closer to the national average, it is attracting more competent, diverse lawyers in a minority-majority state where diversity is a key strength. The OP’s hysteria is entirely frivolous. If you don’t value diversity, practice in a smaller legal market where diversity isn’t valued. I’m sure some of these markets exist. Not in California though.
Yawn to the OP’s hysteria. You can go on and keep defending racially motivated hysteria. Be well.
Of course the OP is decidedly lacking in nuance. The OP failed to mention that a number of underrepresented minorities, as well as test takers of all demographics, who failed to gain admission to the bar in California because of its cut score of 144, very likely would have been qualified in other states, including NY. California gaining more competent, diverse lawyers is a positive development for the legal profession and good for business. You think in-house counsel looking for outside representation isn’t gonna pay attention to the diversity, or lack thereof, in the firms competing for their business?
Again, the CA bar isn’t admitting unqualified lawyers by lowering its cut score closer to the national average, it is attracting more competent, diverse lawyers in a minority-majority state where diversity is a key strength. The OP’s hysteria is entirely frivolous. If you don’t value diversity, practice in a smaller legal market where diversity isn’t valued. I’m sure some of these markets exist. Not in California though....
Lowering the cut score will admit lesser-qualified attorneys than before, not "more competent" lawyers. How do you not understand that? It will attract more minority lawyers, probably, but a lower-scored-test will not attract "more competent" lawyers.
Let's think about the clients. They are the people who may suffer with the new tests.
If a client wants a lawyer of a certain racial minority, then they would be best served by a higher-scoring minority lawyer than a lower-scoring one.
Some people (of all races) are very poor test-takers. However, test-taking is a skill that correlates strongly to being able to handle stressful situations, and one wants an attorney who can handle stress. Going forward, California clients may simply insist on being represented by attorneys who passed the California bar before 2020 (an easy year to remember, thanks to COVID-19, the election and BLM).
Lowering the cut score will admit lesser-qualified attorneys than before, not "more competent" lawyers. How do you not understand that? It will attract more minority lawyers, probably, but a lower-scored-test will not attract "more competent" lawyers.
Let's think about the clients. They are the people who may suffer with the new tests.
If a client wants a lawyer of a certain racial minority, then they would be best served by a higher-scoring minority lawyer than a lower-scoring one.
Some people (of all races) are very poor test-takers. However, test-taking is a skill that correlates strongly to being able to handle stressful situations, and one wants an attorney who can handle stress. Going forward, California clients may simply insist on being represented by attorneys who passed the California bar before 2020 (an easy year to remember, thanks to COVID-19, the election and BLM).
First, the tests aren’t new (except for the online part). They’re just changing the cutoff for admittance to the bar. Second, you assume good test takers make better lawyers. Does the California bar have evidence showing a positive correlation between one’s score on the CA bar exam and the quality delivered to clients 5 years down the road, 10 years down the road? What is the incremental boost in quality delivered for someone who scored a 150 vs someone who scored a 144, previously the just passing score? If there truly were a predictive value in the bar exam score above a certain cut off, don’t you think firms would have lobbied for the bar to release the scores so they have an additional, predictive metric to differentiate between job applicants?
I don’t know much about this, but I would guess large clients care about the reputation and experience of the firm, the professionalism of the attorneys, the rates charged, the diversity of the team, the schools from which the attorneys graduated, and other soft factors. No one ever puts their LSAT score, SAT score on their firm website or resume. How gauche. And lawyers never advertise their bar exam score because 1. if you pass, you pass and most never know how they scored, and 2. no one cares.
First, the tests aren’t new (except for the online part). They’re just changing the cutoff for admittance to the bar. Second, you assume good test takers make better lawyers. Does the California bar have evidence showing a positive correlation between one’s score on the CA bar exam and the quality delivered to clients 5 years down the road, 10 years down the road? What is the incremental boost in quality delivered for someone who scored a 150 vs someone who scored a 144, previously the just passing score? If there truly were a predictive value in the bar exam score above a certain cut off, don’t you think firms would have lobbied for the bar to release the scores so they have an additional, predictive metric to differentiate between job applicants?
I don’t know much about this, but I would guess large clients care about the reputation and experience of the firm, the professionalism of the attorneys, the rates charged, the diversity of the team, the schools from which the attorneys graduated, and other soft factors. No one ever puts their LSAT score, SAT score on their firm website or resume. How gauche. And lawyers never advertise their bar exam score because 1. if you pass, you pass and most never know how they scored, and 2. no one cares.
What do you mean by "diversity"? Different skin colors? If I need a lawyer, I just want the best one I can afford. Why would diversity matter?
What do you mean by "diversity"? Different skin colors? If I need a lawyer, I just want the best one I can afford. Why would diversity matter?
Diversity matters to clients for many different reasons. The important thing is that large clients often want to see a diverse team working on their matters. Just because it isn’t important to you, it doesn’t mean it isn’t important to others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
