Boalt and the Bar Exam
Most of us know that law school, at least the Boalt variety, does not specifically prepare you for the Bar exam. However, we also know that Boalt has recently been increasingly concerned with its students' bar passage rates. But how serious is Boalt about this problem, if you want to call it a problem?
I think, by far, the most productive thing Boalt can do towards producing more bar exam-ready students would be—and yes, I know this is drastic—to REQUIRE all classes that are on bar exam subjects to be CLOSED NOTE, CLOSED BOOK. Get angry now. But keep in mind I am not actually suggesting this as a policy; I am only theorizing that this is would be the single best thing Boalt could do to prepare us better.
And really, I get it. Law school at Boalt is pretty damn easy when all you have to do is take a few days to paraphrase entire commercial outlines and show up for an exam. But after three years of being able to do that to pass exams, we gain almost no practice for what the bar exam requires of us: the ability to spit out glib answers without being able to reference our notes.
Maybe some other students don't find this difficult, and have no problem transitioning from a deep, specific, note-enhanced type of writing to a shallow, note-free bullshitting style of writing. For me, this is the only really hard part of studying for the bar, and if I had taken my torts, crim, contracts, property, evidence, crim pro, civ pro, etc. exams under the same conditions, I am sure that it would not have been so stressful this summer.
This is not to say that the tradeoff would be worth it. After this is all over, I am sure those who pass the exam will say the added stress for 2 months over the summer did not outweigh the benefit of having almost all open-note or take home tests throughout law school. But, as an institution, perhaps Boalt might have a different calculus?
posted by Danny Zee at 8:51 PM
18 Comments:
Or maybe the only the bottom third of the class should have to take closed book exams. There's no reason to punish the rest of us.
Hahah... oh no you DIDN'T 10:18AM!
But seriously, bar exam law is not the same as law exam law (and probably neither are the same as actual law, but oh well...). It would be impossible to test on the more nuanced and in-depth material that most law school courses go into. Have you seen the bar exam essays? They're superficial and the "model" answers are often incorrect. I am personally glad that I learned a variety of perspectives on tort law rather than a laundry list of which animals are considered wild and will subject their owners to strict liability for any damage.
I don't think that all closed book exams are inherently less nuanced or valuable educationally. My torts professor, with the initials RM, gave really intense closed book exams. HHK is famous for her closed book exams. I've heard they are really difficult. But I couldn't imagine IP or Con law closed book.
I agree that the bar exam answers are just odd. I never had the experience in law school where I had to spit out the template answer for offer and acceptance in a contracts question, the scope of the duty of a torts negligence question, or that stupid introduction to all community property essays. I can't believe that the bar cares more about memorization of the template than your actual analysis skills. But I also think the main part of the bar essays comes after the rule statement where you apply the facts to the rule. Boalt could do a better good job training us on how to do this nitty gritty essay writing.
Totally second these comments. The California Bar seems to be the only time in a lawyer's life when he must have the entire corpus of California law memorized.
Boalt shouldn't play to that pretend world any more than it already does.
Indeed, in going through these essays, I swear half the content of a correct answer consists of regurgitating information so stupidly obvious that you wouldn't even bother mentioning it on a real exam. (You mean you can't sue a prison warden for an Equal Protection Violation unless there is STATE ACTION? Oh!).
I wrote before I saw 12:39, but the RM example seems to prove just the opposite for me, actually. I memorized all the elements, did fine in the class...and promptly forgot everything and anything she taught.
I've basically had to re-learn torts from scratch this summer in part, I think, because in studying for RM's exam, I never had to (or had time to) dig into what anything meant. I was too busy memorizing lists that were promptly forgot.
By contrast, fed courts is probably the ultimate class where Fletcher makes you understand the concepts, not elements....and I haven't needed to look at that stuff once this summer as a result.
So, I'd rather have a class that makes me learn than makes me memorize, for the bar and for afterwards.
Thanks for letting us know that you did fine in RM's Torts class, EW. I was worried.
I agree that the bar exam is VERY different than law school exams, and it would be an odd thing to try to make them substantively similar.
Nevertheless, just making tests closed book/note does not mean they become the same thing. Whatever the nature of a closed note law school exam, it would require students to actually think and write without looking everything up in notes, or at least relying on a little "attack sheet".
To the extent that the bar exam requires you to memorize a whole bunch of stuff, at least then you only have to do the memorization and not ALSO deal with the shock of not having "attack sheets" and outlines handy.
The reason we can't imagine closed book con law is because we haven't been exposed to them. But they surely would call for less complex answers than an open book exam. (A closed book IP exam is a little off topic, since the post only dealt with bar exam topics).
Of course, the ease of accessing materials on your computers might be a problem and call for a return of examsoft. Fuck it, closed note tests are a terrible idea.
12:39 here:
All I meant to say is that exposure to closed book exams would help right now. There is no need to be snarky. Any move to more closed book exams--even IP or fed courts--would help. BTW I had non-bar classes with closed book finals too at boalt. That also helps right now.
I don't know why people continue to say that Boalt's passage rate was a lower last year because Boalt teaches policy rather than black letter law, or has open note as opposed to closed book exams.
I'm pretty sure Boalt's been teaching pretty much the same way for a long time now, so I doubt that the way we learn here has anything to do with it. I mean really, it was one year. I bet the class of 08 is going to bring the percentage right back up to where it should be, and all the 2Ls and 3Ls can go back to enjoying their open note, open book exams and not worry about the bar until BarBri makes them. That's the way it should be.
In re 3:18: "I'm pretty sure Boalt's been teaching pretty much the same way for a long time now, so I doubt that the way we learn here has anything to do with it."
This is really missing the point. Assuming that is true, there have been drastic changes in the way students take tests at Boalt over the last few years, and the timing of the recent dip in passage rates matches up with those changes.
The topic here is NOT what Boalt teaches (black letter versus policy, e.g.), but HOW students take tests. Students are not required to think on their feet without the crutches of attack sheets and outlines, often with these materials openly accessible on their computers. These are luxuries you don't get on the bar exam. So we get to the bar exam having never been forced to take a test without those security blankets. It may not make much of a difference in the end, but it sure FEELS scary...
But hell, now that you mention it.... if anything, less of a focus on black letter law should mean that closed note tests make a lot more sense and do not call for regurgitation of memorized black letter law.
Just my $.02.
I think Danny might be onto something here. I really don't understand why Boalt doesn't mimic the policies of law schools that would easily behead their students to have Boalt's stature in the legal community.
Pepperdine doesn't have open book exams...neither should we. If Whittier offers classes on the Performance Test, then by golly we can cancel a few of those Int'l Law classes to accommodate this new elective. Int'l law isn't really law is it? And if all the above mentioned, along with certain other schools that shall remain nameless, flunk out the bottom 10% of their class to raise their bar passage rates, me thinks it's time for Boalt to ditch the PPP crowd too.
Why are we stopping there? A quick glance at Abraham Lincoln University School of Law's webpage tells you everything you need to know about snazzy, effective law school websites and curricula. The problem with the Matrix and passing the bar as a Boaltie is choice. We have the option of choosing classes (unless you're an out of stater who never applied to UCB). ALUSL eliminates that problem by requiring classes for three years, followed by a "choice" of electives your fourth year. If four years of bar prep courses doesn't get Boalties to wake up and take the bar seriously, I don't know what will.
I think each and every one of these measures are essential, and must be adopted post-haste. Some might consider it foolish to adopt measures that inconvenience the over 80% of Boalties who will pass the bar without breaking a sweat simply to placate the neurotic ruminations of graduates about to take the bar (something that occurs year after year, regardless of the bar passage rate of the previous class). To them I say, with Brandt as my witness...I will not abide another USF gloatfest.
Ha! Good one Armen. Put a smile on my face on my break from Contracts flashcards.
I appreciate the comments. But just to be clear, Armen....I specifically said I was NOT suggesting the policy:
"I am not actually suggesting this as a policy; I am only theorizing that this is would be the single best thing Boalt could do to prepare us better."
The only thing I would ACTUALLY change about my Boalt experience would be to have cracked the top 1/3 of my class. Then I wouldn't even have to show up to the exam to pass, right?
P.S. Armen was accurate about one thing. These are certainly "neurotic ruminations" of a graduate about to take the bar exam. But it beats actually studying.
I had crim, torts, and con law all as closed book. I don't feel I know those subjects any better now (as a rising 3L) than I do contracts, civ pro, or property. My exams were crappier to read I'm sure (basically, the bar is lowered when it's closed book) but otherwise I dont think it made any difference in my learning.
Can we please have an open thread about classes? My phase II is coming up and I'm still really undecided about stuff. I'm interested in:
(1) any info on mediation with marshall? she has no posted reviews, so I'm skeptical.
(2) con law structural issues - worth taking for someone who is NOT a con law junkie?
(3) the wills and trusts takehome - hard?
(4) thoughts on classes with samuelson in general?
thank you!
Well, whether you "know the subjects" better is not really the point here. The point is whether you went through the experience of taking a test under those conditions.
It really is a skill to be able to write to the "lower bar" that is set when it is a closed note exam and you can't write brilliantly and completely from your notes. Having taken so many closed tests, it will be less of a shock to you than it would be those of us who never had a single essay test at Boalt that was closed book & closed note.
I agree with the thrust of EW's first argument: that there's something painfully obvious about a lot of the bar answers that we may forget to write it down.
I guess the argument why Boalt doesn't give us closed-book exams on black-letter law is because we are supposed to strive for better than that. I don't think my firm cares if I have black letter law memorized (with the exception of passing the bar), but they sure as hell want me to be able to think creatively about the law and facts when I have that black letter law in front of me.
That is: we are presumed to know the law, and our professors acknowledge that by allowing us to use our books during class to prevent memorization sprees. Instead, our tests are supposed to force us to think abstractly, creatively, and diversely (like bricklayers).
Although I agree with Danny's point that closed book exams may prepare us better for the bar, I should prefer that we be better prepared for the profession that follows it and the expectations that are on us from graduating from a school like Boalt.
Class of '08 to 100%!
Post a Comment
<< Home