The New Bar Exam Puts DEI over Lawyer Competence(wsj.com)
wsj.com
The New Bar Exam Puts DEI over Lawyer Competence
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-bar-exam-puts-dei-over-competence-ncbe-family-law-schools-9c0dd4e8
25 comments
https://archive.is/oDN8X
Lately, these archive links have been broken for me. DNS is not resolving for them. Is anyone else seeing this issue? I've seen it in the past few days with both archive.is and archive.ph
These links will not resolve if you are using Cloudflare DNS (1.1.1.1, etc.).
https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/135222/why-does-...
https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/135222/why-does-...
The article doesn't really indicate _how_ the new exam puts DEI over competence.
All it says is that they've made the test easier, and...
> perhaps the biggest concern is the NCBE’s use of the NextGen exam to advance its “diversity, fairness and inclusion” agenda. Two of the organization’s stated aims are to “work toward greater equity” by “eliminat[ing] any aspects of our exams that could contribute to performance disparities” and to “promote greater diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.” The NCBE reinforces this message by touting its “organization-wide efforts to ensure that diversity, fairness, and inclusion pervade its test products and services.”
> What does all this mean—and how does it have any relation to the law? Based on the diversity workshop at the NCBE conference, it means putting considerable emphasis on examinees’ race, sex, gender identity, nationality and other identity-based characteristics. The idea seems to be that any differences in group outcomes must be eliminated—even if the only way to achieve this goal is to water down the test. On top of all that, an American Civil Liberties Union representative provided conference attendees with a lecture on criminal-justice reform in which he argued that states should minimize or overlook would-be lawyers’ convictions for various criminal offenses in deciding whether to admit them to the bar.
...That's a lot of chaff, not much wheat. Basically, the ACLU hopes that it might become easier for people with prior convictions to join the bar.
There's nothing that says, e.g., that any ethnic group is prioritized, or that there are quotas.
So it seems like a bunch of hand-wringing. "Oh no, our regulatory moat is being eroded!"
That aside, there are two points that might be worth consideration:
1. Any changes won't kick in until 2026, and Chat-GPT is already such an outstanding lawyer that the field might be (and hopefully will be) irreversibly changed by then.
2. There has been a tremendous amount of lawyer overproduction in recent decades, so arguably the test should be made harder -- or, preferably, legal services should be democratized, as is already the case in small claims court, and all men should have standing to represent themselves and others in court. When every man is a lawyer, no man is a lawyer. (Rome, Greece, etc. were very much like this. "Lawyer" wasn't a profession; it was a temporary role or a form of community service.) Arizona has been making baby steps in this direction, if I'm not mistaken.
All it says is that they've made the test easier, and...
> perhaps the biggest concern is the NCBE’s use of the NextGen exam to advance its “diversity, fairness and inclusion” agenda. Two of the organization’s stated aims are to “work toward greater equity” by “eliminat[ing] any aspects of our exams that could contribute to performance disparities” and to “promote greater diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.” The NCBE reinforces this message by touting its “organization-wide efforts to ensure that diversity, fairness, and inclusion pervade its test products and services.”
> What does all this mean—and how does it have any relation to the law? Based on the diversity workshop at the NCBE conference, it means putting considerable emphasis on examinees’ race, sex, gender identity, nationality and other identity-based characteristics. The idea seems to be that any differences in group outcomes must be eliminated—even if the only way to achieve this goal is to water down the test. On top of all that, an American Civil Liberties Union representative provided conference attendees with a lecture on criminal-justice reform in which he argued that states should minimize or overlook would-be lawyers’ convictions for various criminal offenses in deciding whether to admit them to the bar.
...That's a lot of chaff, not much wheat. Basically, the ACLU hopes that it might become easier for people with prior convictions to join the bar.
There's nothing that says, e.g., that any ethnic group is prioritized, or that there are quotas.
So it seems like a bunch of hand-wringing. "Oh no, our regulatory moat is being eroded!"
That aside, there are two points that might be worth consideration:
1. Any changes won't kick in until 2026, and Chat-GPT is already such an outstanding lawyer that the field might be (and hopefully will be) irreversibly changed by then.
2. There has been a tremendous amount of lawyer overproduction in recent decades, so arguably the test should be made harder -- or, preferably, legal services should be democratized, as is already the case in small claims court, and all men should have standing to represent themselves and others in court. When every man is a lawyer, no man is a lawyer. (Rome, Greece, etc. were very much like this. "Lawyer" wasn't a profession; it was a temporary role or a form of community service.) Arizona has been making baby steps in this direction, if I'm not mistaken.
>> Chat-GPT is already such an outstanding lawyer that the field might be (and hopefully will be) irreversibly changed by then.
ChatGPT cannot tell fact from fiction.
Anyone who would trust the current versions to replace their doctors or lawyers is foolish.
ChatGPT cannot tell fact from fiction.
Anyone who would trust the current versions to replace their doctors or lawyers is foolish.
With simple guidance, you wouldn't believe how good Chat-GPT is at drafting motions, writing complaints, writing responses to complaints, writing patent applications, sorting through documents in discovery, etc. That's 90% of the legal profession, right there.
The "written" component of lawyering, which is effectively everything that cannot be done face to face, is right in Chat-GPT's wheelhouse.
It's not perfect. It lacks in research capabilities, so it needs its hand held from time to time. And it isn't great at thinking up "creative" strategies -- but this is arguably a feature, not a bug. Creative lawyering, like creative accounting, tends to be a net societal harm.
The "written" component of lawyering, which is effectively everything that cannot be done face to face, is right in Chat-GPT's wheelhouse.
It's not perfect. It lacks in research capabilities, so it needs its hand held from time to time. And it isn't great at thinking up "creative" strategies -- but this is arguably a feature, not a bug. Creative lawyering, like creative accounting, tends to be a net societal harm.
I find that ChatGPT is very good at writing things that don't really need to be written. If ChatGPT is doing a good job at it, it probably shouldn't be written at all.
There is a ton of boilerplate in motions, complaints, responses, etc. They make really bad documents -- they're hard to read, and it's easy to make mistakes.
The law isn't a programming language; it can't be and shouldn't be. Still, there's an awful lot of the law that is badly verbose and much worse for that. ChatGPT does those well, but that means that the law should already have been re-considered to be clearer.
An anecdote to illustrate: the deed to my house is a text document. There's no reason for it to be. It's a receipt marking an event. It should be a form, not a text. I'm sure ChatGPT could have done a great job with it... but it shouldn't have to.
There is a ton of boilerplate in motions, complaints, responses, etc. They make really bad documents -- they're hard to read, and it's easy to make mistakes.
The law isn't a programming language; it can't be and shouldn't be. Still, there's an awful lot of the law that is badly verbose and much worse for that. ChatGPT does those well, but that means that the law should already have been re-considered to be clearer.
An anecdote to illustrate: the deed to my house is a text document. There's no reason for it to be. It's a receipt marking an event. It should be a form, not a text. I'm sure ChatGPT could have done a great job with it... but it shouldn't have to.
ChatGPT is definitely not going to replace lawyers, doctors and other specialized knowledge workers.
The custom trained LLM models based on the proof of concept that ChatGPT was absolutely will augment them however. If used correctly you’re going to have a single human knowledge worker with the output of a dozen similarly trained peers with higher accuracy.
The custom trained LLM models based on the proof of concept that ChatGPT was absolutely will augment them however. If used correctly you’re going to have a single human knowledge worker with the output of a dozen similarly trained peers with higher accuracy.
Attempt to sift out those facts within the op-ed:
* The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) is planning a nationwide overhaul of the bar exam, which they call the "NextGen" exam, planned to roll out in 2026.
* Certain topics, including family law and trusts and estates, won't be tested at all in the NextGen exam.
* The exam will introduce new client-interaction exercises, the details of which are currently unclear.
* The NCBE has outlined an agenda that includes advancing "diversity, fairness and inclusion" and working towards greater equity by eliminating any aspects of the exam that could contribute to performance disparities.
* The NCBE's efforts aim to promote greater diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.
* The NCBE's diversity workshop at the conference put emphasis on examinees' race, sex, gender identity, nationality and other identity-based characteristics.
* The NCBE is encouraging an approach where states minimize or overlook potential lawyers' criminal convictions in deciding whether to admit them to the bar.
* The first graduates to take the new exam will be students entering law school in the fall of the same year it comes online, 2026.
* If implemented, law schools would have to begin adjusting their curricula to match the subjects tested by the new evaluation.
* The NCBE is expected to disclose more information about the content, scope, and scoring of the NextGen exam before the start of the next academic year.
* The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) is planning a nationwide overhaul of the bar exam, which they call the "NextGen" exam, planned to roll out in 2026.
* Certain topics, including family law and trusts and estates, won't be tested at all in the NextGen exam.
* The exam will introduce new client-interaction exercises, the details of which are currently unclear.
* The NCBE has outlined an agenda that includes advancing "diversity, fairness and inclusion" and working towards greater equity by eliminating any aspects of the exam that could contribute to performance disparities.
* The NCBE's efforts aim to promote greater diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.
* The NCBE's diversity workshop at the conference put emphasis on examinees' race, sex, gender identity, nationality and other identity-based characteristics.
* The NCBE is encouraging an approach where states minimize or overlook potential lawyers' criminal convictions in deciding whether to admit them to the bar.
* The first graduates to take the new exam will be students entering law school in the fall of the same year it comes online, 2026.
* If implemented, law schools would have to begin adjusting their curricula to match the subjects tested by the new evaluation.
* The NCBE is expected to disclose more information about the content, scope, and scoring of the NextGen exam before the start of the next academic year.
Standard republican newspaper fear-mongering. This is classic Rupert Murdoch culture war crap guaranteed to rile up the base.
There's also quite a few articles, all with hard repblican bent, that are saying the same thing. I wonder why? /sarcasm
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/20/justice-mitchell-alabam...
Basically, do your own research, rather than listen to these conspiratorial rags. Or at least acknowledge their obvious bias.
There's also quite a few articles, all with hard repblican bent, that are saying the same thing. I wonder why? /sarcasm
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/20/justice-mitchell-alabam...
Basically, do your own research, rather than listen to these conspiratorial rags. Or at least acknowledge their obvious bias.
I just read your article and the situation is every bit as bad as the other poster makes it sound.
WSJ is not predominantly right leaning.
The only thing that wreaks of bias is you.
At least acknowledge how dismissive you are to this.
The only thing that wreaks of bias is you.
At least acknowledge how dismissive you are to this.
This is an opinion piece, so I wouldn't necessarily attach the organization's journalistic credibility to it.
Isn't the WSJ owned by Rupert Murdoch, who just had to pay almost a billion dollars to settle a lawsuit about one of his media companies knowingly, repeatedly, gratuitously lying on air? Why should anyone trust anything coming from his media empire ever again? They won't even admit fault or commit to changing their practices.
Rupert Murdoch owns/controls both Wall Street Journal and Fox News.
Both have significant ethical problems in smearing "just the facts" with terrible propaganda op-ed's disguised as "news", like this article.
Both have significant ethical problems in smearing "just the facts" with terrible propaganda op-ed's disguised as "news", like this article.
As opposed to the New York Times putting the opinions into the “news” articles.
This is in WSJ Opinion. It’s right leaning.
Note that this is in the Journal’s opinion section.
This is really important to talk about. Its happening at my workplace too. It matters less about what you did and what DEIA checkpoints you ticked to move up in the company. Doing something above and beyond your call of duty gets you less opportunity and recognition than organizing a woman in coding meeting. Can't speak up because we will be fired or moved off projects.
> The idea seems to be that any differences in group outcomes must be eliminated—even if the only way to achieve this goal is to water down the test.
Can somebody explain to me how watering down tests, to lower the competence bar, could possibly address differences in group outcomes? Obviously these different groups don't have different levels or distributions of competence, so how is one meant to relate to the other?
> On top of all that, an American Civil Liberties Union representative provided conference attendees with a lecture on criminal-justice reform in which he argued that states should minimize or overlook would-be lawyers’ convictions for various criminal offenses in deciding whether to admit them to the bar.
This part I get. Cops are biased and arrest some groups at a higher rate than others. A prior criminal conviction for smoking dope shouldn't have any bearing on the quality of a lawyer, when the competition also smoked dope and simply didn't get caught. This all makes sense. But watering down the tests? What the hell...
Can somebody explain to me how watering down tests, to lower the competence bar, could possibly address differences in group outcomes? Obviously these different groups don't have different levels or distributions of competence, so how is one meant to relate to the other?
> On top of all that, an American Civil Liberties Union representative provided conference attendees with a lecture on criminal-justice reform in which he argued that states should minimize or overlook would-be lawyers’ convictions for various criminal offenses in deciding whether to admit them to the bar.
This part I get. Cops are biased and arrest some groups at a higher rate than others. A prior criminal conviction for smoking dope shouldn't have any bearing on the quality of a lawyer, when the competition also smoked dope and simply didn't get caught. This all makes sense. But watering down the tests? What the hell...
I'm not sure the author has established the test is watered down, or that the current test produces competent lawyers. Looking at the cadre of lawyers who were the principal architects of the 2020 legislative-coup (separate from the insurrection, the legislative coup involved lawyers interpreting the constitution to mean that the VP could choose from a slate of electors, all illegal), it occurs to me that maybe we should focus more on creating ethical, socially conscious lawyers rather than the kind we've been producing for decades, who have failed the legal profession.
Uniform Bar Exam should be capitalized, as it is a product of NCBE, a wealthy private non-profit with over $120 million in reserves. Any organization that could fight that headwind and build credibility with the state supreme courts could create a bar exam too. Anyone seriously interested in doing so (VC?), let’s talk.
NCBE is, as part of this project, also jettisoning the existing software providers and procedures for taking a bar exam. Yes, 3/4 of them have had high profile flameouts, but overall the laptop bar exam has been a quiet success for 20+ years. All those details will be lost.
Complete overhaul of the bar exam — pedagogically, technologically, procedurally — in one go. What could be behind that decision?
NCBE is, as part of this project, also jettisoning the existing software providers and procedures for taking a bar exam. Yes, 3/4 of them have had high profile flameouts, but overall the laptop bar exam has been a quiet success for 20+ years. All those details will be lost.
Complete overhaul of the bar exam — pedagogically, technologically, procedurally — in one go. What could be behind that decision?
Also discussed here: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/20/justice-mitchell-alabam...
You folks need to break your very bad habit of using acronyms without expansion. First you must spell it out; then you may use the acronym.
Not that it would be a valid excuse, but the article never even explains what "DEI" is. In fact, the word "equity", which may be the "E" in DEI, only appears once in the article, and never as an expansion of the acronym.
The only thing in the article that could be construed to be an explanation of the acronym is the phrase, “diversity, fairness and inclusion”, which could presumably be abbreviated "DFI", not "DEI".
I don't know why unexplained acronyms have crept into daily usage, but the only way it improves communication is by telegraphing "I'm too cool for words". This tells me a lot more about the writer than the subject.
Ad maiorem DEI gloriam, please expand your acronyms the first time you use them!
Not that it would be a valid excuse, but the article never even explains what "DEI" is. In fact, the word "equity", which may be the "E" in DEI, only appears once in the article, and never as an expansion of the acronym.
The only thing in the article that could be construed to be an explanation of the acronym is the phrase, “diversity, fairness and inclusion”, which could presumably be abbreviated "DFI", not "DEI".
I don't know why unexplained acronyms have crept into daily usage, but the only way it improves communication is by telegraphing "I'm too cool for words". This tells me a lot more about the writer than the subject.
Ad maiorem DEI gloriam, please expand your acronyms the first time you use them!
The bar exam is stupid and a joke anyways, and is not a test or predictor of "lawyer competence"