« The Importance of Apologies | Main | A bunch 'o lawyer friendly apps for professors and practitioners alike »
October 13, 2009
Uniform Bar Exam In The Works??
The Oct. 12, 2009 National Law Journal ran an interesting story entitled Uniform Bar Exam Drawing Closer To Reality.
Some 10 states are expected to sign on. Wow! As the article states:
Next year, at least 10 states are expected to switch to the so-called Uniform Bar Exam, and 22 other jurisdictions are positioned to adopt the test in the next few years. The test, developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, will allow law school graduates to transport their bar scores across state lines without re-taking exams. And backers say a uniform exam will improve the quality of bar exams, particularly in states with small test-development budgets.
The test still has big hurdles to overcome. Several of the biggest legal markets have yet to sign on: New York, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois and Texas so far have taken a pass. Some worry the test will give short shrift to important state law concepts. Others have scheduling problems and scoring concerns. And the test puts a great deal of power in the hands of the NCBE, which gives some state-level bar officials pause.
Even so, the fact that several states have accepted one test may mean a major shift for the profession. Individual states have doggedly clung to their autonomy in testing lawyers, and this would mean giving up that power. "Roughly 10" states have indicated that they will give the uniform test by 2011, said Erica Moeser, president of the NCBE, though she wouldn't provide specifics on which states will actually sign on. However, officials in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri have said they are considering the test. Next month, representatives from the states that will be among the first adopting the test will gather in Phoenix to discuss late-stage details of implementing the exam.
I am not sure how to react to this. On the one hand, I believe that the bar examination is a useless right of passage. What lawyer would be expected to "memorize" the law. The bar exam is a test of memory, not of skill. On the other hand, state law does differ dramatically across state lines. Stay tuned for further developments in this regard.
Mitchell H. Rubinstein
October 13, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Given how useless the bar exam is, and given the increasingly mobile population, this is a great idea. My guess is that several of the big test prep companies will fight this, because this is it likely to hurt their profits in a big way.
Posted by: Lauren | Oct 13, 2009 7:58:53 PM
This is a terrible idea...the differences from state to state will make this exam completely worthless
Posted by: Ike | Oct 13, 2009 11:31:29 PM
Ike,
I respectfully disagree; the exam is already pretty much worthless. I'm somebody who just took the bar exam (and passed!) in July, and I can tell you without hesitation that the amount of things I actually "learned" while studying for the bar exam pales in comparison to the number of things I forgot two days after it was over. Given the monumental hassle involved in taking another state's exam, many attorneys who otherwise would be inclined to take jobs in other jurisdictions (esp. with the economy) are loath to do so unless absolutely necessary.
Posted by: John | Oct 14, 2009 9:22:23 AM
I think we can be pretty certain that Louisiana won't be signing on any time soon.
Posted by: Rick Morgain | Oct 14, 2009 9:51:06 AM
And, you can be sure that Delaware will not agree.They like their essays which are graded subjectively by the Board. The MBE only counts for 40% of the test score, The rest is with the essays which are graded in something akin to a Star Chamber. So, an onbective national test is the last thing they want. They lose control over how to manipulate who gets in and who does noot.
Posted by: Martina | Oct 14, 2009 11:17:52 AM
I just took and passed the bar, too. It's already pretty uniform in some respects, among many states. My state's bar is composed entirely of different multistate tests. I think they grade essays independently of any nationwide organization (they look at model answers, though, and come up with their own little scorecards) and they probably run their own scantron machine. Big whoop; they don't actually write their own questions, and they don't test on ANY state law topics. Many states test only on "multistate" law nowadays.
Posted by: jhn | Oct 14, 2009 4:35:45 PM
As an attorney whose spouse has been very mobile for job-related reasons, I've taken (and passed) three different states' bar exams (New York, Louisiana, and Missouri) over the past 10 years. While each of those states has its own unique laws (particularly LA), studying for and taking the bar exam is NOT what qualified me to practice in that state. To take any bar exam, one must memorize and assimilate massive quantities of very specific information, much of which will be forgotten soon after taking the exam. Any attorney would be ill-advised to rely solely on his or her bar prep knowledge in handling a legal matter in that state. The analytical skills I learned in law school, when combined with the general knowledge I had about the different areas of law, made it fairly straightforward for me to "tweak" my specific knowledge here and there for each separate exam.
For any state that is concerned about attorneys understanding the laws of the state in which they are seeking to practice, a 1 or 2 day seminar for out-of-state applicants detailing those aspects of the law that are unique to the state could probably be administered more efficiently and inexpensively than creating new state-specific bar exams twice yearly.
I'm just sorry I took the Missouri bar exam before they switched to the UBE.
Posted by: Jennifer | Apr 19, 2010 4:20:27 PM
