This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Legal Education,
Letters,
State Bar & Bar Associations

May 14, 2020

... or perhaps the bar exam system is broken

“The simplest solution is most likely the right one.” This is the most common paraphrased version of English Franciscan friar William of Ockham’s Latin philosophy of “lex parsimoniae.”

Mitchel L. Winick

President and Dean
Monterey College of Law

Mitchel is president and dean of a non-profit California accredited law school system that includes Monterey College of Law, San Luis Obispo College of Law, and Kern County College of Law. He was one of eight deans invited by the California Supreme Court to an informal meeting in October 2019 to discuss concerns about the California bar exam. He is former chair of the Committee of Bar Examiners Rules Advisory Committee and a former member of the Law School Council representing the California Accredited Law Schools.

See more...

"The simplest solution is most likely the right one." This is the most common paraphrased version of English Franciscan friar William of Ockham's Latin philosophy of "lex parsimoniae."

According to the State Bar of California, only 26.8% of California bar examinees from the February 2020 California bar exam have the "minimum qualifications for the first year practice of law." ("State Bar February pass rate is 26.8%, lower than last," Ma11, 2020).

We could believe that all 40+ California law schools suddenly and inexplicably became incapable of teaching substantive bar-tested subjects ... or perhaps the California bar exam grading and scoring system is broken. Alternatively, we could believe that California law schools conspired to intentionally destroy the profession by systematically seeking out and selecting students who had little or no ability to successfully study and understand the principles of law ... or perhaps the California bar exam grading and scoring system is broken. We could believe that a 70-year-old scoring system that the bar's own data indicates has significant disparate impact on the basis of race/ethnicity does not play a role in the lack of diversity in the profession ... or perhaps the California bar exam grading and scoring system is broken.

We could believe that despite scoring a February 2020 state mean scaled score of 1357 on the Multistate Bar Exam, well above the national mean scaled score of 1326, and well above the national minimum passing score standard of 1330-1350, that only 26.8% of California bar examinees have the "minimum qualifications for the first year practice of law" ... or perhaps the California bar exam grading and scoring system is broken.

How long do we, as a profession, continue to support such a broken and dysfunctional licensing exam grading and scoring system?

The simplest solution is most likely the right one ... it made sense in 1320 ... it makes sense in 2020. 

-- Mitchel L. Winick

President, Dean

Monterey College of Law

San Luis Obispo College of Law

Kern County College of Law

#357700


Submit your own column for publication to Diana Bosetti


For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com