Law Schools

Bar Examiners Thought About Bathroom Breaks But Decided It Was Funnier For People To Piss Themselves

There's no animating logic other than casual cruelty.

By  
on

Probably your best bet for bar exam workspace.

Channeling its inner Marie Antoinette, the New York Board of Law Examiners has decreed, “Let them hold it!”

With the February administration of the bar exam barreling down upon us, bar examiners have determined that the October run — which resulted in people peeing themselves and dropping out due to mensuration — was too soft and opted to double the length of the exam, forcing people to contend with biological imperatives for even longer. A shorter exam was sufficient to ensure minimum competency in October but it’s not in February because… these people are just making it up as they go along.

And that’s not an exaggeration as every competent review of the bar exam process reaches the conclusion that it’s an anachronistic waste of time with no discernible effect on lawyer competency. Except, of course, studies like “random people on the street have heard of bar exams” — an actual survey they tout! — commissioned by the NCBE itself. Which is kind of like asking Philip Morris to certify that tobacco is safe for toddlers.

In any event, NY Assemblywoman Jo Anne Simon has emerged as a leader in the fight to secure basic dignity for bar examinees and wrote a letter to the Board of Law Examiners asking about its draconian bathroom policy. In response, she received a dismissive shrug put into words.

Dear Ms. Simon:

Excuse me? We use “Assemblywoman” or “Assemblymember” or at worst “Member” when someone has a title. The disrespect for an elected lawmaker doesn’t even wait until after the salutation. The letter is also addressed to “Jo Anne Simon” which absolutely should be “The Honorable Jo Anne Simon” too.

Sponsored

Candidates were either granted the four-day schedule or instructed to announce to the camera if they have an emergency and need to use the restroom. At this late date, schedules have already been set and the Board cannot now switch any candidate from the two-day schedule to the four-day schedule.

Ah, yes. You know how you always have several weeks’ notice before your period might begin? Not that it’s clear that such a condition would meet the vague standards the BOLE outlines in the letter of “candidates who are pregnant, nursing mothers, have a condition that requires frequent use of the restroom, etc.” But the point is that it’s FAR TOO LATE to let people take the exam over four days at this point because… well, there’s not really any good reason.

Since the Board has appropriately considered the concerns of all candidates requiring accommodations and because the MPT segments are no longer than the other segments, it sees no necessity for granting blanket permission for all candidates to use the restroom during the MPT, especially because the Board is concerned that some candidates would take such permission as also applying to other sessions, thus risking invalidation of their results.

Begging the question: Why not just let it apply to other sessions? You’re the people writing these restrictions, they can really be whatever you want. But the arrogance of “appropriately considered” judged by self-serving standards that the BOLE has neither the time nor inclination to spell out for “Ms. Simon” and her pesky legislative authority. Again, these sorts of restrictions might be justified if there was any reason to believe that administering a generalist, doctrinal bar exam in a closed book setting is essential for protecting the public from bad lawyers. But instead we’re just asked to take that as a given despite mounting data to the contrary.

But we’ll forge ahead with this trial by ordeal because if we accepted the results of three years of testing on a nationally accredited legal curriculum or offered an open-book research test simulating actual practice, then what would we do with all the self-interested parties who’ve turned this into a $22 million cash cow? People need to get paid and if that takes humiliating young lawyers at the altar of an outmoded exam then it’s really a small price to pay, don’t you think?

Sponsored

(Full letter on the next page…)

Earlier: The Online Bar Exam Amounted To Two Days Of Cruel Vindictiveness
NCBE Touts Poll, ‘See, People Who Don’t Know What A Bar Exam Is Think We Need Bar Exams!!!’
ABA Disciplinary Study Throws Water On ‘Bar Exam Protects The Public’ Argument

HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

1 2Next »

Topics

,