Oregon is getting rid of the bar requirement!

I am ecstatic to see this happening! There's a person I follow who has been active in trying to sway getting rid of the bar in California. I keep hoping that will happen.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/no-bar-exam-required-practice-law-oregon-starting-next-year-2023-11-07/

 

675 hours and create a portfolio of supervised legal work. Hm. Bar exam is quicker, probably easier, and way cheaper if you count the hours spent for low pay (what, you think a firm WON'T take advantage?) Also, Oregon is a UBE state but in order to take advantage of that you have to have passed a bar exam.

This is NOT a Wisconsin style "diploma privilege".

 

It seems likely there's a population of law school graduates who struggle with specifics of a bar exam but can do well with this portfolio and do well in practice.

 

There's also the question of time. When you get out of law school, you need to be licensed as quickly as possible to start paying your loans.

 

I am not saying that this is a bad idea. (It is but I'm not saying that.) I think very few people are likely to opt for portfolio assessment especially if there are no published standards or specific areas of law that must be covered.

 

Educationally, I've never understood the Bar exam. Not since ABA-accredited law schools became the de facto entryway for almost all attorneys in America. If the profession's professional body sets standards for what is and what is not a law school, isn't that sufficient? It certainly is for many other licensed professions.

When reading the law and apprenticing with a judge or lawyer was the way to go, they needed a way to measure candidates' readiness to become attorneys. But is it really necessary anymore? (California being a weird exception, naturally.)

Using the Bar exam as a way to limit the field--the supply of attorneys--in order to keep fees propped up. Why else would we see such dramatic differences in passing rates from state to state?

I'm not an expert at the law or legal education. But I am one in education and I have a lot of experience with credentialing. But maybe there's something significant I'm missing.

 

Because law schools, especially for profit law schools, cannot be trusted to produce competent graduates.

 

Or perhaps I should say, "produce only competent graduates."

 

Outside of medicine (MD, DO, PA, NP, OD, DDS, etc.), I believe there should be diploma privilege. This could be a stupid question but how does the bar exam prepare you for practicing law? It’d be like a heart surgeon taking an exam on heart surgery and then going and doing it without hands-on learning.

I believe on the job learning is far better than anything a standardized exam can provide.

 

I agree. Plus, a job pays. You can't eat an exam, drive one or or live in one. More jobs, less exams!

 

Learning plus food and shelter are some of my favorite things.

 

The purpose of the bar exam is to protect the public from seriously incompetent lawyers. Believe me, law school grads can be completely incompetent practitioners. Some of them become law professors.

If you have a better way to assure basic competence, great. But even places like Canada that have supervised practice and formal training in professional practice also have a bar exam. England and Wales have recently reintroduced their solicitors' exam.

 

There is a canard that says the bar exam has nothing to do with practicing law. Nonsense. Competent practice needs a thorough grounding in legal principles and the ability to apply those principles to fact situations. That's what law practice IS and that's exactly what the bar exam TESTS.

 

But isn't that the accreditor's responsibility to regulate? In this case, the accreditor and the profession itself are the same thing?

 

Sure. And the only objective, outcome oriented indicator the ABA has is Bar exam pass rates.

 

I personally think NP should have to retest every 5 years or so just like MD, DO, and I "think" PA has to.

In my view, nurse practitioners should be required to retake their certification exam regularly, such as every 5 years, to maintain their board certifications - just as physicians (MDs and DOs) and ' I think" physician assistants must do. Periodic retesting ensures NPs stay current on medical knowledge and best practices throughout their careers. While mandatory retesting does place an additional burden on NPs, in my opinion the benefits of maintaining up-to-date knowledge and competency outweigh the costs. Regular retesting helps reinforce high standards for NPs and could lead to better care for patients. Of course, reasonable people can disagree on the ideal policy balance here. But in general, I think requiring retesting every few years is a prudent requirement for NPs to have, just as it is for some other medical professions.

 

I just don't see it. The ABA accredits law schools. Graduating law school ought to be what admits you to the Bar.

Also, I object to the notion that Bar exam is "objective." No test is objective. They're all written by people. Even the scoring can be subjective on a multiple choice test. (Deciding which answer is right--not to mention how it is presented and what the distractors are--is very subjective.) Even a math test can be subjective. (People decide what goes on it, for example.)

Bar exams are far and away from objective.

 

NPs and other Healthcare professionals are required to do CEUs to maintain their licenses and advanced certification. To maintain certification as a NP by the ANCC which is required for licensure requires quite a bit of CEUs ( usually 75 over 5 years ) and meeting other criteria as practice hours or publishing papers. If you don't want to do that you can retest. So NPs are continuously updating their knowledge. You could make the case that most jobs require continuous learning or an updating of skills The fear to me is over regulation of occupations. Now some states and organizations are wanting NPs to obtain doctorial degrees instead of MSNs. When first started NPs were trained past becoming a RN( with a diploma or Associates degree) in a certificate program. Soon a BSN was required for entrance in to an NP certificate program. Then certificates died out and a Masters was needed to be a NP. Was this needed or was this away for colleges and Universities to make money?

https://www.nursingworld.org/certification/renewals/

 

Testing is not the only way to demonstrate proficiency. In fact, it's highly limited.

My wife, an NP, has to renew her license by submitting evidence of both continuing education and hours in practice. This evidence is far more meaningful than a passing grade on some exam.

Also, it is educational malpractice to test a person on a body of knowledge not explicitly presented and trained. That means a test prep industry will pop up to serve the population (because the profession won't do it).

Finally, is there some sort of problem that needs to be remedied here? Do NPs fail to maintain professional standards and practice? Not that I've heard of, but I've only been a learning professional for more than 4 decades and married to an NP for nearly 3, so there's probably more to learn.

 

We must read different research. But ok if you say so.