Bar observations part 3
More thoughts on my bar results, maybe it is the analyst in me, or the NT part of my temperament that has to dissect things to the core, but I can’t help myself. A few more observations. First of all, the perception of the test itself as a licensing test assigns a loaded view of competency of the lawyer who takes it when it could not be further from that. As one of the professors that taught my bar prep course put it, “use the materials and methods you learn in this course to pass the bar, but if you use the same materials and methods to practice, you will be DIS-barred.” **nervous laughter from the lecture hall of recently minted JDs** – at which point myself and I’m sure several others thought to themselves “then why the hell do we have to take this test?!!” However anyone who hasn’t gone to law school (and unfortunately, some of those who took the bar and were fortunate enough to pass the first time without any hitches) doesn’t know this part.
Secondly, the subjective nature of the grading is suspect, which even in the guidance issued by the bar cites a holistic method of grading which is in turn curved with other applicants who took the exam. For applying an arbitrary pass/fail mark instead of a sliding scale tied to a reportable score, a holistic and subjective method of grading is definitely suspect.
Thirdly is the insistence to test on the nuances between federal and state laws, and obsolete english common law legal doctrine, much of which may never come up again in the attorney’s lifetime of practice. I can’t even count how many times a professor in the bar exam prep course told us that we needed to know a certain law only for the bar exam and we could count on never having to ever think about it ever again.
All in all it really seems that the exam is more of a conformity test if anything, in saying this I mean a conformity of test taking methods which has little or no relevance to the actual practice of law since the majority of the substantive aspects can be researched at a later time when the issue comes up. I don’t buy this whole “It tests what you learned in law school” because none of my law school exams were anything like this, and further, I know way too many practicing attorneys now that have passed the bar but after talking to them now, I’m pretty sure they would flunk this test if they had to take it again.
Don’t get me wrong, it is an extremely difficult test, probably the hardest test I’ve ever taken in my entire experience in the ivory tower, but what aggravates me is that the reasons why it is hard, and how utterly pointless it is to make it this difficult. It’s not that the concepts in it of themselves are hard to understand intellectually, instead it really tests one’s ability to take tests. In fact now that I’ve been through one round of the exam, I’m convinced that someone who never went to law school could possibly take a class and pass a bar exam, maybe by a thin margin, but still possible for someone who is just good at taking tests. Instead what really makes it difficult is the format, the sheer volume of material that you are expected to regurgitate over 2 days, in addition to the pass/fall, all or nothing format with not references or tie-in to the actual practice of law. In other words, it’s a complete waste of time in terms of substance, on the other hand it serves as a money making tool for the state licensing boards.
The harder question for me at this point is when am I going to do this thing again, and in what jurisdiction? Given the depressing state of the legal job market, and with the responsibilities of providing for a baby on the way, I have just about no economic incentives to take it again. I’m gainfully employed right now with no genuine concerns as far as job security (knock on wood). Further, I’m actually making more than I would probably expect as an entry level attorney, at least from what I’ve seen is out there as far as job openings. Also, the work/life balance at my current job can’t be beat, especially with the prospects of having a baby on the way, I’d like to spend as much time with him as possible, not working 60-80hours a week at the office. Therefore it makes no sense to obligate myself to pay annual dues and pay tuition on continuing legal education credits for a license that I’m not using (well not officially)? And the way that reciprocity of licenses is set up currently, even if I take this test again and pass, I would have to take the Hawaii bar exam anyway, if Hana, the baby and I decide to move back home some day.