6 ms·

I liken it to what lawyers go through with the bar here in CA. It's gatekeeping. Just like I don't think the CA bar should have a pass rate in the 20% range,

I liken it to what lawyers go through with the bar here in CA. It's gatekeeping. Just like I don't think the CA bar should have a pass rate in the 20% range, I don't think coding interviews should ask riddles that are nearly impossible to solve on the fly unless you get lucky and memorized THAT riddle in your studying.

taude 5y ago
Is there a shortage of attorneys in California?
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  many people including myself believe that availability of legal services is broadly lacking in the US. not necessarily a shortage of attorneys, but a shortage of attorneys that can do work for anything but top-quintile clients. artificially restricting who is and isn't allowed to perform certain jobs often has that sort of effect.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    Not GP, but I never thought of this side effect before. Thank you for making me aware of it!
- mistrial9 5y ago
  attorneys multiply when left to their own devices, which is often bad for society.. (since like law enforcement and middle management, LOTS of new people every year want the job for all the wrong reasons) so California Bar limits the new attorneys, which both lessens the total number of attorneys, and also advantages the incumbents.
actually_a_dog 5y ago
Except that lawyers have to pass the California bar once in order to get licensed; we SWEs have to pass the "bar" every time we look for a new job.
- bokchoi 5y ago
  Lawyers have to pay dues yearly and take a certain number of CRE (continuing education requirement) hours every year to maintain their license.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    SWEs have to learn new things every day to keep their jobs. But, this is kind of stretching the metaphor past its breaking point, really.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  From what I've heard, the bar is much harder than SWE interviews.
  - pkaye 5y ago
    My first degree was civil engineering and I took the California Engineers in Training exam back in my college days and boy was it tough even though I had stellar grades from a top university. You could bring mountains of reference books to the exam but you had no time to use them. You had to solve endless problems based on fundamental techniques you already learned during your education.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Oh, I'm not about to claim that these licensing exams people in other professions take once and then never worry about again (bar exam, medical boards, etc.) compare in difficulty to a typical SWE interview. But, here me out here: Suppose the CA bar exam were changed in format to be more like a SWE interview. That is, instead of being a 2 day affair consisting of 5 essays of 60 minutes apiece, a 90-minute performance test[0], and 200 multiple choice questions, let's shrink it down to a format that fits in one day and under 5 hours. Now, let's nix the performance test right away, because it would be incredibly difficult to shoehorn in any kind of real, practical task in under 90 minutes. According to [1], it looks like 100 multiple choice questions are allocated 3 hours worth of time. So, basically, our cut down format could be 100 multiple choice and 2-3 essays. So, that's about half the amount of testing that's done currently, more or less. Now, if you have half the amount of testing available, you have a choice: you can cover half as many areas of law, you can cut down the depth of coverage in each area, or some combination of the two. In any case, what you've done is increase the variability in the test. In other words, passing is now more likely to be influenced by exactly which version of the test you get. If there's an area of law you're weak in (say, bird law), it might not even be covered. Conversely, if you're a real expert in bird law, you won't get as much of a chance to shine in the new format. That means our new format both allows somewhat more marginal candidates to pass, and gives up some sensitivity in detecting people who are really, really good. So, in summary, the new format omits any sort of practical task, increases the variability of the test, increases the probability that marginal candidates will get through, and decreases the ability to distinguish truly excellent candidates. Seems to me that's sounding more and more like a typical day-long SWE interview, isn't it? --- [0]: Interestingly, this is essentially a work sample test, which is the thing proven to correlate best with job performance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_test_(bar_exam) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_test_(bar_exam) [1]: https://www.tjsl.edu/academics/bar-prep/california-bar-exam https://www.tjsl.edu/academics/bar-prep/california-bar-exam
hmsshagatsea 5y ago
While I do agree the CA bar is tougher than it should be, a lot of the low passage rate comes from graduates of less-than-stellar schools. If you look into passage rate per school it’s naturally much better at the higher ranked universities.
- enumjorge 5y ago
  Isn’t that almost the definition of gatekeeping? Make the process to enter the law profession so difficult that only students from select universities have a good chance. Of course prospective lawyers should clear a certain level of knowledge before they are allowed to practice, but the passing rate is puzzlingly low. CA law schools, as a group l, really only prepare such a low number of their students to practice?
  - gmadsen 5y ago
    shitty law schools has become a huge problem in the last couple decades. similar to ITT tech or phoenix online. They drastically lower the lsats needed to get in, then almost no one becomes an actual lawyer from that school, but they do get 100K in debt. also, gatekeeping has a negative connotation because it is usually used when it seems unwarranted. If only schools with high quality education are passing students, that doesn't seem like a problem with the gate, but instead with the other schools. I absolutely want lawyers and doctors to be required to pass certain criteria.
  - meta4s 5y ago
    Law school teaches you theory. The practical part is supposed to come from competitive internships. The bar is hard for CA because we go to school for the theory and then no one really teaches you the formulaic way to answer bar essays. Add on top of that it's a lot of memorization and study. Most students I went to school with had egos and thought they had it in the bag only studying on the weekends.
  - hmsshagatsea 5y ago
    Well, not exactly. You need to have a certain level of competancy to be an effective lawyer. Those who arent “good enough” for the better law schools are often preyed upon by overpriced and underresourced schools to give false hope those who couldnt cut the mustard. Not saying you cant be successful if you go to a crappy school, but the chances of it happening are slim to none. Just look at pass rates of Whittier (I think they’re shut down now) or Thomas Jefferson and then look at the tuiton rates. And this isn’t even counting the non-ABA approved schools...

taude 5y ago

Is there a shortage of attorneys in California?

anoonmoose 5y ago
many people including myself believe that availability of legal services is broadly lacking in the US. not necessarily a shortage of attorneys, but a shortage of attorneys that can do work for anything but top-quintile clients. artificially restricting who is and isn't allowed to perform certain jobs often has that sort of effect.
- ghoward 5y ago
  Not GP, but I never thought of this side effect before. Thank you for making me aware of it!
mistrial9 5y ago
attorneys multiply when left to their own devices, which is often bad for society.. (since like law enforcement and middle management, LOTS of new people every year want the job for all the wrong reasons) so California Bar limits the new attorneys, which both lessens the total number of attorneys, and also advantages the incumbents.

actually_a_dog 5y ago

Except that lawyers have to pass the California bar once in order to get licensed; we SWEs have to pass the "bar" every time we look for a new job.

bokchoi 5y ago
Lawyers have to pay dues yearly and take a certain number of CRE (continuing education requirement) hours every year to maintain their license.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  SWEs have to learn new things every day to keep their jobs. But, this is kind of stretching the metaphor past its breaking point, really.
nicoburns 5y ago
From what I've heard, the bar is much harder than SWE interviews.
- pkaye 5y ago
  My first degree was civil engineering and I took the California Engineers in Training exam back in my college days and boy was it tough even though I had stellar grades from a top university. You could bring mountains of reference books to the exam but you had no time to use them. You had to solve endless problems based on fundamental techniques you already learned during your education.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Oh, I'm not about to claim that these licensing exams people in other professions take once and then never worry about again (bar exam, medical boards, etc.) compare in difficulty to a typical SWE interview. But, here me out here: Suppose the CA bar exam were changed in format to be more like a SWE interview. That is, instead of being a 2 day affair consisting of 5 essays of 60 minutes apiece, a 90-minute performance test[0], and 200 multiple choice questions, let's shrink it down to a format that fits in one day and under 5 hours. Now, let's nix the performance test right away, because it would be incredibly difficult to shoehorn in any kind of real, practical task in under 90 minutes. According to [1], it looks like 100 multiple choice questions are allocated 3 hours worth of time. So, basically, our cut down format could be 100 multiple choice and 2-3 essays. So, that's about half the amount of testing that's done currently, more or less. Now, if you have half the amount of testing available, you have a choice: you can cover half as many areas of law, you can cut down the depth of coverage in each area, or some combination of the two. In any case, what you've done is increase the variability in the test. In other words, passing is now more likely to be influenced by exactly which version of the test you get. If there's an area of law you're weak in (say, bird law), it might not even be covered. Conversely, if you're a real expert in bird law, you won't get as much of a chance to shine in the new format. That means our new format both allows somewhat more marginal candidates to pass, and gives up some sensitivity in detecting people who are really, really good. So, in summary, the new format omits any sort of practical task, increases the variability of the test, increases the probability that marginal candidates will get through, and decreases the ability to distinguish truly excellent candidates. Seems to me that's sounding more and more like a typical day-long SWE interview, isn't it? --- [0]: Interestingly, this is essentially a work sample test, which is the thing proven to correlate best with job performance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_test_(bar_exam) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_test_(bar_exam) [1]: https://www.tjsl.edu/academics/bar-prep/california-bar-exam https://www.tjsl.edu/academics/bar-prep/california-bar-exam

hmsshagatsea 5y ago

While I do agree the CA bar is tougher than it should be, a lot of the low passage rate comes from graduates of less-than-stellar schools. If you look into passage rate per school it’s naturally much better at the higher ranked universities.

enumjorge 5y ago
Isn’t that almost the definition of gatekeeping? Make the process to enter the law profession so difficult that only students from select universities have a good chance. Of course prospective lawyers should clear a certain level of knowledge before they are allowed to practice, but the passing rate is puzzlingly low. CA law schools, as a group l, really only prepare such a low number of their students to practice?
- gmadsen 5y ago
  shitty law schools has become a huge problem in the last couple decades. similar to ITT tech or phoenix online. They drastically lower the lsats needed to get in, then almost no one becomes an actual lawyer from that school, but they do get 100K in debt. also, gatekeeping has a negative connotation because it is usually used when it seems unwarranted. If only schools with high quality education are passing students, that doesn't seem like a problem with the gate, but instead with the other schools. I absolutely want lawyers and doctors to be required to pass certain criteria.
- meta4s 5y ago
  Law school teaches you theory. The practical part is supposed to come from competitive internships. The bar is hard for CA because we go to school for the theory and then no one really teaches you the formulaic way to answer bar essays. Add on top of that it's a lot of memorization and study. Most students I went to school with had egos and thought they had it in the bag only studying on the weekends.
- hmsshagatsea 5y ago
  Well, not exactly. You need to have a certain level of competancy to be an effective lawyer. Those who arent “good enough” for the better law schools are often preyed upon by overpriced and underresourced schools to give false hope those who couldnt cut the mustard. Not saying you cant be successful if you go to a crappy school, but the chances of it happening are slim to none. Just look at pass rates of Whittier (I think they’re shut down now) or Thomas Jefferson and then look at the tuiton rates. And this isn’t even counting the non-ABA approved schools...