With Little Evidence to Support the Current Bar Exam's Claimed Objective, It's Time to Seriously Consider the Various Alternatives

Minimum competence and protecting the profession are the objectives that supporters of the bar exam say it accomplishes. However, there is little to no credible evidence that support these claims. In fact, overwhelming evidence shows that the bar exam fails to meet these objectives. First, supporters of the bar exam have failed to provide a reasonable definition of minimum competence. Thus claiming that the bar exam attains this is a baseless assertion. Second, the bar exam only tests a narrow range of skills and cannot purport to ensure minimum competence when it overlooks so many important aspects of competent lawyering. Third, the bar exam is unnecessarily broad and forces hopeful attorneys to spend innumerable hours studying subjects that they will never use in practice. Fourth, it fails to take into account and incorporate current competency issues afflicting the legal profession, which only bolsters these underlying issues. Lastly, the bar exam perpetuates prejudice against minorities attempting to enter the legal profession and consequently works against establishing equal opportunity and diversity in the profession.