Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: We Don't Need No Bar Control  (Read 1568 times)

goethe st.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
We Don't Need No Bar Control
« on: November 18, 2005, 10:08:17 PM »
1) The lawyer profession is a criminal cult enterprise. The Bar exam is just cult stuff. One cannot dissuade a cult. One must get custody of the body to deprogram. Federal prison is a good place.

2) The results are racially discriminatory. Minorities fail it at a higher rate. Strict scrutiny, not rational basis, Sir. The Bars will not release the failure rates by sex and age, despite any sunshine law. Intermediate scrutiny may also apply if enjoined for the data. You will be surprised to learn that law students have unanimously panned such Federal court action, even just discovery. I would be curious to know the opinions of the law students. They want to take and pass this exam.

2a) One may argue it is the ultimate employment test, and the burden is on the Bar, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

3) Its structure stems from Alexander of Hales, a 13th Century friar. It violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause.

4) It lacks modern psychometric competence. It was advanced in the 13th Century, to its credit. What are its 5 forms of reliability? How was it validated (a technical statistical term, not a philosophical one)? One IQ test, the most validated, and powerfully predictive test of all time, with 10,000 validation studies itself, was banned because of racially disparate results.

This is the California decision at their SC level, upheld in CA (9th cir), denied cert at the USSC. This is the most validated test in history. Take it at age 5, it predicts performance at age 50. The bar exam lacks the most rudimentary technical validation and is silly, subjective, self-serving, and dumbass on its face.

http://wind.uwyo.edu/edec5250/assignments/Larry.pdf

5) Because the license is a chattel, the Bar also runs up against the Fifth Amendment. Prior decisions on this subject were erroneous and denied the clear language of the Amendment.

6) If an associate "must go" after repeatedly failing the Bar, it runs into the Contracts Clause and straight torts, as an intentional act. Examplary damages may apply.

7) The Separation of Powers angle is ridiculous on the enforcement end, at the Disciplinary Counsel. A prosecutor (an executive officer) is employed by a court. Its pay comes from dues collected from the objects of its investigation. Its investigation are in accordance with Administrative law, back to an executive function. Its burden is "clear and convining" back to the judicial. A court writes the Rules of Conduct, a legislative function. The dues are collected by a private organization. The DC has refused to release a copy of its paycheck, with all identifiers blackened, except for the issuer. The issuer may be that private organization and the real employer. If the issuer is a private organization, the 11th Amendment may not apply. Any legislative authority does not reduce the outrages against the Constitution.

voss749

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Rational response? Re: We Don't Need No Bar Control
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2005, 01:55:02 PM »


"2) The results are racially discriminatory. Minorities fail it at a higher rate. Strict scrutiny, not rational basis, Sir. The Bars will not release the failure rates by sex and age, despite any sunshine law. Intermediate scrutiny may also apply if enjoined for the data. You will be surprised to learn that law students have unanimously panned such Federal court action, even just discovery. I would be curious to know the opinions of the law students. They want to take and pass this exam. "

Possibly...Also you might have better luck with an argument based on cost and lack of ABA support for accrediting bar preparation programs. The dissent in the Montana supreme court brought that point up...the appelant against ABA only lost 4-3. Also an Americans Disabilities Act ( argument might be made for the ABAs refusal to accredit online law schools which prevents people who cannot attend regular law classes due to physical or psychological disability from practicing law.

"3) Its structure stems from Alexander of Hales, a 13th Century friar. It violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause. "

Universities were first established by church based organizations...this argument is irrelevant


"4) It lacks modern psychometric competence. It was advanced in the 13th Century, to its credit. What are its 5 forms of reliability? How was it validated (a technical statistical term, not a philosophical one)? One IQ test, the most validated, and powerfully predictive test of all time, with 10,000 validation studies itself, was banned because of racially disparate results. "

The bar exam doesnt have to be competent as long as it is equally incompetent for everyone. :(

"7) The Separation of Powers..."

Youd have better luck with the federal courts and an argument based on restraint of trade and the issue
of admission to the federal courts being effectively set by state legislatures and the ABA instead of congress.

 



schintilla

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: We Don't Need No Bar Control
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2006, 07:28:59 PM »
Awesome post!

gettinwarmer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: We Don't Need No Bar Control
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2006, 11:16:15 PM »
I would not have been able to write such an enlightening post even on acid! Absofukinglutely awesome!

reverendlex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: We Don't Need No Bar Control
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2006, 11:56:11 PM »
Because the license is a chattel, the Bar also runs up against the Fifth Amendment. Prior decisions on this subject were erroneous and denied the clear language of the Amendment.

Chattel?

If the right to practice law could be transferred, it would be chattel (property). A property right is the right to exclude others, not a privilege to do something denied to others.

 What you seem to be arguing is either no restriction or different restrictions on the practice of law.

If you're arguing no restriction on the practice of law, we run into significant societal costs- we have a need for specialists to advise and advocate. Some guarantee of minimal quality assists for market-clearing in markets where quality is hard to determine by even the inquisitive buyer. By opening the floodgates, clients seeking legal services would have to become much more educated buyers.

If you're arguing that the bar exam isn't the best way to guarantee legal quality- maybe yes, maybe no. It may be an artificial test of competence, but it serves to exclude people that can't reason clearly, write effectively and be able to make legal arguments quickly.
An alternative test would have to test real world lawyering skills objectively. I'm not sure how you do that. So much of legal education is based in tradtion- the first year of law school is shared across law schools and goes back more than one hundred years. The bar exam has precedential weight, and it serves as a shared trauma- a first year associate and a retiring lawyer have that shared experience. Like Palsgraf and Marbury, lawyers will keep it just to keep the trappings of an old profession.

And the IQ tests/disparate impact argument- a scientifically valid IQ test is irrelevant if we expect 150 IQs to pump gas. A shaky IQ test is relevant if IQ is necessary to the task at hand.

That said, you may want to offer Danny Stamey some help. Good luck in your endeavour.



LoverOfWomen

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: We Don't Need No Bar Control
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2006, 02:26:42 AM »
This is why we need the bar:
[image removed]

align

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: We Don't Need No Bar Control
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2006, 02:50:32 AM »
yea very interesting definitely

veto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: We Don't Need No Bar Control
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2006, 03:54:10 AM »
looks like smth that's written on that

Natali

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: We Don't Need No Bar Control
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2008, 12:20:47 PM »

[...]

4) It lacks modern psychometric competence. It was advanced in the 13th Century, to its credit. What are its 5 forms of reliability? How was it validated (a technical statistical term, not a philosophical one)? One IQ test, the most validated, and powerfully predictive test of all time, with 10,000 validation studies itself, was banned because of racially disparate results.


Oh please, just do not cite the "psychometric" thing here! I mean, way too many theorists are critical of the entire psychometric approach, although some others regard it as firmly established. The critics do not dispute the stability of test scores, nor the fact that they predict certain forms of achievement especially school achievement rather effectively. They do argue, however, that to base a concept of intelligence on test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability.

Psychometric tests are used for many purposes, such as selection, diagnosis, and evaluation. Tests of intelligence itself (in the psychometric sense) come in many forms. By convention, overall intelligence test scores are usuallv converted to a scale in which the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. (The standard deviation is a measure of the variability of the distribution of scores.) Approximately 95% of the population has scores within two standard deviations of the mean, i.e. between 70 and 130. For historical reasons, the term "IQ" is often used to describe scores on tests of intelligence. It originally referred to an "intelligence Quotient" that was formed by dividing a so-called mental age by a chronological age, but this procedure is no longer used.



Individuals rarely perform equally well on all the different kinds of items included in a test of intelligence. One person may do relatively better on verbal than on spatial items, for example, while another may show the opposite pattern. Nevertheless, subtests measuring different abilities tend to be positively correlated: people who score high on one such subtest are likely to be above average on others as well. These complex patterns of correlation can be clarified by factor analysis, but the results of such analyses are often controversial themselves. Some theorists have emphasized the importance of a general factor, g, which represents what all the tests have in common; others focus on more specific group factors such as memory, verbal comprehension, or number facility. One common view today envisages something like a hierarchy of factors with g at the apex. But there is no full agreement on what g actually means: it has been described as a mere statistical regularity, a kind of mental energy, a generalized abstract reasoning ability, or an index measure of neural processing speed.

erand

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: We Don't Need No Bar Control
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2008, 02:06:01 PM »

Oh please, just do not cite the "psychometric" thing here! I mean, way too many theorists are critical of the entire psychometric approach, although some others regard it as firmly established. The critics do not dispute the stability of test scores, nor the fact that they predict certain forms of achievement especially school achievement rather effectively. They do argue, however, that to base a concept of intelligence on test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability.

Psychometric tests are used for many purposes, such as selection, diagnosis, and evaluation. Tests of intelligence itself (in the psychometric sense) come in many forms. By convention, overall intelligence test scores are usuallv converted to a scale in which the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. (The standard deviation is a measure of the variability of the distribution of scores.) Approximately 95% of the population has scores within two standard deviations of the mean, i.e. between 70 and 130. For historical reasons, the term "IQ" is often used to describe scores on tests of intelligence. It originally referred to an "intelligence Quotient" that was formed by dividing a so-called mental age by a chronological age, but this procedure is no longer used.



Individuals rarely perform equally well on all the different kinds of items included in a test of intelligence. One person may do relatively better on verbal than on spatial items, for example, while another may show the opposite pattern. Nevertheless, subtests measuring different abilities tend to be positively correlated: people who score high on one such subtest are likely to be above average on others as well. These complex patterns of correlation can be clarified by factor analysis, but the results of such analyses are often controversial themselves. Some theorists have emphasized the importance of a general factor, g, which represents what all the tests have in common; others focus on more specific group factors such as memory, verbal comprehension, or number facility. One common view today envisages something like a hierarchy of factors with g at the apex. But there is no full agreement on what g actually means: it has been described as a mere statistical regularity, a kind of mental energy, a generalized abstract reasoning ability, or an index measure of neural processing speed.


The patterns of intercorrelation among tests (i.e. among different kinds of items) are complex. Some pairs of tests are much more closely related than others, but all such correlations are typically positive and form what is called a "positive manifold." Spearman showed that in any such manifold, some portion of the variance of scores on each test can be mathematically attributed to a "general factor" or g. Given this analysis, the overall pattern of correlations can be roughly described as produced by individual differences in g plus differences in the specific abilities sampled by particular tests. In addition, however, there are usually patterns of intercorrelation among groups of tests. These commonalities, which played only a small role in Spearman's analysis, were emphasized by other theorists. Thurstone, for example, proposed an analysis based primarily on the concept of group factors.

While some psychologists today still regard g as the most fundamental measure of intelligence, others prefer to emphasize the distinctive profile of strengths and weaknesses present in each person's performance. A recently published review identifies over 70 different abilities that can be distinguished by currently available tests. One way to represent this structure is in terms of a hierarchical arrangement with a general intelligence factor at the apex and various more specialized abilities arrayed below it. Such a summary merely acknowledges that performance levels on different tests are correlated; it is consistent with, but does not prove, the hypothesis that a common factor such as g underlies those correlations. Different specialized abilities might also be correlated for other reasons, such as the effects of education. Thus while the g-based factor hierarchy is the most widely accepted current view of the structure of abilities, some theorists regard it as misleading. Moreover, a wide range of human abilities, including many that seem to have intellectual components, are outside the domain of standard psychometric tests.