February's Average Multistate Bar Exam Score Hits All-Time Low
A 1.4-point decline in the average Multistate Bar Exam score achieved by February test takers throws cold water on what legal educators had hoped was a sustained turnaround in bar pass rates.
April 20, 2020 at 01:39 PM
3 minute read
While courts, bar examiners and legal educators are grappling with how to handle the July bar exam amid COVID-19, there's also cause for concern over the now-concluded February exam.
The national average score on the Multistate Bar Exam—the 200-question multiple-choice portion of the attorney licensing test—fell 1.4 points from the previous year to land at 132.6, according to the National Conference of Bar Examiners, which develops the test. That represents the lowest average February MBE score on record, and is an ominous sign for pass rates in individual jurisdictions.
"It's obviously disappointing to see this decline after last year's mean increases in February and July," said national conference president Judith Gundersen on Monday. "Although the MBE isn't the only factor that affects bar passage rates, we will probably see a decline in pass rates for February 2020."
The February results are likely to throw cold water on the legal academy's hopes for a sustained bar exam turnaround. Pass rates plummeted between 2014 and 2018, but a 1.2-point gain on the February 2019 average MBE score fueled cautious optimism among educators that the worst was behind them. Those hopes accelerated after July 2019 bar takers posted a 1.6 point increase in the MBE average. The July administration is watched more closely by the legal industry, as it is significantly larger and draws a higher percentage of first-time takers that the February test.
This past February, 19,112 people sat for the exam—down 10% from the previous year. And more than two-thirds of them were taking the test for a second time or more, according to the national conference. It was those repeat test-takers who were the primary drivers of the declining average MBE score, Gundersen noted, rather than those who were sitting for the exam for the first time.
"The February mean is always driven by repeat test-takers; this February, the decrease in the mean score among likely first-time takers was relatively small, while the decrease was larger for likely repeaters," she said.
The growing adoption of the Uniform Bar Exam is a possible factor in lower pass rates because the ability to transfer scores across jurisdictions eliminates the need for attorneys who have already passed one bar exam to take it again elsewhere. Those who have passed the exam once are far more likely to pass it in subsequent administrations than are those who have already failed and are trying again. Another way to think about it is that bar failers are representing a higher proportion of examinees than in the past, before widespread adoption of the uniform exam.
It's not all bad news out there on the bar exam front, however. Jurisdictions are starting to release results from the February test. The overall pass rate in Florida, for example, increased from 58% in 2019 to 60% this February. Tennessee's February pass rate held steady at 46%. But Virginia's February 2020 pass rate fell to 58%, down from nearly 63% the previous year.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute read'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readLaw Firms Are Turning to Online Training Platforms as Apprenticeship Model Falters
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Match Group's Katie Dugan & Herrick's Carol Goodman
- 3Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Eric Wall, Executive VP, Syllo
- 4Battle for Top Talent Accelerates Amid Profit and Demand Surge
- 5Friday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250