Abstract
I. Introduction . . . . . 364
II. Shortcomings of the Existing Bar Exam . . . . . 369
A. The Pretense That the Exam Protects the Public from Incompetent Lawyers . . . . . 369
B. Overview of the Bar Exam . . . . . 372
C. Critiques of the Existing Bar Exam . . . . . 373
1. Problems with the MBE . . . . . 373
2. Problems with the Essay Questions . . . . . 376
3. Problems with the Multi-State Performance Test . . . . . 378
4. Problems with the MPRE and Moral Fitness Screening . . . . . 380
5. Problems with the Weight Given to the MBE . . . . . 380
6. Failure to Screen for Issues Giving Rise to the Public's Complaints . . . . . 383
7. The Exam Hinders the Ability to Create a More Diverse Bench and Bar . . . . . 386
III. Alternative Methods to Measure Bar Applicants' Competence . . . . . 393
A. The First Step: Defining Competence . . . . . 393
B. Computer-Based Testing: An Examination of Other Professions and How the Legal Profession Can Adopt What They Do . . . . . 394
C. The Canadian Model . . . . . 398
D. The Apprentice Model . . . . . 401
E. A Postgraduate, Pre-Admission, Graded Skills-Assessment Course . . . . . 407
F. The Public Service Alternative to the Bar Exam . . . . . 410
G. The Diploma Privilege . . . . . 410
H. Modifications to the Existing Process . . . . . 411
1. Testing Legal Research and Drafting . . . . . 411
2. Credit for Pro Bono Work . . . . . 412
3. Assessing Oral Communication Skills . . . . . 414
I. Beginning the Process of Change . . . . . 415
IV. Barriers to Revising the Entrance Requirements . . . . . 416
A. The Existing Bench and Bar . . . . . 416
B. The Administering Bodies . . . . . 417
1. Cost and Practicality Concerns . . . . . 418
2. Validity and Reliability Concerns . . . . . 418
C. Law Schools . . . . . 420
D. Bar Applicants . . . . . 422
V . Conclusion . . . . . 422
Recommended Citation
Andrea A. Curcio,
A Better Bar: Why and How the Existing Bar Exam Should Change,
81 Neb. L. Rev.
(2002)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol81/iss1/6
