Only one third of law students take BarBri?
The most recent Ambivalent Question asked: “Which bar review course will you (or did you) take?” After two weeks of voting, the final results were:
- Impeach Bush: 36.4%
- Bar/Bri: 34.8%
- Bar/Bri *and* PMBR: 19.7%
- PMBR: 3.0%
- BarPlus: 1.5%
- Other: 1.5%
- None; who needs 'em?: 1.5%
- Micro Mash Bar Review: 1.5%
- MyBarPrep: 0%
- The Study Group Personal Bar Review: 0%
I can make little of this. At my school (GW), my impression is very much that everyone takes BarBri, but perhaps that's just because they've got our school brainwashed that it's necessary. I've heard faculty simply assume that we'll all take BarBri, and it's in the school's interest that we do if they think it will increase our bar passage rates, so that definitely contributes to more people signing up. Still, I have to think this little poll is not very accurate. Shock.
The bar exam is such a very stupid thing. As I've said before, I agree w/Professor Solove that the damn things should be abolished:
That first problem—the exam as a barrier to mobility—is a huge one for me and the most important reason to get rid of the whole charade. But rather than repeat what Professor Solove and the comments to his posts have said, I propose the following three changes to how people become lawyers in this country:It prevents mobility among lawyers, making it cumbersome and time consuming to move to different states. It does not test on actual law used in legal practice, but on esoteric legal rules, many of which are obsolete, and most of which are of absolutely no value to a practicing attorney or to anyone for that matter. In short, the Bar Exam is an unproductive waste of time.
First, the only even slightly credible reason people offer for having a bar exam is as a barrier to entry to ensure some minimum level of competence in the legal profession. I agree this is a lame reason, but most people in the legal profession have been brainwashed to believe it's horribly important. Therefore, rather than abolish the bar exam, we should simply abolish all but one iteration of it. By this I mean that, rather than each state having its own exam, the ABA should offer one bar exam that qualifies those who pass to practice law anywhere in the country. The Multistate Bar Exam is already in place; tweak that however you like, but please, just make one test count for all 50 states.
Second, put BarBri out of freaking business by making the last semester of law school into a bar review course. Many people already agree that the 3rd year of law school is largely a waste; make it meaningful by making sure it prepares students for entry into their profession.
Third, convince the rest of the states to join Wisconsin in allowing graduates of state law schools automatic admission to the bar in that state.
That's it. Very simple. What do you think?
Another suggestion that would leave the current abominable system in place but eliminate the biggest problem for me would be for states to allow people to take their bar exams whenever they want. Why must every bar exam be given during the same 2-3 days each year? That's stupid and unnecessary. If I want to take an exam, I should be able to schedule it with a state bar examiner a few weeks in advance at the most, show up, and take it. If they want to keep it simple, they can offer the exam only on thursdays and fridays, or they could offer it only once a month if they want to be jerks about it, but this twice/year business (and the fact that all states do it in the same weeks as each other) creates a ridiculous and completely unnecessary barrier to mobility.
Please! Stop the madness!
Other interesting bits about the bar exam:
- Someone named Ryan Walters owns abolishthebarexam.com. I wonder if this is him.
- Professor Solove's first post about abolishing the bar exam.
- Solove's followup post.
- Another followup and summary on de novo.
- A Girl Walks Into a Bar (Exam)...: Last year's popular blog about preparing for the bar exam, including some “potentially useful posts.”
- Jeremy Blachman on studying for the bar exam and especially on paying for Bar/Bri: “But unless a firm is paying, it's kind of expensive - I believe the going rate is $2400 if you sign up the morning you arrive at law school, $2600 if you wait until lunchtime, $3000 plus your left leg as collateral if you wait a week, $4000 if they don't like you, and $500,000 anytime after the first day of classes.”
Posted 01:02 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Ambivalent Question: Preparing for the Bar Exam
This week's Ambivalent Question® (at top right) asks: “Which bar review course will you (or did you) take?”
The poll lists various options, many of which I know nothing about. Those options include:
- Bar/Bri, an all-around bar review course available for every state. Offers video-taped lectures or self-study via recorded lectures on iPod. I believe in some places you can attend a lecture from a real-live person, too. Cost varies by state; I believe Montana is about the cheapest at $800, while NY, IL, and CA are among the most expensive at something like $2400.
- PMBR, a three or six day review focused only on the MBE (Multi-state Bar Exam). The MBE is “a six-hour, two-hundred question multiple-choice examination covering contracts, torts, constitutional law, criminal law, evidence, and real property.” PMBR claims it complements or supplements other review courses b/c they are focused on the law of a specific state, rather than on the larger legal principles tested on the MBE. Cost: $795 for the 6-day course, $395 for the 3-day (discounts for ABA/LSD members).
- BarPlus, which doesn't look like a review course after all; more like just a bunch of information about the bar exam? I'm not sure.
- MyBarPrep, an online review course for the MBE. Appears to be in direct competition with PMBR but it's online-only. Cost: $160.
- MicroMash MBE & Bar Review, a computer-based self-study course, this time from West Publishing. The cost for the MBE review is $795, and the cost for the Bar Review part varies from $1195 to $1495, depending on state. Only about 23 states are available. (And look! A free podcast about opening a law office!)
- The Study Group Personal Bar Review, offers a variety of study-at-home courses that focus on writing state essays, the MBE, and more. It looks like bar review courses start at about $1395 and go up from there.
This poll question came circuitously via a link at Divine Angst from which I wandered over to unblague to catch up on “the other Kristine's” odyssey from evening law student, to law school graduate, to studying for the Feb. sitting of the MD bar, and finally taking the bar exam. She's now waiting for May 5th to learn that she passed so keep your fingers crossed for her!
Somewhere along the way, unblague linked to Brazen: Passing the MD Bar, a blog by and about a graduating 3L who is preparing for the bar exam w/out the assistance of Bar/Bri or any other commercial review course. I completely agree with and admire brazen's desire to defy the conventional wisdom and prove that the bar exam can be beat without shelling out another several thousand dollars in “education” after your education (law school). However, bar review courses have a pretty compelling argument, which is always like this: You've spent tens of thousands of dollars on your legal education, but all of that will be for naught if you don't pass the bar exam. Don't you think it would be smart to maximize your chances of passing the bar by taking our course?
Well, do you?
Related: The Bar Review Choice
Posted 09:31 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Westlaw By A Nose
The most recent Ambivalent Question® asked: “Do you prefer Lexis or Westlaw for your legal research?” After two weeks of voting, the final results were:
- 32.6% of respondents said “Weslaw is da bomb.”
- 27.9% said “Impeach Bush.”
- 25.6% said “Lexis rocks.”
- 11.6% said “They both suck. I prefer free online sources.”
- 2.3% (one person, I think) said “Neither. It's all about the books.”
So Westlaw seems to hold a slight lead in your preferences. To no one's surprise, I am again in the minority here: I prefer Lexis b/c it's just so much faster in my experience, it doesn't force me to turn off pop-up blocking in my browser, and I've learned to find what I'm looking for with it. As others mentioned, Westlaw's drawbacks include its horrible design, frequent timeouts, poor behavior with tabs, and glacial performance—especially on anything less than the most recent browsers. At my internships and in my clinic where the computers are circa 1999, trying to bring up a case on Westlaw is just a joke. Plus, Westlaw is the 900-lb. gorilla in the legal research market, and I have a fairly deep-seated antipathy toward market bullies. For those of you who aren't aware, West owns all the page numbers for legal citation, meaning that its profits are basically assured by court rules all across the country which require citation to West reporters for all documents submitted to court. West also stole much of its online database from a taxpayer-created database of case law in the 1980s and I think it's pretty rotten of a corporation to steal from me like that. So West totally blows, as far as I'm concerned.
Given the choice, I actually use free online resources whenever possible. They're especially good for SCOTUS case law and are generally much faster than Wexis will ever be b/c you don't have to wade through all the click-tracking and fee-assessing code that bogs down those services.
Finally, I'm sad to say that the “Impeach Bush” vote seems to be shrinking from poll to poll. It's down from 28.6% in the cartoon poll, and 27.9% in the spying poll. This obviously may have something to do with the nature of the question, but it's disappointing, nonetheless.
Posted 08:30 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Ambivalent Question: Lexis or Westlaw?
This week's Ambivalent Question® asks: “Do you prefer Lexis or Westlaw for your legal research?”
This one is pretty self-explanatory. It was inspired by Bad Glacier's post about how much he dislikes Westlaw's interface. Some people seem to love that interface and find it much easier to use than what Lexis provides; others feel the opposite. Long-time readers of this blog already know where I stand on the issue but I'll save the rest for next week after you've all voted.
Meanwhile, the poll is open and I'd love to hear your comments about why you prefer one, the other, or neither. Vote and comment away!
Posted 08:30 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Domestic Spying? You're lovin' it!
The last Ambivalent Question was: “It's legality aside, does the U.S. need Bush's NSA domestic spying program?” (Related post.) The final results were:
- 48.5% of respondents said “Yes. It makes us safer.”
- 27.9% said “Impeach Bush.”
- 23.5% said “No. The costs to our civil liberties are not worth whatever benefits it may offer.”
So you're lovin' the spying. I'm hatin' it, but hey, I'm just one crazy person, I guess. Some of you in the comments explained your positions more completely and while I appreciate the distinctions you attempt to make and agree that we don't have full information about the program, I know enough to be certain that this program is not good for the country I want to live in. The Supreme Court has said our right to privacy is defined by our collective expectations—if we expect more privacy, the Constitution grants it; if we expect less, that's what we get. And a majority of those responding to this poll obviously expect and even want less privacy. That's awesome. Big Brother hearts you.
Posted 08:18 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Ambivalent Question: Do we need the spying?
This week's Ambivalent Question asks: “Its legality aside: Does the U.S. need Bush's NSA domestic spying program?”
Here is the basic background: Shortly after the attacks of 9/11/01, President Bush authorized the NSA to begin eavesdropping on telephone and email conversations between Americans in the U.S. and Americans and non-Americans outside of the U.S. This program remained secret until last December, when the NY Times published a story about it (after holding the story for nearly a year). There is great disagreement over whether the program is legal, but the latest chorus I'm hearing is that if it's illegal, Congress is more than happy to change the law to make it legal. So the Ambivalent Question sidesteps the legality issue to ask: Is this a necessary program? Does it do us any good? Do its benefits (real or potential or theoretical) outweigh its costs (again, real or potential or theoretical)?
Voting and comments are open, so whadyathink?
Posted 11:22 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Cartoon Poll: Publish w/restraint
The last Ambivalent Poll asked: “What do you think about the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed?” (Related post.) The final results were:
- 28.6% of respondents said “The media have the right to publish, but they probably should not do so.”
- 28.6% said “Impeach Bush.”
- 25.7% said “A cartoon, no matter what it depicts, can never justify violence.”
- 17.1% said “Western media should publish such things; it's a matter of free speech.”
- 0.0% said “Western media should *not* publish such things; doing so is insensitve to Muslims and Islam.”
I was in the majority on this one; it's probably best to exercise restraint in publication of these cartoons and yes, we should definitely impeach Bush. As L. pointed out, the original motivation for the cartoons could very well have had a large racist component, so while reprinting them might seem like an expression of support for free speech, it also ends up reinforcing whatever racism might have motivated the cartoons in the first place.
These are hard questions. I'm tempted to agree that cartoons alone should never justify violence, but it's hard to say that the violence we've seen is really a result of these cartoons. The cartoons may have been the touchstone, but it's clear the anger and resentment were there already. What to do about that is the gazillion-dollar question.
Thanks to all who voted. A new Ambivalent Question will be up soon.
Ambivalent Question: The Cartoon Conundrum
The right column should now feature a new Ambivalent Question, namely: What do you think about the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed?
I'm sure you know the basic situation, but I'll recap briefly as I understand it: A year or so ago a Dutch newspaper published some cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Many Muslims believe “it is forbidden” to depict the Prophet in any way. (I put that in quotes b/c I'm not clear where this prohibition originates. Is it in the Koran? Did some religious figure make this rule up? Is it tradition? I don't know.) A group of Dutch Muslims brought these cartoons to the attention of some Imams and other Muslim religious leaders and when they were recently republished in France many Muslims began protesting and much violence has been threatened (although I don't know of any actual violence yet).
UPDATE: Danish embassy torched in Syria.
So that's my understanding of the situation. Tony has helpfully published a collection of the cartoons in question. So what do you think? The poll and comments are wide open...
Posted 11:26 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
