Appealing your bar exam results

Most states have a re-grade (if close to passing) policy, but no post-exam appeal policy (NCBE strongly endorses this method). For example, according to the NY Board of Law Examiners (NY BOLE), “A candidate’s final examination score is determined by combining the written and MBE scores. A combined score of at least 266 on a 400 point scale is required to pass the New York bar examination. The MEE and MPT answers of each candidate who received a total score of 262 to 265 following the initial grading of all examinations are automatically reread and regraded by graders other than the initial graders prior to the release of final results in accordance with the Board’s regrading policy set forth in Board Rule 6000.11. The candidate’s scores were then recomputed to arrive at a final score examination score. THERE IS NO APPEAL OR FURTHER REVIEW OF THIS FINAL SCORE.”

I often have examinees come to me asking about appeals or re-grades, but I have never heard of an examinee being successful through a request for an appeal or re-grade. This is even when examinees have very meritorius claims. Thus, whenever a failing examinee asks me whether they should seek to individually appeal their  scores, I tell them that their time is better spent studying for the exam. Put simply, no matter what the reason is, an appeal will fail. Allow me to explain using some past cases as examples:

First, if you try to get the Board of Law Examiners to explain how they graded the exam and came up with the bad score, you will be unsuccessful. This is because the Board of Law Examiners is generally treated as part of the judiciary and is exempt from Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests. See Pasik v. State Bd. of Law Examiners, 102 A.D.2d 395, 478 N.Y.S.2d 270 (lst Dep’t 1984),

Next, if you try to argue that written component is arbitrary and unreliable (and of course without any hard data because the Board of Law Examiners is exempt from FOIL), this has already been argued unsuccessfully. For example, in a 1990 lawsuit against NY BOLE by a failing examinee, the examinee alleged that he answered a portion of an essay question correctly by observing a facet of law that a substantial majority of the other examinees failed to correctly identify or analyze. Because so few of the candidates analyzed this issue, NY BOLE decided that the alternate analysis (albeit correct) should be disregarded in the determination of any of the candidates’ scores. The examinee argued that the essay grading was arbitrary and unreliable and if he had received credit for the correct answer that he gave, he would have passed the exam. The court ruled in favor of NY BOLE and found that great discretion should be accorded to the administrative agency responsible for the administration of the New York State Bar examination with respect to their grading of examinations. See Duffy v. State Bd. of Law Examiners, 159 A.D.2d 542 (1990)

In another case, an examinee failed by 4 points. The examinee’s essay answers were automatically regraded because her preliminary score was within 10 points of passing. The initial essay answer scores and the regraded scores were averaged, again producing a failing grade. After filing an action in Supreme Court, the Court found that the examinee’s answers to the essay questions were “remarkably similar” to the sample answers provided by NY BOLE and ordered NY BOLE to conduct a further review of petitioner’s answers. NY BOLE appealed and the appellate court found that there was a rational basis for the Board’s determination of the examinee’s grade. see Krutell v. New York State Bd. of Law Examiners, 21 A.D.3d 674, 799 N.Y.S.2d 680 (2005)

Finally, appeals are such a long drawn-out process (perhaps by design) that examinees will likely re-take the exam and become admitted to the bar before any litigation is decided on its merits, rendering the controversy moot. see Finkelstein v. State Bd. of Law Examiners, 241 A.D.2d 728, 660 N.Y.S.2d 95 (3rd Dep’t 1997)

So no matter what the reason, appeals are always denied. For example, in Virginia, a failing examinee unsuccessfully sought his essays, even though he experienced system software malfunctions by the Board’s own testing software. The examinee recently tried to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States and lost:

http://jonathanbolls.blogspot.com/

In California, a Maryland lawyer who sued the State Bar of California over its exam grading review procedures was rebuked (see http://www.metnews.com/articles/2010/jose091610.htm).

Bottom line, the likelihood of a successful appeal is probably zero. Essentially, your only recourse is to re-take the exam. While I hate to say it, a failing examinee is better off putting his or her time and money into re-taking the exam as opposed to challenging it. For example, I have personally seen very well-connected examinees fail in their efforts for re-grades or appeals. Thirty years ago, things were different (e.g. there was an appeals process even in New York). Interestingly, bar examiners did away with appeals because they claimed that the well-connected monied candidates could afford and succeed in appeals while poorer candidates were shut-out. While this is partly true, I feel that bar examiners have done away with appeals for a more pragmatic reason – as the number of candidates has increased, it has become impossible to offer some type of individualized process of review. I believe the courts recognize this (much in the same way as I begrudgingly recognize this), which is why the courts grant such great deference to the decisions of bar examiners (although having already passed the exam may certainly play a role). Put simply, letting any appeal succeed (no matter how meritorious) creates a precedent that will open up the floodgates of appeals. Most Boards of Law Examiners are comprised of practicing attorneys who serve on the Board part-time – there is no way any Board could handle such a volume of appeals if a precedent was set. For example, I am aware of an examinee with a final score of 664 on the pre-UBE exam (where 665 was passing) who had a very strong basis for appeal due to a scrivener’s error contained in an essay question where a party was misidentified, but this examinee was unsuccessful after petitioning the board (and spending a tremendous amount of time doing it). During this appeal, the examinee was told by NY BOLE’s Executive that the board has never changed a test score in the 15 years he had been there. To grant a single appeal would open up Pandora’s box with that appeal becoming precedent for other appeals. The cost in time and money to deal with this is simply too much.

In regards to the MBE, some jurisdictions permit examinees to request a hand-score of their MBE. For example, the state of Nevada permits this:

http://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/MBE_Handscore_Form.pdf

If you erased any choices on your MBE scantron, there is a possibility that a mis-bubbled mistake may have been made by the scantron reader. In my opinion, this is really an examinee’s only possible recourse for appeal.

California Bar Score Calculator

The following calculator will accurately estimate a Written Scaled Score and Total Score for the July 2017 or February 2018 California bar exam administration based on the scores you enter. July 2018 examinees should use the J17 calculator to test various scoring scenarios and estimate their J18 exam performance while Feb 2019 examinees should use the F18 calculator to estimate their F19 performance.

If you are a CA examinee who failed, if you fill out my short score form, I will let you know what your raw MBE scores were and how many more MBE questions you need to answer to get to 1440 on the MBE. I will also make a calculator for that exam once I receive enough scores.

 

Alabama UBE Score Calculator

The following calculator will accurately estimate a Written Scaled Score and Total Score for the July 2017 and February 2018 Alabama UBE bar exam administrations based on the scores you enter. July 2018 Alabama examinees can use the J17 calculator to test various scoring scenarios and estimate their exam performance.

If you failed the exam in a UBE state, I can send you an analysis of your scores if you fill out the following Retaker Advice Form. If you would like to see a calculator for your state (or for a missing administration), just email me the details from your scoresheet (joe at seperac.com) and I’ll let you know if I can make one. As an added incentive to submit the information, anyone who completes the Retaker Advice Form will receive a $25 coupon code to UBE Essays.com.

Colorado UBE Score Calculator

The following calculator will accurately estimate a Written Scaled Score and Total Score for the February 2017, July 2017 or February 2018 Colorado UBE bar exam administrations based on the scores you enter. July 2018 Colorado examinees can use the J17 calculator to test various scoring scenarios and estimate their exam performance.

If you failed the exam in a UBE state, I can send you an analysis of your scores if you fill out the following Retaker Advice Form. This information enables me to determine the scale for each exam and maintain the bar score calculators. As an added incentive to submit the information, anyone who completes the Retaker Advice Form will receive a $25 coupon code to UBE Essays.com.

February 2018 New York bar exam results

February 2018 New York bar exam results were released on Tuesday April 24, 2018 at 2:45PM. The pass rates for first-time NY ABA graduates was slightly higher than the norm, while the pass rates for every other demographic were lower than the norm.

In looking at data from 2004 to present, the average February pass rate for First-timers from New York ABA Schools is 69.2%. The pass rate for First-timers from New York ABA Schools in February 2018 was 70%, which is a difference of 0.8%. Therefore, First-timers from New York ABA Schools did slightly better than normal. However, in looking at data from 2004 to present, the average February pass rate for First-timers from Out of State ABA Schools is 74.2%. The pass rate for First-timers from Out of State ABA Schools in February 2018 was 68%, which is a difference of -6.2%. Thus, Out of State ABA First-timers somehow did much worse than normal. Furthermore, in looking at data from 2004 to present, the average February pass rate for All ABA Graduates is 55.5% while the pass rate for All ABA Graduates in February 2018 was 45%, which is a significant difference of -10.5%. Finally, in looking at data from 2004 to present, the average February pass rate for All Candidates is 45.2% versus a February 2018 pass rate of 38%, which is a difference of -7.2%.

I project the pass rate for F18 First-Time ABA Graduates in NY to decline to 66%

For First-Time examinees in New York, I use their LSATs to gauge their pass rate. Generally, the 25th and 75th Percentile LSAT serve as a good barometer for pass rates. If the average LSAT for a class of matriculants drops as compared to the prior class, I similarly expect their bar exam pass rates to drop as compared to the prior class (the raw data can be viewed here: http://www.abarequireddisclosures.org/).

I estimate that the 2012 Full-Time Law School Matriculants (who took the bar exam in 2015) had a 25th LSAT Percentile of 153.2 and a 75th LSAT Percentile of 159.3. The 2013 Full-Time Law School Matriculants (who take the bar exam in 2016) had a 25th LSAT Percentile of 152.8 and a 75th LSAT Percentile of 158.9. The 2014 Full-Time Law School Matriculants (who take the bar exam in 2017) had a 25th LSAT Percentile of 152.5 and a 75th LSAT Percentile of 158.7. The 2015 Full-Time Law School Matriculants (who take the bar exam in 2018) had a 25th LSAT Percentile of 152.4 and a 75th LSAT Percentile of 158.4. Finally, the 2016 Full-Time Law School Matriculants (who take the bar exam in 2019) had a 25th LSAT Percentile of 151.2 and a 75th LSAT Percentile of 157.2.

Thus, pass rates for First-Time examinees in New York should continue to decline every year until at least 2019. However, while this was the case prior to the UBE exam, there seemed to be a UBE “bounce” that caused pass rates to rise in July 2016 even though the quality of the candidate diminished. This UBE effect continued in Feb 2017 and July 2017 where the year-to-year pass rates improved even though the quality of the candidates declined. However, now that the UBE is established in New York, I expect this UBE effect to dissipate, resulting in a declining year-to-year pass rate between F17 and F18. In Feb 2017, the overall pass rate for First-Time ABA graduates was 71%. Taking into account the horrible national F18 MBE mean of 132.8 (the lowest national February MBE mean since it was first administered in 1972), I predict an overall F18 pass rate for First-Time ABA graduates of 66% (which would be a decline of 5% from F17).

Study suggestions for subscribers

I suggest that UBE ESSAYS account subscribers use the materials as follows:

RELEASED MEE ESSAY COMPILATION AND MP3s: Examinees should start with a combination of reading the Released MEE Essay Compilation and listening to the Released MEE Essay MP3s. Start with the February 2016 MEE and work backwards (e.g. July 2015, February 2015, etc.). Much like the recent OPE exams are a good reflection of the current MBE, the recent MEEs are a good reflection of the current MEE. You will not be reviewing the most recent MEEs (July 2016 to Feb 2018) because you will be testing on these questions later. It should take an examinee 6-10 minutes to read one MEE question and answer analysis in the Released MEE Essay Compilation or 12-18 minutes to listen to the MP3 version (unless you speed up the MP3 to 1.5x-2x speed using a player like VLC to bring it in line with reading speed). How many of these MEE questions/answers you review depends on how much study time you have, but I suggest reading a minimum of 30 questions and listening to a minimum of 30 different questions. This would require 12 hours of your study time. An added benefit to reviewing the law in the MEE questions is that the questions based on MBE subjects will help you on the MBE. For example, when NCBE introduced the MBE subject of Civil Procedure in 2015, they needed to create a large bank of MBE Civil Procedure questions, and I believe they borrowed issues from past MEE questions that could be turned into short answer questions. Thus, reviewing these MEE questions will count towards MEE and MBE study.

MEE ISSUE SPOTTING PRACTICE OUTLINE AND MP3s: I make the past MEEs even more useful/efficient by creating an MEE Issue Spotting Practice outline along with MP3s of it. After reviewing full NCBE MEE questions to familiarize themselves with the MEE and using them as learning tools, examinees should then go through the entire MEE Issue Spotting Practice outline. This outline will take about 10-12 hours to read once in its entirety (or 17 hours to listen to the MP3 version). In doing so, you will be reviewing the 200 most recent MEE questions as efficiently as possible since the only things you will be reviewing are the question itself, then each issue tested (along with how much that issue contributed to your score), and then a short summary of the answer just to give you a gist of the law being tested. This is absolutely the most efficient way to review a large number of MEE questions in volume. This outline serves not only as a study outline, but also as a practice outline since examinees can read/listen to a question and then pause to issue spot in their head, and then continue on to the answer. My suggestion is to read the entire MEE Issue Spotting Practice outline and then listen to the subjects you are having the most difficulty with (e.g. Civil Procedure). By employing two different methods of review/memorization, you will hopefully form multiple memory impressions to help you better recall the information on the exam.

MEE COMPARISON BANKS: Next, you should practice answering MEE questions using the most recently released MEE questions. At present, there are 18 MEE Comparison Banks. Thus, once you have reviewed a subject (e.g. Civil Procedure), go to the MEE Comparison Bank for that subject. At the top is the MEE question. Open the PDF for the question (dont look at the answer) and then either print/read it and then answer the question under timed conditions (30 minutes in total). After you answer the question, spend 30 minutes comparing your answer to the answers in the MEE Comparison Bank. Start by looking at the NCBE Answer Analysis which breaks down each of the issues and how much each issue is worth. Then go and look at exactly passing answers to see how close you were to them. Then look at high scoring examinee answers to see what they did differently (did they do more analysis, address issues differently from you). Then look at the very low scoring answers to see if you did anything they did (areas to avoid). Over one month, repeat this for every single essay in the MEE Comparison Bank (roughly 18 hours of your study time in total)

MPT FORMAT BIBLE: For the MPT, review the MPT Format Bible for about 2-4 hours. Use the MPT Format Bible to review the most commonly tested formats and styles. Examinees should review the MPT answers to understand how a Persuasive MPT answer is written versus an Objective MPT answer. Examinees should review the answers for the MPT types that did not have guidelines or had minimal guidelines to ensure they understand the formats required for these types of MPTs. Finally, examinees should briefly review MPT answers that contain a Statement of the Case or a Statement of Facts to understand how to compose one if necessary.

MPT COMPARISON BANKS: Next, examinees should answer 2-4 MPTs in practice depending on the amount they are studying. At present, there are 19 MPT Comparison Banks. There are 6 MPTs from 2010-2012 which can be downloaded free here: https://www.ncbex.org/exams/mpt/preparing/. Pick one of these MPTs (choose the ones which correspond with the MPT Comparison Bank) and either print/read it and then answer the MPT question under timed conditions (90 minutes in total). After you answer the question, spend 90 minutes comparing your answer to the answers in the MPT Comparison Bank. Start by looking at the NCBE Point Sheet which breaks down each of the issues and how much each issue is worth. Then go and look at exactly passing answers to see how close you were to them (look at word count also). Then look at high scoring examinee answers to see what they did differently (did they do more analysis, better formatting, better layout, addressed issues differently from you). Then look at the very low scoring answers to see if you did anything they did (important areas to avoid). Over one month, do this once a week until you answer 2-4 MPTs in total (roughly 6-12 hours of your study time in total). Note: If you have access to the MPT questions from 2013-2018, you should choose a few MPTs from this date range that are also in the MPT Comparison Bank.

All together, the above MEE/MPT study and practice will require a minimum of 50 hours of your study-time if you are a full-time examinee. However, depending on how much you study, you should adjust it accordingly. For example, if you are studying part-time rather than full time, only follow 50% of every suggestion. In contrast, if you are studying early and therefore studying more than a typical examinee, increase the proportions accordingly.

July 2010 MPT Comparison Bank Sample

Following is a small sample of the July 2010 MPT Comparison Bank to illustrate how it works (only 10 side-by-side comparison rows are available in this sample). For the actual July 2010 MPT Comparison Bank available by subscription, there are 1,378 comparison rows based on 51 examinees. In this July 2010 MPT Comparison, any MPT answer with a score above 46.81 is a passing essay.

Matching Words MPT Text comparison MPT PDF comparison
289 [21%,19%] July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1 July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1
130 [20%,8%] July 2010-MPT 01-Score 29.53-Written-ID 001 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1 July 2010-MPT 01-Score 29.53-Written-ID 001 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1
107 [16%,7%] July 2010-MPT 01-Score 29.53-Written-ID 001 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2 July 2010-MPT 01-Score 29.53-Written-ID 001 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2
188 [32%,12%] July 2010-MPT 01-Score 45.53-Written-ID 015 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1 July 2010-MPT 01-Score 45.53-Written-ID 015 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1
152 [26%,11%] July 2010-MPT 01-Score 45.53-Written-ID 015 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2 July 2010-MPT 01-Score 45.53-Written-ID 015 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2
45 [7%,7%] July 2010-MPT 01-Score 45.53-Written-ID 015 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-Score 29.53-Written-ID 001 July 2010-MPT 01-Score 45.53-Written-ID 015 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-Score 29.53-Written-ID 001
190 [19%,13%] July 2010-MPT 01-Score 60.97-Typed-ID 043 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1 July 2010-MPT 01-Score 60.97-Typed-ID 043 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1
247 [25%,18%] July 2010-MPT 01-Score 60.97-Typed-ID 043 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2 July 2010-MPT 01-Score 60.97-Typed-ID 043 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2
48 [4%,7%] July 2010-MPT 01-Score 60.97-Typed-ID 043 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-Score 29.53-Written-ID 001 July 2010-MPT 01-Score 60.97-Typed-ID 043 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-Score 29.53-Written-ID 001
122 [12%,21%] July 2010-MPT 01-Score 60.97-Typed-ID 043 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-Score 45.53-Written-ID 015 July 2010-MPT 01-Score 60.97-Typed-ID 043 vs. July 2010-MPT 01-Score 45.53-Written-ID 015

For each Comparison Bank, there are three columns on the report – a “Matching Words” column, a “Text Comparison” column, and a “PDF Comparison” column. The “Matching Words” column reports the number of perfectly matching words that have been marked in the pair of documents. It includes too-short phrases that require bridging over non-matching words in order to count as matching between the two documents. Each “Matching Words” row item has 3 subparts: (a) the number of matching words; (b) what percentage of the first document is accounted for by these matching words; and (c) what percentage of the second document is accounted for by these matching words. The “Text Comparison” column shows the text matches between the two essays you select. In the reports, perfect matches are indicated by red-underlined words and bridging, but non-matching words are indicated by green-italicized-underlined words. The matching phrases are links. If you click on a matching phrase, you will be taken to the equivalent phrase in the other document of the pair. The “PDF Comparison” column shows the PDFs of the two essays you select side-by-side.

In the tables, the hyperlink naming convention operates as follows: Exam-Essay-Score-Typed or Written-ID

For example, the naming convention “Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006” means that this is an essay from the February 2010 exam, it was written in response to the MPT, the scaled score of the essay/MPT was 36.50, the examinee typed the essay, and the randomly generated ID of the candidate was 006. You can use the ID to differentiate examinees in instances where multiple examinees have the same score on an essay. In a few instances, the Typed/Written status of an essay is “Typed Edited.” This means that the essay is a typed essay, but it is not in it’s original format because the examinee edited it. For these essays, you must keep in mind that what you are seeing may not be exactly what the bar grader saw in regards to layout or format. If the essay is an above average answer released by NY BOLE, in place of an ID, it appears as “NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1” or “NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2.” Please note that these released above average answers do not have scores, but based on my experience, these essays received a score of 75-85.

February 2010 MPT Comparison Bank Sample

Following is a small sample of the February 2010 MPT Comparison Bank to illustrate how it works (only 28 side-by-side comparison rows are available in this sample). For the actual February 2010 MPT Comparison Bank available by subscription, there are 325 comparison rows based on 23 examinees. In this February 2010 MPT Comparison, any MPT answer with a score above 50.44 is a passing essay.

Matching Words MPT Text comparison MPT PDF comparison
394 [22%,24%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1 Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1
166 [21%,10%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1
137 [17%,7%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2
107 [16%,6%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1
131 [20%,7%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2
65 [10%,8%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001
158 [23%,9%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1
157 [23%,9%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2
111 [16%,14%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001
50 [7%,7%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006
220 [29%,13%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1
249 [33%,14%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2
124 [16%,15%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001
92 [12%,14%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006
87 [11%,13%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004
209 [19%,13%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1
216 [19%,12%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2
137 [12%,17%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001
111 [10%,17%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006
160 [14%,24%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004
149 [13%,19%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005
135 [14%,8%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1
201 [21%,11%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2
111 [12%,14%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 35.90-Written-ID 001
53 [5%,8%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006
94 [10%,14%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 41.28-Typed-ID 004
99 [10%,13%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 44.03-Typed-ID 005
130 [14%,11%] Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003 Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 51.94-Written-ID 002 vs. Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 50.29-Typed-ID 003

For each Comparison Bank, there are three columns on the report – a “Matching Words” column, a “Text Comparison” column, and a “PDF Comparison” column. The “Matching Words” column reports the number of perfectly matching words that have been marked in the pair of documents. It includes too-short phrases that require bridging over non-matching words in order to count as matching between the two documents. Each “Matching Words” row item has 3 subparts: (a) the number of matching words; (b) what percentage of the first document is accounted for by these matching words; and (c) what percentage of the second document is accounted for by these matching words. The “Text Comparison” column shows the text matches between the two essays you select. In the reports, perfect matches are indicated by red-underlined words and bridging, but non-matching words are indicated by green-italicized-underlined words. The matching phrases are links. If you click on a matching phrase, you will be taken to the equivalent phrase in the other document of the pair. The “PDF Comparison” column shows the PDFs of the two essays you select side-by-side.

In the tables, the hyperlink naming convention operates as follows: Exam-Essay-Score-Typed or Written-ID

For example, the naming convention “Feb 2010-MPT 01-Score 36.50-Typed-ID 006” means that this is an essay from the February 2010 exam, it was written in response to the MPT, the scaled score of the essay/MPT was 36.50, the examinee typed the essay, and the randomly generated ID of the candidate was 006. You can use the ID to differentiate examinees in instances where multiple examinees have the same score on an essay. In a few instances, the Typed/Written status of an essay is “Typed Edited.” This means that the essay is a typed essay, but it is not in it’s original format because the examinee edited it. For these essays, you must keep in mind that what you are seeing may not be exactly what the bar grader saw in regards to layout or format. If the essay is an above average answer released by NY BOLE, in place of an ID, it appears as “NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 1” or “NYBOLE-Above Average Answer 2.” Please note that these released above average answers do not have scores, but based on my experience, these essays received a score of 75-85.

New York Law School July Pass Rates

I ranked the 15 New York law schools based on their July pass rates over the past 13 years (July 2005-July 2017). NYU has the highest overall First-time taker pass rate at 96% while Touro has the lowest overall First-time taker pass rate at 72%.

 

Rank Law School in New York 13 Year Avg. Pass Rate
1 NYU – New York, NY 96%
2 Columbia – New York, NY 95%
3 Cornell Law School – Ithaca, NY 94%
4 Fordham Law – New York, NY 90%
5 St. John’s University – Jamaica, NY 87%
6 Yeshiva University (Cardozo) – New York, NY 87%
7 Brookyn Law School – Brooklyn, NY 86%
8 Syracuse University – Syracuse, NY 82%
9 University at Buffalo – SUNY – Buffalo, NY 80%
10 Albany Law School-Union University – Albany, NY 79%
11 Pace University – White Plains, NY 78%
12 CUNY – Queens College – Flushing, NY 78%
13 New York Law School – New York, NY 78%
14 Hofstra University – Hempstead, NY 77%
15 Touro College (Fuchsberg) – Central Islip, NY 72%