Strong MBE = AUTO bar pass Forum

[stratocophic]

Looks right to me, GA's average MBE score for accredited non-John Marshall lawl students is about 150, and passing is a 270 combined MBE section and essay/MPT section.

They won't even grade your essays if you get less than a 115 on the MBE (guessing because the MBE is just scantron and if you're a moron they don't want to waste time reading your written drivel). If you hit just above the average on the MBE, you're basically home free because you can pass with a written score so bad that if it was your MBE score they wouldn't even bother grading it.

Yeah, in GA, you can just focus on the MBE and do fine. 2 of the essay questions are the practical ones that take zero knowledge and are totally ace-able if you graduated from law school. The 4 subject matter essays are mostly made up by MBE subjects (last summer's exam was ALL MBE subjects). 80-90% of the points are purely MBE subjects. That percentage was closer to 95-100% last summer.

Sweet, thx for the heads up

[jeeptiger09]

I literally cannot find jack shit about how my state's exam is graded. All I know is 40/60 and the passing score is 350. So a 160 MBE means you need a 190/300 on the essays. No idea what that means.

All in all this shit doesn't seem to difficult.

Same state. From Barbri:

MBE: 128 raw is about 140 scaled, which is a pretty safe zone, so if you can hit 64% correct, you'll be pretty solid.
State: Essays are curved on a 10-point scale, 6-7 is pass (from my interpretation of what they told us).

So it seems:
-128 (raw) on MBE + 72-84 (raw) on State = pass. How they scale it to 500 is beyond me.

But let's get 350s. Team on three.

[thelawdoctor]

I think that the sections should ALL have to get a minimum passing and then an overall passing score too (similar to ASVAB)

If you can't write an essay you shouldn't be allowed to be a lawyer even if you get 100% on the Multiple Choice.

[rad lulz]

I think that the sections should ALL have to get a minimum passing and then an overall passing score too (similar to ASVAB)

If you can't write an essay you shouldn't be allowed to be a lawyer even if you get 100% on the Multiple Choice.

As a current bar studier, I disagree

[Bronte]

I think that the sections should ALL have to get a minimum passing and then an overall passing score too (similar to ASVAB)

If you can't write an essay you shouldn't be allowed to be a lawyer even if you get 100% on the Multiple Choice.

The test is not effective as a measure of competency and barely even purports to be. Lawyers aren't in the business of memorizing vast swaths of blackletter law and frantically writing unresearched essays. The test is essentially just another barrier to entry. It could function just as well to that effect if were solely multiple choice.

[run26.2]

This is not true, at least in California.

I scored 150 on the MBE in California and did not pass the bar.

I had a consistent score on every PT/essay as well. I was close, but no luck.

40% or lower, MBE is still huge but it's harder to pass by just MBE.

CA Bar weighs the MBE only 35%. So this definitely doesn't work in CA.

Also CA Bar is just hard in general. You basically need a 144 MBE to stay on track to pass, any lower and you need to better on the essays to make up. So your 150, only added got you 21 points of extra room on your writing (out of 1400 passing average for writing).

Illinois for example, you are on track for passing with a 132, so the 150 gets you are ton of space on the writing because there is a bigger gap and it's 50% (compared to 35% CA).

Basically, CA weighs it less, and just has a higher standard.

All of the analysis above is counteracted by the fact that most people still score in a narrow band on the CA bar. It is fairly hard to score below a 55 or above 70. Most essay scores are 60 or 65, the former the highest failing and the latter the lowest passing score.

Because of this, I actually think focusing on the MBE is a legitimate way to pass the CA bar (I know someone who did this and passed). You just have to not suck on essays. Note that I did not say you need to not forget or to learn the law: you can literally make up what you don't know if your analysis is good and still get a decent grade on the essay.

ETA: Earlier analysis of this exact subject: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0#p6116577

[thelawdoctor]

I think that the sections should ALL have to get a minimum passing and then an overall passing score too (similar to ASVAB)

If you can't write an essay you shouldn't be allowed to be a lawyer even if you get 100% on the Multiple Choice.

As a current bar studier, I disagree

I'm not saying that it wouldn't suck for the test taker, but if you can't even write a simple essay, then that person does not appear ready for the job. Life isn't a multiple choice exam where you get the answer and three wrong answers to weed out. (although guessing does still count I guess)

[kalvano]

I think that the sections should ALL have to get a minimum passing and then an overall passing score too (similar to ASVAB)

If you can't write an essay you shouldn't be allowed to be a lawyer even if you get 100% on the Multiple Choice.

As a current bar studier, I disagree

I'm not saying that it wouldn't suck for the test taker, but if you can't even write a simple essay, then that person does not appear ready for the job. Life isn't a multiple choice exam where you get the answer and three wrong answers to weed out. (although guessing does still count I guess)

The real-life practice of law also doesn't require writing a dozen intense essays completely from memory, either. You can go and look stuff up and make sure you have the right answer, not have to know about all the laws in your head and spit them back within a narrow time window.

[09042014]

I think that the sections should ALL have to get a minimum passing and then an overall passing score too (similar to ASVAB)

If you can't write an essay you shouldn't be allowed to be a lawyer even if you get 100% on the Multiple Choice.

As a current bar studier, I disagree

I'm not saying that it wouldn't suck for the test taker, but if you can't even write a simple essay, then that person does not appear ready for the job. Life isn't a multiple choice exam where you get the answer and three wrong answers to weed out. (although guessing does still count I guess)

I'll let the people paying 400 dollars an hour of my legal work determine that. Licensing is a scam.

[thelawdoctor]

I think that the sections should ALL have to get a minimum passing and then an overall passing score too (similar to ASVAB)

If you can't write an essay you shouldn't be allowed to be a lawyer even if you get 100% on the Multiple Choice.

As a current bar studier, I disagree

I'm not saying that it wouldn't suck for the test taker, but if you can't even write a simple essay, then that person does not appear ready for the job. Life isn't a multiple choice exam where you get the answer and three wrong answers to weed out. (although guessing does still count I guess)

I'll let the people paying 400 dollars an hour of my legal work determine that. Licensing is a scam.

yeah, we should let random homeless drunks into court................dang scams.

[09042014]

As a current bar studier, I disagree

I'm not saying that it wouldn't suck for the test taker, but if you can't even write a simple essay, then that person does not appear ready for the job. Life isn't a multiple choice exam where you get the answer and three wrong answers to weed out. (although guessing does still count I guess)

I'll let the people paying 400 dollars an hour of my legal work determine that. Licensing is a scam.

yeah, we should let random homeless drunks into court................dang scams.

Just so long as the homeless drunk has a vague knowledge of Suretyship and Commercial paper, then it's A-OKAY.

Oh what a profession.

[thelawdoctor]

CA would seem to agree with you on that one.

[Bronte]

I'll let the people paying 400 dollars an hour of my legal work determine that. Licensing is a scam.

yeah, we should let random homeless drunks into court................dang scams.

If they got rid of the bar exam, they would replace it with a requirement that you have a JD if that's not already a requirement. If a random homeless drunk could make it through law school, he could probably pass the bar. The bar keeps very few people from practicing law. Passage rates are usually 75-90%, and you can take the test multiple times.

[run26.2]

I'll let the people paying 400 dollars an hour of my legal work determine that. Licensing is a scam.

yeah, we should let random homeless drunks into court................dang scams.

If they got rid of the bar exam, they would replace it with a requirement that you have a JD if that's not already a requirement. If a random homeless drunk could make it through law school, he could probably pass the bar. The bar keeps very few people from practicing law. Passage rates are usually 75-90%, and you can take the test multiple times.

Even assuming the percentages you quote are correct, your chances of failing are higher if you have already failed it in the past. So arguably, it does help keep the worst bar takers out of the profession.

I'm actually starting to think the bar exam is not that bad of a tool. While clearly it does not simulate exactly what you do as a lawyer, it does approximate your ability to make arguments under pressure as well as complete a few discrete tasks within a set period of time. To that extent, it does approximate a couple of the most basic and fundamental things that a lawyer does. For that reason, I think that bar is useful for the legal profession.

[Holly Golightly]

The ABA should just completely redo their lawl school accreditation and stop accrediting shitty schools. Then get rid of the bar. Done.

[run26.2]

The ABA should just completely redo their lawl school accreditation and stop accrediting shitty schools. Then get rid of the bar. Done.

Because the test for getting into law school and the tests/classes in law school are good proxies for whether you could succeed in the law? I disagree.

[09042014]

The ABA should just completely redo their lawl school accreditation and stop accrediting shitty schools. Then get rid of the bar. Done.

Because the test for getting into law school and the tests/classes in law school are good proxies for whether you could succeed in the law? I disagree.

And you think the bar is better?

Regardless, why do we have to predict success as a lawyer, we can just let it play out.

[run26.2]

The ABA should just completely redo their lawl school accreditation and stop accrediting shitty schools. Then get rid of the bar. Done.

Because the test for getting into law school and the tests/classes in law school are good proxies for whether you could succeed in the law? I disagree.

And you think the bar is better?

Regardless, why do we have to predict success as a lawyer, we can just let it play out.

I do think the bar is better, if only for the reason that a sizeable percentage of people actually fail the bar. How many people fail a law school class or fail out of school altogether?

The problem with just letting it play out is that people don't have enough money to go from one lawyer to the next. Companies might, but not individuals.

[lukertin]

yeah, we should let random homeless drunks into court................dang scams.

ITE, the chance said random homeless drunk has a JD? Probably 1 in 3.

[09042014]

The ABA should just completely redo their lawl school accreditation and stop accrediting shitty schools. Then get rid of the bar. Done.

Because the test for getting into law school and the tests/classes in law school are good proxies for whether you could succeed in the law? I disagree.

And you think the bar is better?

Regardless, why do we have to predict success as a lawyer, we can just let it play out.

I do think the bar is better, if only for the reason that a sizeable percentage of people actually fail the bar. How many people fail a law school class or fail out of school altogether?

The problem with just letting it play out is that people don't have enough money to go from one lawyer to the next. Companies might, but not individuals.

Well a sizable amount of people don't fail multiple times at decent schools. In most states, 95%+ of the takers eventually pass. It's not a high bar to meet. Might as well not have one at all.

And if you wanna keep tards out of the profession, the LSAT is the best way of doing it because they won't waste 3 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars getting a worthless degree.

160 LSAT minimum is a lot more humane.

[deebs]

Thanks for this, taking it in illinois as well. I was thinking about not doing anymore of these awful video lectures and just studying the outlines and taking all the practice questions and using the flashcard database. This just about confirms that's going to be my approach from here on out.

[run26.2]

Because the test for getting into law school and the tests/classes in law school are good proxies for whether you could succeed in the law? I disagree.

And you think the bar is better?

Regardless, why do we have to predict success as a lawyer, we can just let it play out.

I do think the bar is better, if only for the reason that a sizeable percentage of people actually fail the bar. How many people fail a law school class or fail out of school altogether?

The problem with just letting it play out is that people don't have enough money to go from one lawyer to the next. Companies might, but not individuals.

Well a sizable amount of people don't fail multiple times at decent schools. In most states, 95%+ of the takers eventually pass. It's not a high bar to meet. Might as well not have one at all.

And if you wanna keep tards out of the profession, the LSAT is the best way of doing it because they won't waste 3 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars getting a worthless degree.

160 LSAT minimum is a lot more humane.

Again, the LSAT is even further from what you would be doing as an actual lawyer than the bar. It makes no sense to use it to keep people out of the legal profession. Your position would be better served by either advocating for the bar exam to be given after, say, 1 year of law school or by making the bar more difficult.

As to the first proposal, this has the benefits of diminishing sunk costs, while giving individuals and schools the opportunity to prepare students for the test. The second and/or third years could possibly be optional. The ABA could evaluate whether to require these additional years, for instance to allow for specialization or to require clinical training.

Using the LSAT (in its current form) to keep people out of the profession makes little sense, though.

[lukertin]

Using the LSAT (in its current form) to keep people out of the profession makes little sense, though.

But as many people as possible should be kept out of this profession. And the overwhelming percentage of such people had poor LSATs.

So why not?

[run26.2]

Using the LSAT (in its current form) to keep people out of the profession makes little sense, though.

But as many people as possible should be kept out of this profession. And the overwhelming percentage of such people had poor LSATs.

So why not?

I don't agree with the unqualified assertion that as many people as possible should be kept out of the profession. But adopting your premise, the simple answer is that the LSAT is not a good gauge of whether you'll be a good lawyer. That's like saying no one under 6'3" can be a lawyer. It keeps people out, but not for the right reasons.

[TaipeiMort]

Using the LSAT (in its current form) to keep people out of the profession makes little sense, though.

But as many people as possible should be kept out of this profession. And the overwhelming percentage of such people had poor LSATs.

So why not?

I don't agree with the unqualified assertion that as many people as possible should be kept out of the profession. But adopting your premise, the simple answer is that the LSAT is not a good gauge of whether you'll be a good lawyer. That's like saying no one under 6'3" can be a lawyer. It keeps people out, but not for the right reasons.

I don't think medicine should use the MCAT and science grades as a way to weed out people. It may be the only objective way they have to eliminate people-- it keeps them out, but not for the right reasons. More important is someone who has "heart" and "wants it more" who might be a "bad test taker" and such.