As if anyone needs one more reason to explain why the bar exam is so arbitrary, try this one on for size.
Tonight was criminal law. The lecturer says we're going to go over the common law definitions for offenses against the person, with this caveat: NO state follows the common law definitions for these crimes. NONE. NOT A ONE. The definitions for these crimes date back to 1700 England. And yet, we have to commit to memory the common law definitions because that is the law upon which the multi-state bar examiners base the 200-question Multiple choice test.
Why? Because every state has modified the common law crimes by statute and we can't be expected to know the law in all 50 states. So my thought is this: abolish the multiple choice portion of the bar and let every state administer their own bar exam, based on their own state law. Wouldn't that make more sense?
Maybe I'm being too analytical about it. But then again, maybe not. Anyone who has ever taken a bar exam will tell you -- the exam only tests your ability to cram a bunch of crap into your memory and regurgitate it on paper. That's all a bar exam does. It does not test one's ability to be a lawyer. Why? Because doing so would make too much sense and god forbid that the bar examiners make sense.
A favorite statement of all bar exam lecturers: "In the real world, "x" would be right/wrong. But remember, the bar exam is NOT the real world." But...aren't we trying to become lawyers in the "real world"...so shouldn't the bar exam test us on "real world" ideals? Again, I guess that would make too much sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment