Current Events > LA times: 'will lower standard for bar exams create more black and Latino lawyer

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-26/california-lowers-bar-exam-score-coronavirus

---

There is absolutely no evidence that shows having a higher score makes for better lawyers, said UCLA School of Law Dean Jennifer L. Mnookin, a longtime supporter of lowering the passing score.

---

Lowering the bar exam standard is really good for everyone except maybe people that barely pass the bar. Most people just need lawyers to navigate the procedural part of the law, the quality of the attorneys in their ability to argue or whatever is utterly dwarfed by their knowledge of proceedings and when to file shit. Most people that need a lawyer just need someone who can get them through the procedures, not a hotshot Phoenix Wright. Lowering the bar standard means more lawyers means less absurd billing rates.

---

I wonder if they will do the same for the CPA exam, because that is way worst than the bar exams.


---

Now, I'm no lawyer, but that seems like a bad look to me

Have they considered instead maybe engaging with middle and high schoolers to get them invested in this as a career path and then offering free tutoring to anybody who is having trouble, increasing the pool of qualified candidates?

You know, boost diversity through career development as opposed to just dragging down the standards?

---

I skimmed the article and still don't understand how lowering the pass requirement will allow more black and latino people to pass. Am I missing something? Last I checked skin color doesn't correlate to test passing ability.
---

Do they have actual studies to back the idea that high scores don't lead to more competent lawyers or are they using some vague ass term for "better?" Why are we not instead giving more resources so those who are seemingly failing at a higher than average rate?

voldothegr8 posted...

I skimmed the article and still don't understand how lowering the pass requirement will allow more black and latino people to pass. Am I missing something? Last I checked skin color doesn't correlate to test passing ability.

they think blacks and latinos are too stupid to pass the current bar.

---

voldothegr8 posted...

I skimmed the article and still don't understand how lowering the pass requirement will allow more black and latino people to pass. Am I missing something? Last I checked skin color doesn't correlate to test passing ability.

I think they might be socially bias like SAT. Like might get situation questions black and Latino people might never be in while white people are.

voldothegr8 posted...

I skimmed the article and still don't understand how lowering the pass requirement will allow more black and latino people to pass. Am I missing something? Last I checked skin color doesn't correlate to test passing ability.

The argument in these cases is usually that poor, minority neighborhoods produce kids that haven't really been properly educated because of bad schools and so when they get into difficult fields they bomb out because they never had a chance in the first place. So rather than fix the root cause the problem, the proposed solution is to lower the standard until kids getting mediocre grades can still qualify.

It's a terrible, short-sighted solution that's insulting to pretty much everyone involved.

---

Holy shit the self-victimizing crowd came full force into this topic.

---

The bar exam is dumb. I'm fine with this. Kill the LSAT while you're at it.
---

For more than three decades, California has clung to one of the nations toughest testing standards for law school students hoping to practice law in the most populous state in the country.

Nobody read this? The first sentence in the article? Nobody? Not one?


---

ZMythos posted...

Nobody read this? The first sentence in the article? Nobody? Not one?

Sure, I'll play ball. Explain how lowering the minimum is explicitly designed to create more black and Latino lawyers.

---

nemu posted...

Do they have actual studies to back the idea that high scores don't lead to more competent lawyers or are they using some vague ass term for "better?" Why are we not instead giving more resources so those who are seemingly failing at a higher than average rate?

Speaking as someone who just finished day 1 of the bar exam in Nebraska (and has access to a very persnickety and opinionated professor who has zero shits to give at this juncture and passed the California bar back in her day), the gist from the academic side of thing is that (at least for Nebraska), 90% of applicants pass the bar within two years after graduation. So the bar exam is gatekeeping, rather than a test for quality.

I can't point you to the studies or data in particular, but it's a fairly common thing I've seen pop up and heard from my professors as well as the professors down in Lincoln. I would imagine the admin staff at the law schools would have access to the data on bar passage, since that's a huge factor in law school ranking.

And honestly, based on today, the only part of the bar exam that is even remotely indicative of practice is the MPT, which does not require any memorization and is basically the capstone to our legal writing courses with a time limit. The memorization required for the UBE/MEE is not at all practical or applicable to every day lawyer life, because we get these big ass databases to draw upon for research.

No one in practice is going to give a flying fuck if you can't recite the Rule Against Perpetuities and its exceptions at common law off the top of your head (fucking Rule in Shelley's Case).

---

ZMythos posted...

Holy shit the self-victimizing crowd came full force into this topic.

literally nobody has done that here you clown wtf lol

---

I'd hate to get a shitty lawyer that only became a lawyer because the bar got lowered. Be like getting Frank Burns as a doctor.

---

i would feel also insulted as a Latino if I was to take that test

---

s0nicfan posted...

Sure, I'll play ball. Explain how lowering the minimum is explicitly designed to create more black and Latino lawyers.

ok so nobody read it. Got it.

Frogles posted...

literally nobody has done that here you clown wtf lol

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



---

This topic is like 90% bad faith responses.

---

Here's the spiel.

As a teacher, I'll be the first to say that high stakes testing should not be relied on as the only assessment of knowledge or ability. Practical environments, presentations, etc. are all equally valid and should be incorporated into determining a student's readiness.

The quote I pointed out specifically says that CA has one of the toughest exams in the nation. By lowering that standard they are not only getting closer to the rest of the US, they are also placing more emphasis on other aspects of the certification process.

Chances are many lawyers, doctors, engineers, and contractors weren't straight A students, and many are much better suited for the position despite being so. When you go an hire someone, you don't look at their test scores. You look at their history and their practice.

So, the people on here complaining and crying "Affirmative Action" and pretending this is somehow racism can stop.

---

Tests are the worse way to find out if somebody knows a particular subject. Memorization should not be a correlation for how smart someone is.

---

ZMythos posted...

Here's the spiel.

As a teacher, I'll be the first to say that high stakes testing should not be relied on as the only assessment of knowledge or ability. Practical environments, presentations, etc. are all equally valid and should be incorporated into determining a student's readiness.

The quote I pointed out specifically says that CA has one of the toughest exams in the nation. By lowering that standard they are not only getting closer to the rest of the US, they are also placing more emphasis on other aspects of the certification process.

Chances are many lawyers, doctors, engineers, and contractors weren't straight A students, and many are much better suited for the position despite being so. When you go an hire someone, you don't look at their test scores. You look at their history and their practice.

So, the people on here complaining and crying "Affirmative Action" and pretending this is somehow racism can stop.

Then let me ask you a simple, practical question about a situation I'm sure you've faced as a teacher. If you have students that are struggling in your class, do you offer them additional assistance in the form of tutoring and/or extra credit, or do you adjust how you weigh said tests for the whole class until those poor performing students have a higher grade? I'm advocating for engagement at a young age to get kids excited about the career paired with support for kids having trouble at the university level to help them pass the same test other kids can pass. You can see that right in my first post in this topic. Are you really calling that self-victimizing (and maybe you're not and that comment wasn't addressed at me, at which point I apologize for the attitude)?

---

Instead of lowering the standards of everything. How about idk....raising the standards and funding of public schools.

s0nicfan posted...

The argument in these cases is usually that poor, minority neighborhoods produce kids that haven't really been properly educated because of bad schools and so when they get into difficult fields they bomb out because they never had a chance in the first place. So rather than fix the root cause the problem, the proposed solution is to lower the standard until kids getting mediocre grades can still qualify.

It's a terrible, short-sighted solution that's insulting to pretty much everyone involved.

These far left liberals are no different from the racists that believe blacks and Latinos have lower IQs than whites. They're not investing in education because they think minorities will never be smart enough to pass so they're lowering the standards as their solution. It's very insulting.

---

There's a lot of people misapprehending what the bar exam entails as it relates to what life practicing is like. Capacity to recall several hundred pages of jampacked information does not dispositively determine one's capability as an attorney. Nor does it honestly even offer a substantive glimpse into one's capability as an attorney. And I say this as someone who can retain thoroughly inconsequential information like a steel trap.

Factor in the fact that bar preparation has become an industry all unto itself (and outrageously so, given the prices *cough*Barbri*cough*), and voila. You have substantial disconnect in capability to prepare for the bar exam based on socioeconomic status.

---

ZMythos posted...

The quote I pointed out specifically says that CA has one of the toughest exams in the nation. By lowering that standard they are not only getting closer to the rest of the US, they are also placing more emphasis on other aspects of the certification process.

Okay, sure. Some states are harder than others and apparently CA is one of the toughest. Maybe it should be lowered. But their reasoning appears to be specifically for the reason of it will allow more people of color to become lawyers.

They aren't saying "it will give an opportunity for more people to become lawyers". They're saying "It will allow more people of color to become lawyers", which seems to suggest they have a harder time passing.

---

As probably the only person in this topic who has actually passed the bar, most of you have no idea what you're talking about. People have been pushing to lower the required scores in California for decades. They've been sued over it, and it has no correlation to actual lawyering. It's an artificially high bar set by a legal cartel for reputation and supply control reasons. Less than a third of people pass the California bar when it's much higher in other states and the actual practice of law is the same as it is anywhere else in the US.

Lowering this artificial bar won't affect the quality of the lawyers, because the quality of the lawyers is independent of the bar exam. It's determined by the quality of the schools and the quality/effort of the student, and the practical job experience these students have. And lots of lawyers who have passed the bar are straight gutter trash who will ruin your life if you rely on them. All the bar exam tells you is that someone was able to pay $2k for a class and study for 3 or so months so they can answer short essays and multiple choice questions under a strict time limit (none of which exists in any form in the actual practice of law).

---

Essentially the bar exam itself is a broken measure of lawyering ability and is a scam.

---

I'll have you know my essays today we're gat damned works of art.

Except for my first and second MEEs. They were clusterfucks because I just had colossal brain farts for fifteen minutes.

---

When you try to be inclusive but end up being incredibly racist instead.

---

s0nicfan posted...

Then let me ask you a simple, practical question about a situation I'm sure you've faced as a teacher. If you have students that are struggling in your class, do you offer them additional assistance in the form of tutoring and/or extra credit, or do you adjust how you weigh said tests for the whole class until those poor performing students have a higher grade?

Yes and no. I offer opportunities for students to demonstrate themselves if they don't do well on a regular test or assessment. I've changed how tests are weighed on occasion because hindsight shows that I've made mistakes or poorly assessed them on something.

And I should be clear, having high standards for students to meet isn't the issue. Only offering one chance to meet those standards is.

I'm advocating for engagement at a young age to get kids excited about the career paired with support for kids having trouble at the university level to help them pass the same test other kids can pass. You can see that right in my first post in this topic. Are you really calling that self-victimizing (and maybe you're not and that comment wasn't addressed at me, at which point I apologize for the attitude)?

I wasn't calling you self-victimizing, so I apologize for that. Energizing students and engaging with them is very helpful.

---

Houston posted...

Okay, sure. Some states are harder than others and apparently CA is one of the toughest. Maybe it should be lowered. But their reasoning appears to be specifically for the reason of it will allow more people of color to become lawyers.

They aren't saying "it will give an opportunity for more people to become lawyers". They're saying "It will allow more people of color to become lawyers", which seems to suggest they have a harder time passing.

thoughts on this? @ZMythos

---

Sounds like whoever thought this up is a racist.

---