A lot of comments here seem to be speculating about DEI. I'm the last person who would ever defend a DEI push, but the requirements really don't seem to support

A lot of comments here seem to be speculating about DEI. I'm the last person who would ever defend a DEI push, but the requirements really don't seem to support this narrative. > Candidates will spend 675 hours working under the supervision of an experienced attorney [...] submit at least eight examples of legal writing, take the lead in at least two initial client interviews or client counseling sessions, and head up two negotiations > a Supervising Attorney [...] is an active member of the Oregon State Bar [...] has no record of public discipline in any jurisdiction to which they are or have been members [...] is employed by the same Employer as the Provisional Licensee This looks, instead, like the standard apprenticeship model, and while I'd be slightly wary of the journeyman->master requirements, the apprentice->journeyman requirements seem pretty exhaustive and likely to produce results as good as or better than the bar exam. It takes less than 675 hours to study to pass the bar, but you were going to spend that amount of time informally apprenticed and do this much work anyway. Meanwhile, the bar exam has got its problems, that make replacing it with a formal apprenticeship seem like a great idea. To quote a lawyer I know: "The bar exam does not teach useful or meaningful law. You don't learn <state> law on the <state> bar exam. You are tested about imaginary "common" law concepts that are often specifically replaced by statutes in a given state. If I tried to use the bar exam definition of burglary in <state>, that would be malpractice. In fact no jurisdiction uses the common law definition of burglary." Law is extremely state-by-state, and a theory-based test on an imaginary legal code, while productive, is likely to be a lot less productive than graded real legal work on the real legal code.