Bar Observations Part 2
I can objectively say that my results firmly reaffirm my earlier impressions about 2 weeks into my bar prep class that this anything but a legal competency test, nor is it even remotely close to a test of one’s ability to practice in the real world.
I base this on the fact that everything we are tested on is an oversimplified version of the massive volume of theories we covered in the 1L and 2L courses, sheer human nature and circumstances would require much more depth of analysis. The format itself puts the test taker to put together a legal analysis and counsel on paper in a 25 min time period on 11 different legal topics purely from memory without any references or time to consult co-counsel or more experienced lawyers in the area. You would most likely be disbarred for ineffective assistance of counsel if you practiced in this way. Secondly, it seems that the test is more of an economic barrier to entry than anything else, after talking to some of my classmates that did pass the bar, they were pretty much honest about the fact that they didn’t feel any more competent or prepared to practice law after passing.
What’s I’ve been feeling a lot of lately is the same disconnected parity of achievement and accurate emotion that made law school difficult, when you do well, you feel like a bit of a badass at first, but then later on realize that it was just a check in another meaningless check box on an endless list of classes, requirements and required tasks, but on the flip side when you got a lower than expected grade, or in this case when you failed to “make the cut” you feel 100 times worse. Only thing is this time you have to do it again.
The other fatal flaw of the exam in my opinion is the overall pass/fail nature of the test. Failing the bar exam is a pretty crushing blow to one’s confidence and sense of ability, especially when just a few months ago you’ve gotten your diploma and been congratulated by all of your family and friends. The exam is really unnecessary given all the flaming hoops and hurdles that you go through to apply to law school, get accepted, make it past the first year, and ultimately graduate. To me it makes no sense why an applicant should be denied the opportunity to practice if they got a low score in a single topic area while getting passing scores in 11/12 of the other areas, especially if that low score was in an area that the applicant never expects to practice in. I hear that the CPA exam is more like this, once you reach a certain score on a section of the exam, you can go back and focus on the areas that you were deficient on, instead of having to take the whole thing over again. Oh, and if you decide to move jobs that take you to another part of the country, chances are you have to take another bar exam for that state due to the lack of reciprocity. So it never ends.
In my opinion short of setting up a nationally recognized test, or abolishing the test all together, what would make even more sense is to at least make it a reportable score like the LSAT or GRE from which you take to your employer who then decides if your score is high enough for them to hire you. I could see if you are looking to work in ABC law, then a demonstrated proficiency in ABC law would be of most interest to a prospective employer. It could also serve as a means of employers weeding out certain candidates, thus saving some of the hassles in reading applications, interviewing and hiring for both applicants and employers. Perhaps even more useful, it would give the recently rejected job applicant something to strive for, a higher score maybe to make their resume stand out more. But of course like Hana likes to point out when it comes to a lot of things in life, especially most of my adventures in the legal profession, that would make way too much common sense.