At the request of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners the state’s Supreme Court has raised the score necessary to pass the bar exam — from 131 to 133 out of 200 last year, and from 133 to 136 this year. The Board of Bar Examiners
argued that the passing score approved more than 20 years ago was too low to ensure that Florida’s lawyers were “minimally competent.”
The high court agreed, concluding that “the people of Florida would be placed at risk if we fail to approve the higher standard.”
The response to this effort in Florida and other states has generated criticsm that, by now, will surprise no one:
efforts to raise the bar for passing the bar are prompting a chorus of dissent. Minnesota considered such a proposal but withdrew it two years ago, after law deans complained that it would have reduced the number of black and Hispanic lawyers in the state. And last year New York temporarily shelved a similar plan after several statewide bar associations and the deans of all of the state’s 15 law schools complained.
Deterring Diversity?
Critics of the proposals, including law deans and advocates for minority students, say there is no proof that requiring a slightly higher score on a standardized test would weed out incompetent lawyers. But, they say, raising the passing score might just weed out the very minority students that law schools are eager to attract.
Furthermore, they argue that the new standards could also hurt low-income applicants, particularly those caring for children or elderly relatives, who do not have the time or money for preparatory courses.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the most avid critics of raising standards are law professors and deans. The Society of American Law Teachers filed a brief in Florida arguing that higher standards would have a disparate impact on minorities and hence reduce diversity, but the Florida Supreme Court was not persuaded.
“The only people disadvantaged by an increase in the pass/fail line would be those who are not qualified to become practicing members of the Florida Bar in the first place,” it stated.
Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, states that “[t]he deans have banded together to fight tooth and claw any proposals that would make passing the bar more rigorous.”
If “diversity” is of paramount importance and raising the bar for passing the bar exam a few points would reduce “diversity” but would not weed out any incompetent lawyers, then why not lower the requirements? Or maybe just lower the requirements minorites must meet?
Fortunately, many minority students resent the racist implications lurking in the fear of higher standards, “bristling at the suggestion that the standard should be lowered for them.”
“I’m a minority student, and I don’t believe I’m at any more disadvantage than anyone else,” says Alejandro Alvarez, a third-year student at Florida International University. “I take the same classes and have the same faculty as anyone else.”
Are the dean at Florida International and the local chapter of the Society of American Law Teachers asleep at the switch? Their school seems to have graduated a minority student who still believes in equality.
Evidently, the only way to be the diversity, is to be from a racial or ethnic group that needs standards to be brought lower, if they are to move towards equality of representation. Is civilization a competition for prestige, between the physically identifiable populations? If our official culture says that it is, or implies such a judgement, they make clear that they are uncivilized, and should be roundly damned. The above quotations also show a contradiction in the pro-diversity attitudes; if the disadvantaged minorities, are just as well-prepared, coming from a given program, their differential results can’t consistently be said to be also environmental. Either they’re not getting a special break from official policies, and are equally qualified, or they are being promoted beyond the qualifications required of the non-diverse.
Follow the money.
Law schools are ranked by various publications in part by bar passage rates. This would obviously harm those schools in the admissions game. Fewer applicants = less money.
David, my thoughts were similar, though focused on the motivations of the Board of Bar Examiners. More lawyers admitted would mean more competition, leading to lower fees. Or, in more charitable terms, Florida probably already has too many attorneys and their numbers will decrease with raised standards.
Interesting battle- lawyers, who want to keep the number of competitors to a minimum, versus law teachers, who want to increase the customer base.
I’m sorry, what I meant to say was “keep standards high” and “improve diversity”.