Holy cow, I come back from vacation and get greeted by THIS!
Like just about everyone here, I'll admit that I'm flat out jealous. Anyone who spent three days of feverish, stressful writing in some stupid convention center is bound to be jealous. It sucks.
But putting our jealousy aside for a moment, what is the actual substantive difference?
We're talking about the loss of one essay, and way less time spent on PTs (1.5 hrs vs 6 hrs). As far as I know, grading and the percentages required to pass will remain the same.
I'm against the loss of even one essay. They test substantive knowledge of the law, issue spotting, and the ability to form a cogent argument.
The PTs, on the other hand, are pretty much a waste of time in my opinion. It's just complicated busy work. Someone who has never attended law school but is reasonably smart could probably pass the PTs. Most of my law school classmates considered the PTs a gift, and figured they would help make up for the more difficult essays and MBE. I think most of us probably spent way less time preparing for the PTs than the essays.
The main issue here is simply TIME. Is it a better test because it's longer than others? If it was three full days of substantive legal testing, then I'd say yes. But when six hours are devoted to PTs I think you can trim that back and still have a good bar exam.