Dean's Desk: A troubling focus by the ABA on the bar exam

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

deans-desk-parrishFor those in legal education, the bar exam has oddly emerged as a key focus. The ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions recently recommended a new accreditation standard. If the ABA’s House of Delegates approves it in February, law schools with a bar pass rate below 75 percent over a two-year period could lose their accreditation. This proposal has teeth, particularly as the pass rate in many states has plummeted. In Indiana, the pass rate fell to 64 percent from 75 percent just one year ago.

These new standards don’t directly affect the Maurer School of Law: 89 percent of our graduates passed the most recent Indiana bar exam on their first attempt. But a renewed over-emphasis on the exam is troubling. If sounder minds prevail, the ABA House of Delegates will vote down the council’s recommendation.

First, a bar exam focus is problematic because for many states it no longer tests fundamentals and minimum competency. To pass, students are required to memorize a vast number of esoteric legal principles, many of which they will never encounter as a lawyer. The exam also has little to do with practice. It simply tests the ability to take tests. For some states, the exam is a way to protect in-state lawyers by excluding competition from new and out-of-state attorneys.

California is a good example of protectionism, where the overall pass rate is often under 50 percent. In July 2014, 33 new graduates of Yale Law School sat for the California bar exam, and only 76 percent passed. Only 78 percent of the first-time test-takers from Columbia passed; 77 percent from University of Chicago Law School; 70 percent from University of Virginia School of Law, and so on. For the July 2015 exam, pass rates from good schools including Emory, Vanderbilt and Minnesota were at 50 percent and below. In 2005, the California bar examiners failed Kathleen Sullivan, the former dean of Stanford Law School, a partner at the prestigious Quinn Emanuel firm, and an advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court. Not minimally competent? Please.

Second, it’s odd to use the bar exam as a yardstick for measuring educational quality. Too much focus on the exam has the potential to reduce the quality of legal education. It puts pressure on schools to spend more time on rote memorization and to teach to the exam, instead of focusing on critical analytical and other lawyering skills. It also potentially reverses trends in schools to offer a wider array of skills and professional development opportunities. These curricular options help make for great practitioners, but offer little help in mastering multiple choice tests.

Third, too much focus on the bar exam will increase costs. Because there’s little evidence that overall pass rates improve when students’ test-taking abilities approve, teaching to the test is a zero-sum game. Even schools with highly credentialed students may see their average scores decline if other schools sink more resources into test preparation, regardless of educational benefit. In places like New York, Florida and California, we’ve already seen an arms race of bar-preparation services.

Fourth, by allowing state bars to set a standard that purports to define educational quality, the ABA directs power from a national level to a local one. That’s odd too, given that the ABA has been concerned about populous states trying to set local bar standards that undermine national ones.

The bigger problem, however, is that this debate actually has little to do with educational quality. It’s all about admissions. The 75-percent rule is designed to prevent schools from admitting students with lower standardized test scores whom some deem to be incapable of succeeding. The concern is motivated by good intentions. The worry is over those students who take out significant debt, but have slim chances of becoming lawyers. If the ABA House of Delegates approves the new rule, it’s because the ABA believes students with lower LSAT test scores should be denied opportunities for their own good.

But consider what this means. There’s little evidence that students choosing to attend law school don’t understand the risks and the potential rewards. On the contrary, there’s never been greater transparency and more data to help would-be students make informed choices. Students who attend law school likely rely on what the data show: most law graduates value their degrees, do well in the long run, and enjoy more financial success than if they had never attended. For some, attending law school is the wrong decision. Yet rarely have we been so openly paternalistic as to suggest the ABA should make this decision for them.

Some justify the paternalistic approach by pointing to the least selective law schools and arguing that they are exploitive when they accept students with low credentials. This may be a valid concern for a very small number of schools. Even so, no one is forcing students to enroll. Using this as a reason for the revised accreditation standard again requires assuming that those who believe that attending law school will improve their lot in life are naïve, that neither they nor their families can be trusted to make sound decisions. It’s a patronizing argument that should sit with us uneasily, even more so because most often those labeled as needing saving are from immigrant, minority and less-privileged backgrounds.

And that’s what the ABA House of Delegates should be considering. If the ABA’s real aim is to withdraw accreditation from certain schools it believes are predatory, then let’s be transparent about it. The ABA should be clear, however, that its current very roundabout strategy for achieving this goal will have collateral consequences — negatively affecting schools with strong educational programs that are in protectionist states with difficult exams.

The most vocal advocates have made careers out of calling for all but the most elite law schools to shut down, and they will be pleased. But there’s no doubt this rule will hurt diversity in the profession. And it will embrace what most in the past have viewed as absurd — encouraging teaching to the test, placing even more emphasis on the LSAT, and forcing less elite schools to look not for good future lawyers but for good test-takers. And, most troubling, the ABA will have taken the position that adults with lower test scores should be denied access to a legal education because they can’t be trusted to make sound decisions about their own futures. If clearer heads prevail, the House of Delegates will reject this elitist and patronizing view of tomorrow’s lawyers.•

Austen L. Parrish is dean and James H. Rudy Professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law. Views and opinions expressed are the author’s.


  • What's really at stake
    I’m also graduating from Arizona Summit this semester, and like Ms. Bostick, I had other school options. Unlike Ms. Bostick, I am a full-time day student, and I also took the “hybrid” classes to which Mr. Tinkle refers. I chose Summit for its diversity and stated mission of serving the underserved, and its strong sense of community. I can name all my classmates by name, they are not random strangers I pass in a hallway, and I value this. Summit also offers something ASU and U of A cannot: the opportunity to participate in a hands-on Legal Clinic for as many semesters as one may choose; there is no competing for a select few Clinic spots. I performed more than 500 pro bono hours in the ASLS Legal Clinic in addition to my regular coursework, and it paid off. Due directly to my work in the Clinic, I received a bona fide, written, firm offer of employment in a law firm recently named one of the top 20 litigation firms in Phoenix, upon my passing the bar. This offer came in direct response to a Motion I drafted recently for a client. Summit taught me how to write persuasively, applying statutory and case law to the relevant facts, and that writing resulted in an employment offer. What more needs to be said? Admittedly, I was not likely to be sought out by large corporate firms as if I had attended a T10 or even a T30 school, but that was never my goal. The school did its job: taught me the law and how to apply it; I acted on that knowledge and now have a position waiting for me, and I haven’t even graduated yet. Ms. Bostick is 100% correct: those willing to put in the work that law school requires will succeed sufficiently to repay those student loans. The alternative is to sit there in the belief that jobs will come seeking you out just for keeping a seat warm, and then cry when it doesn’t happen; your choice. Many of us are proud of our school and what it offers and represents, worked hard to get there, and worked even harder to get out and start changing the public’s perception of lawyers as cold, uncaring sharks. That’s what is really at stake in the above article: our efforts to change the face of the legal profession for the better, if schools with an alternative focus are forced out.
  • Law School Is What You Make Of It
    Unfortunately some students are given opportunities to succeed but they don't put in the work and in return those students blame the school. I also attend Arizona Summit/am graduating at this time and I love it. I could have gone to another school without issue but I chose Summit because they had a great night program which ASU and U of A did not have and it turned out to be a truly rewarding experience. I love the professors and staff. I have had no problem getting jobs. It's not the school name that makes your reputation or your ability to practice law. It's the person. Try putting the effort into your law degree and yourself as opposed to bashing a school that gave you the opportunity to succeed regardless of whether you did or not. Unfortunately it's the whiny brats who feel they are entitled but don't want to put in the work that cry when they fail or claim employers won't hire them because of a certain school! It's not the school, it's people like you who deface the school and your own degree that leaves someone like you in the position you are in.
  • Predatory Schools Need to be Identified
    Mr. Parrish certainly makes his position known, but it is unclear whether he has any stake in the outcome. At the very least, if ABA does not revise rules to discredit poorly performing law schools, it should do more to challenge the poorly performing school's "statistics" and identify those with predatory practices. Take Arizona Summit for example. Their stats are completely fabricated and manipulated. The school hires prior students to boost employment stats, and even retained a student who failed the bar exam to teach the prep course. Also, the school converted to a "trimester" and began combining classes, like one class for both civ pro and torts. This was done to, in its own words, create a better "mouse trap" that prevents students from transferring to a better institution. The ABA should do more to publish these predatory practices, while also broadcasting Summit's dismal 23% passage rates. Summit is one school that deserves to lose its accreditation. Many, many firms in the valley simply refuse to hire any one from Summit--if only that was advertised before I spent $200k on law school (Summit was chosen so I could work while attending night classes--the only plus of going to Summit).

    Post a comment to this story

    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
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. All of these comments you see on the internet about Dr matamah are not just comments, they are truthful words of experience written by those who have been there and found help in reuniting with the ones they hold dear to their heart and other marital and financial problems just like i did. am Svein Erik Bjerke from Gardermoen, Norway I can tell you this because I also asked him for help to cast a spell to fix my relationship with the only woman I have ever loved after been married four time in the last four years cos i didn't believe in love but in the power of being rich. When it came to meet my wife it was a different case because I fell for her in every way. At the time i met her it was only a while before the relationship became serious cos I bet she love me also. We moved in together and our relationship blossomed. we got married but couldn't have a baby and then I discovered my wife was barren. I had to try some spell casters but to no avail until I contacted Dr matamah. HE restored my wife's womb and just like that she got pregnant, she has given birth now and our baby is growing very healthy. I later casted a money spell through him which he did and today we are rich and doing very fine. Thank God for our lives and also to Dr matamah who God has used to blessed us. I know that not everybody will believe this moreover its just something on the internet but my heart knows every of this word that formed this entire comment is true. Am Leaving Dr matamah's contact for those who believe this and need help as well. his contact is:

    2. Or does the study merely wish they fade away? “It just hasn’t risen substantially in decades,” Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law told Law360. “What we should be looking for is progress, and that’s not what we’re seeing.” PROGRESS = less white males in leadership. Thus the heading and honest questions here ....

    3. One need not wonder why we are importing sex slaves into North America. Perhaps these hapless victims of human trafficking were being imported for a book of play with the Royal Order of Jesters? Indianapolis hosts these major pervs in a big way .... I wonder what affect they exert on Hoosier politics? And its judiciary? A very interesting program on their history and preferences here:

    4. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

    5. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.