A Better Bar: Why and How the Existing Bar Exam Should Change

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