Only 40% of Candidates Passed the Connecticut Bar Exam in February
The number is an improvement on February 2018, when only 38% of candidates passed the exam.
April 29, 2019 at 04:08 PM
4 minute read
For the second consecutive year, the percentage of law students passing the February Connecticut bar exam fell to less than 50%, the latest sign of a downward trend both statewide and nationally.
The numbers for the July Connecticut bar exam, traditionally higher than the February bar exam, have also dropped precipitously in the past few years.
The February Connecticut numbers, released late Friday, show that 63 of 158 test takers, or about 40%, passed the exam.
One year earlier, just 38% passed the February bar exam. At least 50% of test takers passed the February bar exam every year from 2000-2017.
The University of Connecticut School of Law, Quinnipiac University School of Law and Western New England Law School in Massachusetts had the most candidates.
See the full results here:
The pass rate from February 2018 to February 2019 for the University of Connecticut School of Law fell from 63% to 40%.
At Quinnipiac University School of Law, 31% passed in February, compared to 61% one year earlier.
There was good news of sorts at Western New England Law School, where the pass rate increased from 26% to 41%.
Connecticut Bar Examining Committee Administrative Director Jessica Kallipolites said she didn't see anything unexpected in the overall February 2019 bar exam results, noting the big surprise was one year earlier.
“Given we were at 38% last year, I do not think that a 40% pass rate this year is shocking,” she said.
Kallipolites said she does “not have a theory” as to why the pass rate the past two years for February fell below 50%.
Meanwhile, University of Connecticut School of Law Dean Tim Fisher pointed out the drop is not just a statewide trend, but a national one.
“There is an ongoing dialogue between the deans of law schools in America and the national bar examining committee about the reasons for the change,” he said.
It's hard to say why candidates are failing in large numbers, but Fisher suggested, “One possibility is that this generation learned in a different fashion.”
“Major studies are being started to examine the validity of the bar exam,” he said, and the goal is to “determine the extent to which the bar exam actually tests the skills and attributes most relevant to the success as a lawyer.”
Quinnipiac University School of Law Dean Jennifer Gerarda Brown issued a statement Monday.
“Of course, we'd like to see a high passage rate with every administration of the bar exam, but we're reluctant to draw any conclusions from these latest results given the small number of test takers,” Brown said. “We remain very pleased with our July 2018 results, which were 12 points above the state average.”
Quinnipiac Law professor John Thomas echoed Brown's statements, saying it would be unfair to make judgments on the February bar exam because the sample size—158 test takers—is so small.
Most candidates and full-time students sit for the bar in July.
“Statisticians will tell you that you can't draw conclusions with such a small sample size,” he said. “Certainly, though, it provides cause for law schools to examine the preparation they offer students.”
Fisher said at his university that preparation includes two new courses offered just this year. One, a bar preparation course, focuses on the methodology of taking the bar exam. The second course, a commercial bar prep course, teaches the subject matter of the exams.
With the new courses offered, Fisher hopes to see a spike in successful candidates come February 2020.
For the second straight February, Yale University Law School had no one take the exam. Five Yale students took the July exam in 2018 and all passed. Yale has traditionally smaller class sizes than some other law schools, graduating only about 200 students a year.
Related Stories:
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 AllPlaintiffs Seek to Avoid Jurisdiction Fight in IVF Case, Challenge CooperSurgical in Connecticut
4 minute readPike Fuels Agrees to Pay $2 Million Settlement to Resolve Alleged New Haven Environmental Violations
2 minute readHigh-Flying Genetics Testing Firm GeneDx Hires Ex-Zoetis GC as Legal Chief
2 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Trending Stories
- 1UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in U.S., Other Countries
- 2Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 36th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 4On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 5After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
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