b290 wrote:
Exactly. That's why I didn't start comparing July and Feb numbers. Add also the higher %age of foreign takers for Feb - most of whom get their first exposure to bar exam fundamentals 2 months before the exam (they're not in law school to get the subjects, and multiple-choice is still largely American exam practice) . E.g. NY has close to 50% foreign takers in Feb . Factor in what you mentioned, and it's almost like they're different tests
Also, I don't know why the NCBE decided to make it out of 175. Apparently, the NCBE loves to use the February exams for its "experiments". It's nonsense.
Illinois RAISED its passing score?
You'd think with nonsense in Springfield & Chicago, along with the funding crises, that the state would actually want more tax-paying attorneys.
My $.02
It was 2015 when the cut score was moved from 264 to 266 and there were serious talks about moving it to 268 and eventually to 272, however those plans have been scrapped - I think in large part because numbers for February fell a lot and July (though still relatively strong) are weaker than they were historically. An even higher cut score isn't necessary to winnow out some applicants because the Illinois score increased was paired with the inclusion of Civ Pro as a subject in 2015 - that appears to be more than enough to drop pass rates.
Here is a good story discussing the numbers;
http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/archi ... m-11-16-15
The larger discussion, one that naturally has many moving parts because there is no "one thing" that has caused the score drops and then pass rate decreases is about how law schools are preparing students for the bar. When I entered law school and even upon passing my first bar (self-study, worked full time up to the day before the bar) I really put the onnous on the student to prepare and didnt really consider much criticism for my school (or any school generally), but the more I think about how I was educated and prepared during my three years the more angry I become because not every student is me (I benefited from being a good test taker, did well on standardized tests, I have a great memory and had seven years of experience as a judicial clerk to help guide me in understanding legal jargon and concepts) but I think law schools are doing a disservice to their students in many respects. The top issues that come to mine for me are:
#1 - Admitting students that should not be in law school. This isn't to sound elite or snobbish, but for every "hard-luck" story of a person with a subpar LSAT score who "makes good" there appear to be many more who may struggle through, graduate and then never pass the bar. This is unconscionable to me to take someone's money (or let them incur insane levels of debt) when their likelihood of earning it back is lowered. Keeping standards (even at tier 4 schools) would be a net benefit to the legal community.
#2 - Poor preparation in the core subjects. The core is the MBE topics. Too many schools now are offering "extra credit," "participation points" and other ways for students to keep their GPA at or above the desirable 3.0 that has absolutely nothing to do with grasping the legal concepts. If you don't know the core subjects you are at a tremendous disadvantage for the bar examination as in most subjects they represent far more than 50% - most of the subjects also appear in the essay component.
#3 - Poor test preparation. Some schools, mine included, do offer niche' classes teaching MBE/Essays test strategies - just how effective they are certainly is a case-by-case study, but the real dilemma is how just about every other class is ultimately tested. Few, if any, have any sort of multiple choice component. Others may test "essay writing" but not in the way the bar examination tests it. Most jurisdictions having 20 or 30 minutes per essay type questions for the bar, meanwhile, professors and law schools have three-hour long marathon sessions for the final exam.
I truly believe that law schools can achieve all of their other important goals: diversity, clinics, offering plenty of electives along with practical skills courses while also better serving their students by raising the expectations for the core courses, testing differently, requiring bar related skills courses/lectures so that their students are actually prepared before jumping into their bar exam course of choice. I don't actually want to call this "teaching for the test" per say, but ultimately the bar is what matters to 99/100 students as the degree does not unlock its full value until it is attached to a license.