Nick and I car-pooled to Baltimore for the bar examination. He posted some comments on the exam. Since I was quoted, I feel like I have some license to explain my previous comments a bit further:
Nick said it's a miserable experience. And that's true. This morning I was thinking about which requirement I would rather fulfill if it meant the grant of a law license: (1) re-take the bar exam, or (2) or receive a full rectal examination from a less-than-reputable Honduran doctor coming off of a 3-meth binge all during a magnitude-7 earthquake wherein said doctor is also covered in gasoline and set on fire. And maybe he's trying to fend off ninjas too. Perhaps said ninjas are also on fire? Whatever--it's a tough choice.
Bar associations like to say the exams are a test of minimal competence. I disagree; I've met a few sub-competent attorneys in my time. Not that wanting a state's attorneys to be minimally competent is a bad thing. But the justification for this has always been to protect the public. I just don't think the exams further that in any way.
Nick mentioned that the MPT wasn't what he expected. I didn't think this was too bad--but this was only because the last project in my advanced writing class was almost exactly
like the specific MPT question we were given. So I head some bearing. Luck of the draw--I expected the MPT to be a lot worse. And of course, even how I felt doesn't mean anything. The gradings seems pretty arbitrary--"arbitrary" is the general theme that pervades the bar exam.
And if the MPT tests how fast you can commit malpractice in 90 minutes. The MBE tests whether you can commit malpractice 200 times in 6 hours. The MBE writers have convinced themselves--by telling other people over and over--that each question they write has only one correct answer. I call bullshit on that, as every test administration has a few questions that the examiners toss out because, after the fact, two or more choices are sufficient answers. Sure, you can test the existence of legal principles, facts, procedures, etc. But when you start asking examinees to weigh subjective facts as being more determinative than another--that's a recipe for disaster. In addition, I find the MBE writers are incredibly lazy, as they don't consistely use "and" and "or," "most" and "least", and double negatives (e.g., "Which choice is not the best answer?"). Not that I hate MBE questions--I usually do really well. I'm just admitting that, yes, the process is pointless.
How would I make the process "better"? --That's a topic for a different day...
Nick said it's a miserable experience. And that's true. This morning I was thinking about which requirement I would rather fulfill if it meant the grant of a law license: (1) re-take the bar exam, or (2) or receive a full rectal examination from a less-than-reputable Honduran doctor coming off of a 3-meth binge all during a magnitude-7 earthquake wherein said doctor is also covered in gasoline and set on fire. And maybe he's trying to fend off ninjas too. Perhaps said ninjas are also on fire? Whatever--it's a tough choice.
Bar associations like to say the exams are a test of minimal competence. I disagree; I've met a few sub-competent attorneys in my time. Not that wanting a state's attorneys to be minimally competent is a bad thing. But the justification for this has always been to protect the public. I just don't think the exams further that in any way.
Nick mentioned that the MPT wasn't what he expected. I didn't think this was too bad--but this was only because the last project in my advanced writing class was almost exactly
like the specific MPT question we were given. So I head some bearing. Luck of the draw--I expected the MPT to be a lot worse. And of course, even how I felt doesn't mean anything. The gradings seems pretty arbitrary--"arbitrary" is the general theme that pervades the bar exam.
And if the MPT tests how fast you can commit malpractice in 90 minutes. The MBE tests whether you can commit malpractice 200 times in 6 hours. The MBE writers have convinced themselves--by telling other people over and over--that each question they write has only one correct answer. I call bullshit on that, as every test administration has a few questions that the examiners toss out because, after the fact, two or more choices are sufficient answers. Sure, you can test the existence of legal principles, facts, procedures, etc. But when you start asking examinees to weigh subjective facts as being more determinative than another--that's a recipe for disaster. In addition, I find the MBE writers are incredibly lazy, as they don't consistely use "and" and "or," "most" and "least", and double negatives (e.g., "Which choice is not the best answer?"). Not that I hate MBE questions--I usually do really well. I'm just admitting that, yes, the process is pointless.
How would I make the process "better"? --That's a topic for a different day...
Leave a comment