FIRST TIME PASS RATESQuestions:
California ABA Approved: 45.2%
Out of State ABA Approved: 47.5%
California Accredited: 21.2%
California Unaccredited: 25.4%
- The bar exam sucks.
- Based on these results, what is the benefit of attending a California law school if it gives you no advantage in passing the California bar examination over an out-of-state school?
- Based on these results, what is the benefit of attending a California accredited law school if it gives you no advantage in passing the California bar examination over an unaccredited school?
- All of these applicants passed a rigorous course of study over several years, so WTF kind of a bastard shitbird cousinblowing nutpunching lousy bar testing program fails more than half of them? Even Clarence Thomas would find that cruel and unusual punishment, and he's gone full heel at this point.
Sorry to repeat myself, but when you're right you're right, and I look fucking amazing today: the bar exam sucks and these people are spitting out results that simply defy expectations (which, when you're smart enough to run a law school cartel, should match reality). If students at Santa Barbara - this is not an ABA accredited school, okay!? - are outperforming Loyola (Los Angeles), Southwestern, and McGeorge, that would suggest a major problem in the reality of American legal education in terms of accreditation, admissions, and testing. It's simply unnatural, an abomination to the Naturale Law and Goode Order.
I refuse to believe that the space-time continuum is broken; my wine simply tastes too good. The only possible explanation is that the bar exam sucks.
Thankfully, genius finds genius and I'm not alone in my conclusions. Here are three of California's top 25 law deans in an opinion piece for law.com:
Though California bar takers, on average, perform better than their counterparts elsewhere on the multistate bar exam (MBE), a far greater number fail as a direct consequence of California’s exceptionally high cut score.Say it loud, say it proud: TASK FORCE!
The best path forward is for the California Supreme Court to appoint—as soon as is practicable—an independent, blue-ribbon task force to study the cut score issue and make its recommendations within six or nine months. Such a task force should bring together leaders from the bench, bar and law schools to assess the cut score and licensure issues expeditiously, thoughtfully and holistically.
As with every task force in the history of white collar task forces, you don't appoint one unless you know the result of deploying their tactical expertise, so you know any such task force will develop one hell of a white paper advocating that California reduce its cut score and flood the market with even more lawyers to make even more money.
We should just have a standing task force (Task Force One? The X-Persons-of-all-Genders? The Un-Avengers?) to deal with legal reform proposals, but since we don't, appoint me! I know the score and I've been doing this shill thing longer than a lot of law deans.
Too bad the California bar examiners have forgotten the Latin saying embroidered into napkins on the dining car: Squamous Onus. Be a darned shame if I just spilled some of this fine Cab on their lapels and they had to to reach for one...