Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

CA bar lowering its standards?

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/07/cali fornia-bar-examiners-stri finklebots07/11/17
I appreciate California's intentions, but their method is di mrtor07/12/17
I don't think that's their motivation. CA has like a million onehell07/12/17
finklebots (Jul 11, 2017 - 10:34 pm)

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/07/california-bar-examiners-stripped-of-authority-to-determine-passing-score-on-state-bar-exam/

Is this fake news?

Reply Like (0)
mrtor (Jul 12, 2017 - 9:31 am)

I appreciate California's intentions, but their method is disgraceful. If you want to control the number of attorneys in your state, then cull the number of law schools and their enrollment sizes. I think it is wrong to encourage unqualified students to rack up six figure debt with no hope of ever practicing. Without a viable legal career, many of those graduates are permanently handicapped by their over-education and lack of transferable skills.

California mixed up the solution. Start before, not after.

Reply Like (0)
onehell (Jul 12, 2017 - 1:02 pm)

I don't think that's their motivation. CA has like a million unaccredited schools and you do not typically graduate six figs in debt from those places:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/californias-law-school-baby-bar.html

The current cutoff and things like the babybar was not meant to ensnare so many ABA grads so they're going to make it easier.

The ABA, meanwhile, cannot limit the number of accredited law schools. Accreditation has to be about quality, not about setting a limit on the number of schools that can attain accreditation. That is an anti-trust issue and I believe they're still under a consent decree with the DOJ over having allegedly tried to use accreditation to limit supply in the past.

They could, however, shorten the JD curriculum to two years (at most). They already prescribe basically nothing in terms of content after 1L, and while shortening curriculum would not limit supply, it would cut debt significantly. Even Obama called for getting rid of 3L. That's a concrete, actionable step that needs to be taken.

Reply Like (0)
Post a message in this thread