'You Have to Eat': How Working During Law School Hurts Bar Exam Performance
"Preparing for the bar exam needs to be a full-time job," said Justin Dion, director of the Bar Success Program at Western New England University School of Law.
May 23, 2018 at 07:31 PM
4 minute read
Western New England University in Springfield, Massachusetts. (Photo: Paul Schnaittacher/Wikimedia)
There's a catch-22 that might explain falling bar exam passage rates across the country: Many law students now need to work to cover tuition, but their full-time jobs mean they spend too little time preparing for the big test.
Only 38 percent of candidates passed the last Connecticut bar exam in February—an 18-year low for the state.
Just three years earlier, 68 percent passed the February exam. But that number has plummeted with each subsequent sitting. In 2016, it fell to 63 percent. The following year, another dip, this time to 50 percent. Most recently, only 74 of 195 students passed the February exam.
But that dwindling success rate might point to students' work ethic—not their lack of it, experts said.
“Preparing for the bar exam needs to be a full-time job,” said Western New England University School of Law's Justin Dion. “You need to be spending eight hours a day on it preparing and studying.”
But that's the problem: Most candidates can't afford that luxury.
“You do have to eat,” said Joseph Olivenbaum, director of academic support programs at Quinnipiac University in Hamden. But “a student who is in a position where they have to work is [at] a disadvantage.”
With many February candidates at least in their mid-20s and not independently wealthy, they undertake huge debt to pay tuition. At Quinnipiac University School of Law, for instance, pursuing a law degree costs about $48,800. University of Connecticut School of Law's in-state tuition is about $29,400, or about $59,900 for out-of-state students. At Western New England University, the tab runs around $41,000.
“There seems to be a larger cohort of Connecticut students working full-time while attending Western New England,” said Dion, who directs the Bar Success Program at the Springfield, Massachusetts-based university and serves as its professor of legal skills. “That has been the trend in recent years. There are a lot of people in Connecticut who work in insurance and they come to law school in the evening.”
That dynamic—working full-time and attending class after hours—was once the exception, but now it's the rule.
“The financial pressures and obligations of students have increasingly grown over the years, forcing more to divert attention to things other than studying for the bar exam,” Dion said. “Any other job, full- or part-time, makes it exceptionally more difficult to pass, as you are forced to condense a full day's worth of studying into a much smaller time frame.”
Universities are starting to acknowledge the issue and offer support, in addition to bar exam preparation courses that review substantive law and practice questions that test-takers might encounter on the exam.
Meanwhile, the bar exam itself is facing mounting criticism among detractors in Iowa, Wisconsin and other states, who view it as an unreasonable barrier to becoming a lawyer.
But Neal Feigenson, associate dean at Quinnipiac University School of Law, said a screening mechanism is essential.
“People who want to be doctors take tests, and to be in academia you take qualifying exams,” Feigenson said. “Like any test, the bar is not a perfect measurement, but it does screen, and that is its function. It's not a perfect tool, but it does perform a rationale and necessary screening function.”
For candidates, the question now becomes how to pass that screening while working their way through school.
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 AllConnecticut's Wiggin and Dana Absorbs Boca Raton Trusts and Estates Boutique
3 minute readLaw Firm Leaders Say Gen AI Can Level Playing Field Between Large and Smaller Firms
6 minute readRevenue Up 11.2%, PEP Up 22.1% at Akin, as Aggressive Hiring Pays Off
5 minute readNew England's Hinckley Allen Expands Southward, Opening 7th Office in Fort Lauderdale
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1As Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
- 2Simpson Restructuring Leader Moves Back to Weil
- 3How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Mistakes and Setbacks Are Valuable Learning Experiences,' Says Kristen Behrens of Dilworth Paxson
- 4Trump 2.0: A Mostly Pro-Employer Agenda—But Not Entirely
- 5People in the News—Dec. 13, 2024—Gawthrop Greenwood, Reger Rizzo
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