3 ms·

An actual drop in average scores is probably attributable to a different phenomenon in law schools. Traditionally, law schools would teach classes to prepare s

An actual drop in average scores is probably attributable to a different phenomenon in law schools. Traditionally, law schools would teach classes to prepare students for taking the bar exams (which ironically has very little to do with the actual practice of law) and there has been a major push back to curb bar based teaching for a more practical approach so instead of teaching how to pass the bar they teach how to practice law. Additionally, the actual score to pass both the State Bars and Multi-State Bar has generally increased state by state in order to keep the number of licensed lawyers artificially low. Example, in Florida the passing score is 136 but 10 years ago would have been 131. Those 5 points are not arbitrary they keep a lot of people out and/or force them to retake the bar at a substantial cost. Some failure can be attributable to the historical increases in the passing score, but not in significant drops in average score.

lbaskin 11y ago
> "Traditionally, law schools would teach classes to prepare students for taking the bar exams" Really? When and where? In fact, the opposite is true. Traditionally, law school classes have little to no relation to the actual bar exam (or to the actual practice of law, for that matter - unless you do constitutional appellate litigation). In recent years, some (many?) school have begun teaching to the bar, so to speak - so as to raise their bar passage rate. This has happened primarily post-crash (and the resultant contraction in the market of high-paying legal jobs), to (1) help their students look somewhat more marketable and (2) just as important to them, make the schools look better (both to prospective students and prospective employers). Subsequently, "here has been a major push back to curb bar based teaching." But I don't think the same people who disapprove of teaching to the bar are those behind the movement to teach more real lawyering (workshops, etc.) - I think those who dislike the trend are professors and other legal academics who refuse to admit that they are teachers in (what should be) a vocational school - not philosophers. All too many law professors are wannabe PhD's of economics, policy and/or philosophy who believe they missed their true calling.

lbaskin 11y ago

> "Traditionally, law schools would teach classes to prepare students for taking the bar exams" Really? When and where? In fact, the opposite is true. Traditionally, law school classes have little to no relation to the actual bar exam (or to the actual practice of law, for that matter - unless you do constitutional appellate litigation). In recent years, some (many?) school have begun teaching to the bar, so to speak - so as to raise their bar passage rate. This has happened primarily post-crash (and the resultant contraction in the market of high-paying legal jobs), to (1) help their students look somewhat more marketable and (2) just as important to them, make the schools look better (both to prospective students and prospective employers). Subsequently, "here has been a major push back to curb bar based teaching." But I don't think the same people who disapprove of teaching to the bar are those behind the movement to teach more real lawyering (workshops, etc.) - I think those who dislike the trend are professors and other legal academics who refuse to admit that they are teachers in (what should be) a vocational school - not philosophers. All too many law professors are wannabe PhD's of economics, policy and/or philosophy who believe they missed their true calling.