<p>The July 2004 bar results for first time takers of the California bar who attended California ABA approved law schools shows percent pass rates by race:</p>
<p>White, 74.6%
Black, 48.2%
Hispanic, 53.4%
Asian, 65.5%
Other minority, 61.1%</p>
<p>Thus, after being admitting to law school, change your race to White. If you are already White, then don't change your race until you are admitted to the bar. Once you are admitted to the bar, feel free to assume any race you want.</p>
<p>What is the point of this post? The bar is an examination, not a club or organization. If your point is that whites rule all, it is well taken. If your point is that the exam is racist, this exam just falls in line with pretty much every other exam pass rates you will see according to race.</p>
<p>I can't really say there is a point to the post. I just thought it was interesting that California felt it was necessary for the world to know how examination results based on race. It does raise an interesting question, namely, if the races are attending the same law schools why would scores vary by race? It would seem the scores would vary by school primarily and the data seems to suggest this. If people of different races attend the same classes, however, it would seem they would learn the same thing and thus get similar results on a test asking about what they learned in class. </p>
<p>I am not sure what you mean by the bar is an examination and not a club or organization. Last time I checked all State bars were organizations that required one to pass the bar exam.</p>
<p>I know that, but the way you sounded in the last part of your first post, it sounded like that you were saying that they just picked people without taking an exam. Wouldn't it be funny if everything in this world did not actually have to boil down to race, then we might have a white tailback or a chinese wideout.</p>
<p>"I can't really say there is a point to the post."</p>
<p>good.</p>
<p>Now, I wonder what "other minorities" are. If this are undeclared minorities, or even whites for that matter, well these results are worthless. Actually, what about white Hipanics and black Hispanics? Are they accounting for this?</p>
<p>"Thus, after being admitting to law school, change your race to White. If you are already White, then don't change your race until you are admitted to the bar. Once you are admitted to the bar, feel free to assume any race you want."</p>
<p>What is this suppose to mean?</p>
<p>"then we might have a white tailback or a chinese wideout."</p>
<p>Buddy, there are white tailbacks...what's your point, too?</p>
<p>Name one white tailback that is on an NFL roster right now...Brock Forsey was cut by the Bears last year. Mike Alstott, Corey Schlessinger, and Jon Ritchie are fullbacks...still waiting.....exactly</p>
<p>If you look at the USNWR list of most 'diverse' schools, they are not parallel with the 'elite' schools.</p>
<p>I wonder if this pattern of minority-heavy bottom tier schools extends to law schools? That would explain it.</p>
<p>eric, you are not far off, except that not all of those schools are bottom tier. The best example I know is wjat is now Loyola LS LA. Loyola began as St. Vincent LS with a mission to open its doors to minority students that were subject to the quota system imposed by USC at the time. As ironic as it might seem now, prospective Jewish law students were a big minority in L.A. back then. Loyola still fulfills that mission by running its night program, while rising to the top 60. I am sure there are other schools with a similar history and mission.</p>
<p>Always bet on white.</p>
<p>California does, however, have more than its share of fourth-tier and/or unaccredited law schools. Perhaps for financial reasons (the relationship between race & wealth probably being well known to those on this board), minorities and the underprvileged (often the same thing) gravitate towards those schools.</p>
<p>Intelligent discussion on race and bar passage rate is acceptable discourse. Anything else that even hints of racism will be deleted, and the poster's privileges suspended. Clear?</p>
<p>And, as always, if you have problem with a moderator's "call", my PM is turned "on" and available for use. Public discussion of maoderator action is violation of TOS.</p>
<p>CD</p>
<p>razorsharp: "if the races are attending the same law schools why would scores vary by race?"</p>
<p>It's fairly obvious. Affirmative Action. The standards for African-Americans to get into law schools are lower than that for whites. And, still, overall, African-Americans attend lower quality schools.</p>
<p>-Cesare</p>
<p>Two keys to law school success: preparation and confidence. I could easily see how people who have been disadvantaged could lack both through no fault of their own, nor any lack of native intelligence. It seems as if students at the best law schools are continuing a theme of excellent education throughout their lives. Many of them have been challenged and succeeded at competitive levels throughout their whole lives. Many students have parents who are attorneys. Many have worked in law offices through connections. Heck, most people in law school have married, educated, well-off or wealthy parents. I imagine that the experience of a lower-middle-class student who is the first to go to college, let alone law school, would be radically different than that of a highly privileged attorney's son. Even if not... we get to, IMO, the most important thing in law school:</p>
<p>Confidence. Without it, you won't succeed in law school - and if you can't do that, the bar would be another agonizing hurdle. </p>
<p>Finally - let's all remember the social sciences mantra: there is a difference between correlation and causation!</p>
<p>Correlation vs. causation is right. There is a confounding lurking variable, here, right? :D for jargon.</p>
<p>I suppose this helps explode the model minority myth for Asians?</p>
<p>Also, I wonder what happens to all these failed lawyers. To take the extreme example, new LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa attended some non-accredited law school (People's School of Law, I think), and then failed the bar four times.</p>
<p>"Also, I wonder what happens to all these failed lawyers. To take the extreme example, new LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa attended some non-accredited law school (People's School of Law, I think), and then failed the bar four times."</p>
<p>Well, as you said it..."extremes." Mayor Villaraigosa didn't get elected b/c of his academic prowess. lol. the guy dropped out of school, and as you said failed the bar a few times. Nevertheless, I will say that, at least, the name of his law school may have helped. :D And let's not overlook the fact that race, in this case, did indeed play a major factor.</p>
<p>"Also, I wonder what happens to all these failed lawyers." </p>
<p>Some take the bar again until they pass it. (I read about someone who passed on his 20th attempt.) Some find work in a related field that doesn't require bar membership (working as a paralegal, or an insurance claims adjuster). Some move to other states with easier bar examinations. Others pass other state bars, and then return to California and restrict their practice to immigration law, or find work as lawyers for the federal government. Some become members of other state bars, and work in-house for corporations. Still others find work in unrelated fields.</p>
<p>Although the article does not say Mr. Burning flunked the bar, it would not surprise me. Here is what he is doing:</p>
<p>"Bruning, 54, has worked in retail since he graduated from law school at Loyola University in Los Angeles and went to work for Sears followed by stints with Utah-based mall builder John Price and as a development partner with the Alexander Haagen Co."</p>