So even if you aced legal writing, but on the torts final you picked A instead of B on some tiny nuance on a MC question, you would not be highly ranked.
My first reaction to this was "whaaa...?" But then, of course, I only went to law school once, and I tend to extrapolate from my single data point. I didn't have any multiple-choice exams in law school (actually, one - and it was quite scandalous). Our exams were all written issue-spotting exercises rather than MBE-style exams. Most people I talk to seem to have had a mix of written and multiple-choice. I find this somewhat interesting, since the two test methods really test different things.
Anyway, on to the actual question. Sorry.
The analogy you used makes perfect sense. Game day ability is more important than the workout warrior's strength
I think everyone would agree with this. But, as someone pointed out, we use the workout as a predictor of game day ability - simply because that's all we have. If we didn't use academic performance to distinguish, what would we use? Employers will demand some type of proxy, and will create one themselves if they have to.
Your contention that there is virtually no difference in selecting b as opposed to c on a torts exam is unfounded. Most legal issues that end up at trial are very nuanced in much the same way that the difference between selecting b or c is very nuanced. The ability to recongize a difference between seemingly identical shades of grey is the skillset for which clients are willing to pay. ... if I were on trial for a crime that I did not commit, whether my attorney could notice the difference between b and c on his criminal law exam might be of significance if the underlying issue in that question would be dispositive on my case.
This is true, at least in concept, and raises the interesting question of what exactly we are trying to teach in law school.
In Wisconsin there is "diploma privilege." If you graduate from UW or Marquette law, you don't have to take the bar exam to be admitted to the Wisconsin bar. Just moral character and you are in. As a result, however, both Wisconsin law schools have a fair amount of "practical" classes. The theory is that you should be able to hang a shingle right after graduation (which I think is horrific, but different topic).
Most other law schools take more of a theoretical approach, and figure that you will pick up the real-life "a vs b" as you go along. And, as it turns out, that bar exam helps you along the way.
I'll be perfectly honest: about 80% of the "black-letter law" that I know I learned from BARBRI, not from law school. Studying for the bar exam was the most dense information-acquisition exercise I have ever done (twice). And I am definitely better off for having done so. And I do agree that being able to tell a from b is important - but also useless without the underlying ability to analyze and evaluate, which I DID learn in law school.
I do think "a vs. b" is important - but I also think this is easier to learn than learning how to "think like a lawyer" - and I think issue-spotting written exams do a better job of testing this than do multiple-choice tests.
One of my hiring partners used to joke (or maybe not) that they gave YHS graduates an extended grace period to become useful before firing them. This on the theory that those graduates had less immediately useful knowledge, but (hopefully) had a solid foundation that would make them better off in the long run.
I have no data on whether that theory pans out, except to note that I was certainly completely useless on the job for a long time. But so was everyone else - because here's the thing: NOBODY learns in law school what they need to know to be useful the first day on the job. No matter which law school you attended, no matter how well or poorly you did, you will still be learning on the job.
Ok, that turned into a long random rant. My specialty. Sorry.
On point: We need to distinguish by something, and academic performance seems to work fairly well but is far from perfect. If you have a better idea, we would love to hear it, believe me.