ABA OKs Bar Exam Courses for Graduation

Ryan Jolley
Aug 11, 2008 3:26 PM CST

Great, more money for barbri and pmbr!

Jennifer
Aug 12, 2008 3:42 AM CST

Considering my six digit debt accrued in obtaining my j.d., why isn’t my law school responsible for preparing me to pass the bar?

associate
Aug 12, 2008 8:50 AM CST

I was amazed when I found out what all I was not taught in my 100k of school.

I still feel that the 3k I gave to BarBri was worth far more than the 100k I gave to my law school.  The value proposition is not even in the same league.

And I’m still amazed that we’re even debating whether school should prepare you for the Bar exam and for practice.  In what other profession do people spend 100k in 3 years of school and expect to NOT be prepared for your exams and practice?

silencedogood
Aug 15, 2008 6:35 AM CST

Completely agree with #5.  Had I known then what I do now I would have taken the bar exam prep course before law school to account for Professors who can’t or won’t teach and likely have been able to put my feet up for three years or spent my entire 3rd year clerking.  LS was more or less a waste of time IMO.  Pieper people pass!

J
Aug 15, 2008 8:41 AM CST

I thought my professors did a fantastic job preparing me for the bar (in the classes that I took that were on the bar).  I’d reccomend buying used bar books online and self studying.  I worked full time, studied at night (on my own) and felt better prepared for the bar in my state than most of my classmates.  Check ebay, there’s always someone selling used bar materials.  Way cheaper and more efficient than Barbri or the like.

Nicole
Aug 15, 2008 10:27 AM CST

I’m laughing along with #10.  I attended New England School of Law, a “bottom tier” law school.  They also did a great job of offering two semesters of FREE bar prep courses for their 3Ls. I also took Bar-Bri, but didn’t use its study method.  That being said,  I took two bar exams at the same time in ‘06 and passed with very high scores.

This legislation is a good idea.

June
Aug 15, 2008 10:56 AM CST

This is a result of most law schools’ steady weakening of the required curriculum and grade inflation over the last twenty years.  At most schools, particularly those in the “top tiers,” a person once admitted is virtually guaranteed a J.D. regardless of whether he has mastered any of the fundamentals of legal knowledge and analysis.  Having given this student the ticket to take the Bar Exam, the school is then embarrassed by the result.  This move will permit the law schools to continue requiring insufficient hours in the core curriculum, handing out all A’s and B’s, and permitting the professors to teach the students instead how to run the country.  The schools may now rely upon the bar-course-successful- completion requirement to withhold the J.D. until the student has learned the minimum required to pass the exam.  Clever, these law profs.

Trenton
Aug 15, 2008 12:29 PM CST

As a member of the law student assembly, I was present for the law student debate over this resolution.  This resolution gives lower-tiered law schools the ability to withhold a JD after students spend well-over $100K.  This makes no sense in light of the fact that a mere JD is insufficient to practice law; we still have to pass the bar!  Further, in this day and age, the number of students who do not want to practice law and/or want to practice law in a different state than the one in which the bar prep course is required is increasing dramatically.  If students invest thousands of dollars for a degree, that degree should be awarded, and law schools should not be able to withhold such a degree to, as #12 pointed out, artificially inflate bar passage rates.  Of course, the Section of Legal Education justifies this resolution as necessary for law schools to maintain their ABA accreditation by preventing bar passage rates from falling below required levels.  However, when asked what exactly the bar passage rate requirement is, the answer is that it’s “floating.” The other justification is that law schools should be allowed to control their curricula.  That, of course, makes no sense considering the ABA already controls a significant portion of class requirements—especially during the first year.  This resolution is bogus.  I’m sure barbri and pmbr are thrilled by the profit forecast. By the way, the law student assembly VOTED DOWN this resolution.  It’s curious to read that there was no opposition on the floor of the ABA delegate assembly, given that the Law Student Division delegates are supposed to advocate on our behalf.

tory
Aug 15, 2008 2:27 PM CST

Does it necessarily follow that everyone who pursues a JD degree intends to sit a bar exam?

Prof. P. J. GAMMARANO
Aug 15, 2008 7:37 PM CST

An additional requirement of Law students seems almost unethical to impose where additional money is now required of these students already pressured by tuition-related debts.
      If Law schools were to provide such a review course & competency exam as a part of the student fees already paid (without additional cost, with the ever-rising tuition factor) and allowed students to take the exam even well before graduation, that would arguaby be the only condition which would justify its implementation. 
      There is a place for competency exams, such as at the community college level to assure basic skills, but after a Law school regimen of courses, a student still needs to face the expense of
      Hopefully “may” (and not “must”!) is the operative word in this ABA Resolution 112B, i.e., “...law schools ‘may’ now require students…” because when a student makes a decision to apply and /or attend a Law school, any such requirement, with concomitant costs, should be clearly stated up front to the student.
Anything else would be underhanded admissions recruitment.

Joe Reisinger
Aug 16, 2008 10:28 PM CST

Poster #18 has the right idea.  When this dyslexic “C” student passed the bar the first time around, my peers were so impressed they knew I must have acquired the “magic touch”.  As I couldn’t a get a god job at a reasonable salary after passing the bar (not with my grades), I designed and taught a course to 20 bar applicants who had previously failed the one or more times (I wanted them to have their own outlines).  I charged about 8 times what the going rate was for a bar review course, but only if they passed.  Theory being, that if they passed the bar, they could easily make up that $$$ by the “earlier-than-otherwise” admission to practice.  If they didn’t pass, then my coaching wasn’t worth anything in the first place.  Much to my pleasure, they all passed the next time around, and I ended up making far more than I’d have made on some salary.  It seems to me that law schools ought to operate on the same basis.  If a graduate doesn’t pass, then the law school should pay for any remedial bar review courses, as the school certainly didn’t do its job.  Yet, I realize that “accountability” is not a valued commodity in the legal business as a whole.  - - -

As an insurance defense lawyer for the last 30-something years, its been my job to avoid accountability by the derelicts who cause harm and injury, so I guess I should complain.  If it wasn’t for that, I’ve had to get a real job and do some real work.

Joe Reisinger,
San Rafael, CA