The State Bar of California just sent a survey to California attorneys asking whether it should make it easier to pass the bar exam. It sent the survey to attorneys in a complete vacuum. The current cut score is 1440. It is obvious to everyone that changing that score will impact the pass rate, downwards or upwards, which is the only (self-evident) observation the State Bar provided. But how does that information help attorneys provide an informed response? Why didn’t the State Bar explain why it set the cut score at 1440 in the first place? Presumably the State Bar had made a reasoned determination, based on the evidence before it, that a cut score of 1440 would demonstrate that the applicant had a minimal competency to practice law in California, that such minimal competency would be reflected in how that person served his/her clients (i.e., well or not well), and that minimal competency would protect the public and the integrity of the judicial system, while promoting the public’s respect for the legal profession. It gets worse.
I went to the State Bar website and found the actual study the State Bar commissioned (Conducting a Standard Setting Study for the California Bar Exam):
http://apps.calbar.ca.gov/cbe/docs/agendaItem/Public/agendaitem1000001929.pdf
After explaining the math and methodology of the study, the executive summary says this: “The panel’s median recommended passing score of 1439 converged with the program’s existing passing score while the mean recommended
passing score of 1451 was higher.” In other words, according the the legal and math experts involved in the Study, California’s current cut score is either at or just below where it should be to ensure minimal competency of the applicant.
But for some reason, the State Bar’s email only suggested keeping or lowering the cut score, not raising it: “Based on the study’s findings, two options were presented to the Committee of Bar Examiners for consideration and subsequently issued for comment: 1) keep the current cut score of 1440; 2) reduce it to 1414 as an interim cut score, pending the conclusion of the other studies being conducted.” To protect the public, the State Bar should have informed us about the recommendations of the Study, and that raising the cut score would also be in line with the Study.
What if a similar survey had been sent by the Medical Board asking whether its cut score should change to make it easier for medical students to pass the licensing exam and become doctors? If the Medical Board’s cut score is set to ensure minimal competency to practice medicine, a suggestion to lower the cut score so more people would pass the test would be frightening, literally.
We want competent doctors. In the same vein, everyone in California deserves a minimally competent attorney.
Developments for the California Litigator