ILNews

Inbox: Attorney responds to letter suggesting refunds for failing bar exam

January 29, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Letters to the Editor

To the editor:

In reply to Mr. Robert C. Thompson, Jr.’s proposal in the “Viewpoint” column that law schools issue full refunds when alumni fail the Bar Exam twice, I respectfully disagree.

In the modern day spirit of “let’s give every child who competes a blue ribbon,” Mr. Thompson proposes that all Bar test-takers receive passing scores or else receive a law school refund — which, he said, is his idea of “fairness.” Reading Mr. Thompson’s proposal was akin to watching a fussy toddler throw a tantrum when he doesn’t get his way. In the real world, not everyone will pass the Bar Exam, and not every child will win first place in a competition. As an alumna of the Robert H. McKinney School of Law, I can attest to the caliber and professionalism the faculty and staff displays. Indeed, Dean Klein and Dean Page were my two favorite professors, and the law school is fortunate to have such stellar scholars — who also happen to be thoughtful, caring people — at its helm.

As a law student, I attended evening classes, worked two jobs (including weekends), and raised three children simultaneously. Indeed, I was seven months pregnant when I took the Bar Exam, which I passed the first time. Preparation and success on the Bar Exam hinges upon one’s individual dedication and intrinsic motivation, not upon outside forces or law school professors. Passing the Bar Exam — much like enduring the marathon of Law School — requires endless study, sacrifice, and a personal drive to succeed.

Mr. Thompson also uses faulty logic in comparing a warrantied $75,000 Cadillac which fails to run 20% of the time to Bar Exam failure. Buying an expensive car requires neither intellectual efforts nor years of sleepless days and nights. Truly, you get out of the Bar Exam what you put into it. Or, as my wise four-year-old says, “You get what you get and you don’t throw a fit.” I would advise students blaming the Law School for their foibles and failures to follow suit.

Kind regards,

Sally R. Hubbard, Esq.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Phone Employment Numbers Published by Law Schools
    I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.
  • Exactly.
    I couldn't agree more. Personal responsibility really needs to make a comeback.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT