•  
  •  
 

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

Download

Share

COinS