Posted on 01/08/2006 9:35:18 AM PST by Dr.Syn
Lowering The Bar January 5, 2006 Clifton Eames has been reading too much of René Descartes. When Eames flunked the Texas bar exam four times in a row, he reacted although, “...there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me....” Perhaps he is just a bit too obsessed by his belief in “Cogito ergo sum”. The State Bar of Texas has a rule which limits the number of times an individual can take the bar exam to five. If you flunk all five times, that is the end of any ambitions to practice law in Texas. Of course, you would still have the option for a lucrative career as the Mayor/coke-head of the District of Columbia. Eames is a 34-year-old graduate of the University of the District of Columbia’s David A. Clarke School of Law. This renowned institution received its accreditation in 2005 and boasts that “55% of students are members of minority groups” and “61% of students are women”. The school’s competitive nature is evidenced by the 25% of its enrollment with below national average GPA and LSAT scores. A UDC faculty member who asked not to be identified finds that “UDC's law school is ranked virtually last in the nation in both academics and by judges. It has clearly been recognized as a waste of taxpayers' funds by a variety of community leaders and groups". This is evidenced by the fact that that a Washington Times Freedom of Information request discovered that “Less than a quarter of graduates from the University of the District of Columbia's law school pass the bar exam on the first try, well below the national average of 73 percent...Yet the David A. Clarke School of Law is spending nearly twice the national average on its students”. The school’s august stature was evidenced by then interim university president Timothy L. Jenkins’ 2001 statement that he “...agreed to accept an appointment to the Board of Trustees of the University...from Mayor Marion Barry...because...a great city ought to have a great University.” What is the meaning of “great”? After a careful review of David A. Clarke School of Law’s website, it’s hard not to generalize that this school is an unheard-of remedial affirmative action bin. Let’s put it this way: if the UDC law school was a medical school, you wouldn’t be picking any of its graduates for your bypass surgery. Why not select an alumna from the Richard Simmons show to represent the US at the Winter Olympics while you’re at it. And this seems to be the chapter that Clifton Eames fails to grasp...Just hitting a ball around doesn’t entitle you to a major league contract. There’s that nasty little pest called competency. Afraid that he might flunk the Texas bar exam for a fifth and final time, Eames has opted for the route most often traveled by people who practice form over substance...lower the bar by changing the rules. It seems that Eames “is making it his mission to get the Texas rule changed”. He believes that “It needs to be changed. It's not right. It has never been right, and it will never be right. There's no justification for it. I'm not going to stop until it's changed.” So, let’s get this straight. After decades of: watering down the admissions process; watering down the faculty tenure process and inflating grades (or eliminating them altogether)...now we are asked to water down the final safety net for the consumer to have a chance at competent legal representation. This final safety net of legal competence, the bar exam, does not test your knowledge of the law per se, it tests your knowledge of how to practice law according to the statutes and procedures of your chosen State. It's an attempt at sparing the public and the courts from practitioners who don’t know how to practice. Just to prove that there is never a whiner without his nurturers, State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) who authored a bill to eliminate the five-time rule thinks that “It just seems unfair to me to see Texas students being penalized”. Of course Van de Putte, who herself is a Texas licensed pharmacist, made no mention of altering Texas’ licensure requirements for pharmacists. I would really enjoy having a pharmacist who needed four score and seven attempts to qualify for licensure filling my prescriptions...”Oh you died...sorry about that”. And, you know where this is headed...the complete elimination of the bar exam requirement. James Alfini the president of another august legal institution, the South Texas College of Law, believes that “There's nothing magic about passing the bar exam”. I guess one of his degrees and a matchbook is all he thinks you need to swindle somebody. And speaking of matchbook degrees...Connecticut’s Hartford Hospital was recently fined $100,000 by the state’s Department of Public Health for violations which included a hyperbaric therapy technician killing a patient by accidentally administering a “sugar solution directly into the patient's bloodstream through the intravenous line” when, in fact, a doctor asked the “technician to give the patient a sugar solution through the feeding tube”. The hyperbaric technician “later said he did not know the difference between an intravenous line and a feeding tube”. There is no competency examination in Connecticut to become a hyperbaric technician. You are “certified” for the position by producing “degrees” for various levels of healthcare training. You know...like the matchbook says, “Become a certified nurse’s aid in 6 weeks”...or 10 weeks or 20 weeks or as long as it takes you to get through the program. Nobody will actually know that you can’t tell a stomach from a vein. But, let’s make believe that having to create a special Olympics for professional certification really doesn’t matter. Eames engages this make-believe world when he states that “No one is going to ask you, ‘How many times did it take you to pass the bar exam’...The ultimate goal is, 'Can you help me?'”. Well, can you? An astute participant at the FreeRepublic blog pointed out that “Frank Abagnale (subject of the movie "Catch Me If You Can") studied for two weeks and passed the bar, even though he never attended law school”. But, Frank Abagnale is the exception rather than the rule. The same can be said for Jeanne Louise Calment who lived to the age of 122 and smoked until the age of 116. Living by examples in the third standard deviation is not a wise bet. Neither hiring a dummy for a lawyer nor smoking for longevity are bets that wise people make. Eames is not entirely at fault here. Equal blame is shared by institutions like the UDC law school which raise unrealistic expectations. Sub par institutions are, at best, academic life support systems. What does it say about the UDC law school when they emphasize that the school has an “Academic Success Program”...a program at the graduate level that “teaches students to be proactive with their learning and to master learning skills through proper goal-setting, actual performance, time management, self-motivation and self-efficacy”? Perhaps next, in addition to remedial reading clinics for grad students, we can have individual special education professionals assigned to hold the hand of each graduate...just to make sure they don’t screw-up once they are unleashed on the general population. And all of this can be supported at the expense of the taxpayer when the courts are clogged by even more “professionals” who know more about leasing their BMW’s than the proper filing of a literate pleading. Eames’ ultimate solution to his dilemma is to threaten “a lawsuit challenging the limit”. This is more of the “same-old, same-old”. We live in an age: when a person who can’t get out of the sixth grade responds by threatening a lawsuit; when an idiot who can’t get into Harvard responds by threatening a lawsuit and when a glutton who can’t get into his pants actually files suit against McDonalds. Maybe Eames should either try: suing his law school for admitting an unqualified applicant; suing his law school for taking somebody’s money and delivering a sub-par education or spend more time studying for the Texas bar exam and less time bitching about it. Also, if he gets fat, he should just say no to that next Big Mac. But, please don’t ask the public to live in a world already overcrowded with incompetent professionals to accept even more incompetence. |
This should make a few libs howl!
God, this is pathetic...I went to law school with quite a few of these affirmative-action admitees, and I can't believe some of them even got in, they were so stupid. One of them took and failed the Oregon Bar Exam 9 times. I don't know if she is still trying or not...
If Mr. Clifton Eames produces enough effort and determination perhaps he will meet the minimum competency requirements to practice law in his chosen state. It does not appear reasonable to limit the opportunities available to Mr. Eames through a limit on the number of bar test attempts. His legal competency may even exceed the competency of some individuals who passed on the first try. Mr. Eames appears determined to accomplish that which he has set out to do. His goal is a good thing in society and that is something to be admired.
This guy should move to a liberal state with no limits on how many time you can fail.
South Texas College of Law actually has a reputation for turning out good litigators. If one were to make fun of a Texas law school, the first to come to mind would be the one at Texas Southern - the Thurgood Marshall School of Law. It is the Texas equivalent of the UDC law school.
This school also is a total burden on the US taxpayer because it is the creation of a PC vision that was and is funded by Congressional appropriations with no end in sight.
As the article pointed out...Mr Eames should consider suing his school for a bad education.
Back in the '60s when there were only a handful of law schools in Texas and standards were high, students were allowed to take the Bar Exam if they wished after the second year of Law School.
Many did, and left school to practice a year early.
Those that did all three years just assumed they would pass the Bar on the first try. Failure was rare because the standards in Law School were high.
Today anyone seems to be able to get into Law School and waste three years before discovering they don't have what it takes.
So9
Of course the non-affirmative action students who fell below a 2.7 were never seen again!
And that is right to the point. Good job.
I have no argument with your statement. Nevertheless, I do not think the State should prevent Mr. Eames from testing while he is determined to study and overcome the poor preparation attributed to his law school. Decreasing the legally related passing qualifications would be lowering the bar of justice. The number of test opportunities is not a legal qualifiaction but an arbitary boundary. If that boundary were one try, many current lawyers would be otherwise occupied. Furthurmore, I admire Mr. Eames determination. He appears to seek a hand-up and not a hand out.
That's one of the cleverest lines I've heard in a long time. Definitely worth remembering.
I have an even more radical solution. Perhaps Mr. Eames should STUDY for the exam and not blame society for his failure. After 4 times, he should have the bar exam practically memorized!
How can anybody ever fail a bar exam?
Jeeeez, all you need to do is demonstrate that you can keep a straight face when you lie through your teeth.
Now that I think about, you are absolutely correct. It's especially good advice for the libs who want to re-make the world in their own distorted vision.
What a great phrase.
Don't they charge a pile of money each time you take it??
Yes. But the Oregon State Bar gives "affirmative-action" types scholarships to help them through the pain of bar study, so they don't have to work during bar study like the rest of us do. So she likely got a free ride thru law school (on a racist discrimination scholarship) and then got a free ride for bar study. And she still couldn't pass the thing!
" As the article pointed out...Mr Eames should consider suing his school for a bad education."
I hardly think so. A bad education in law school is no excuse whatsoever for failure on the bar exam, as many law school students don't even take all the courses tested on the bar exam. For example, I have taken and passed (on the first try) bar exams in five states. Among these states were states having bar exam requirements (oil and gas law, for example) which were not even taught at my law school. One takes a prep course, studies hard, and does not make excuses for one's own inability to prep for the exam.
Passing a bar exam is a piece of cake if you put in the requisite study time. This guy does not have the intellectual candlepower to practice law, and is exactly the type of person the bar exam is supposed to weed out.
You won't get an argument out of me on this point.
What a great phrase.
In spite of being a bit redundant ;)
"Passing a bar exam is a piece of cake if you put in the requisite study time. This guy does not have the intellectual candlepower to practice law, and is exactly the type of person the bar exam is supposed to weed out."
We'd be bitching about it if a union shop were imposed on gas station attendants or supermarket checkers. The bar is simply a union shop under the high-gloss whitewash of professional regulation. It is no more necessary to regulate lawyers than it is to regulate plumbers.
That doesn't mean UDC is a good school and this guy would be a good advocate. But if we placed similar restrictions on those doing business (all businessmen had to go to an approved three-year MBA program and pass the MBA certification exam after business school) all hell would break loose.
"We'd be bitching about it if a union shop were imposed on gas station attendants or supermarket checkers."
Being a lawyer, doctor, or any other licensed professional involves taking on a huge responsibility for the lives and fortunes of others.
I hardly think we can say the same thing about a gas station attendant or a supermarket checker.
The bar serves to protect consumers against people who simply are not even MINIMALLY competent to practice law. Maybe you don't appreciate the safety net, but it's there for you nonetheless.
I graduated from an Ivy League university with an MBA. I have always been in favor of a certification exam for MBAs so that lawyers from schools like UDC's would show some respect for a better credential in a different discipline.
I'm 100% against forcing any more regulation on business, and DEFINITELY against imposing a bar-like cartel on MBAs. And if you think even the lousiest of lawyers (or perhaps lawyers in general) don't respect you, get in line with the rest of us, but I don't think that would change if you had to take an exam, either.
"Being a lawyer, doctor, or any other licensed professional involves taking on a huge responsibility for the lives and fortunes of others. I hardly think we can say the same thing about a gas station attendant or a supermarket checker. The bar serves to protect consumers against people who simply are not even MINIMALLY competent to practice law. Maybe you don't appreciate the safety net, but it's there for you nonetheless."
You could make the same argument about the FDA, FEC, FCC, and a host of other worthless government programs, as well as professional licensing for barbers and funeral homes. All of it is simply imposing government restriction on what should be a free market. People should be deciding for themselves what they're willing to pay for, lousy lawyer or no. Bar membership is simply another artificial method of restricting the supply of a resource (legal expertise) and driving up the amount lawyers can charge. The bar doesn't actually keep out incompetents, it simply winnows down the number of lawyers in general.
bump
I realize that you're spouting the Libertarian party line. I'd rather have regulation than incompetent professionals. Regulation DOES ensure a greater quality of professional.
Usually the people you hear howling about the regulations are the ones who can't pass the exam.
"I'd rather have regulation than incompetent professionals. Regulation DOES ensure a greater quality of professional."
Regulation simply can't provide any more quality than a union does. As long as government is in charge of the regulation, or the profession itself is in charge of the regulation, the primary goal of that regulation will be to assure the current members of the profession future profits. I cannot think of a single regulated profession that has done any more than benefited itself in the long run by having government regulate it, and there is no question that self-regulation is naught but self-serving.
As to your assertion that "the people you hear howling about the regulations are the ones who can't pass the exam," that they personally have an interest does not invalidate their criticism. As a lawyer, I'd hazard a guess you recognize logic, though it comes up rarely in your profession these days after you finish the LSAT. Attacking the person doing the arguing is not attacking their argument one whit.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Licensing of professionals makes sense, and most people want it, which is why we have it.
And again, the argument that such regulations keep out competition is usually made by those that cannot compete...which is the reason why we have the regulation in the first place.
"We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Licensing of professionals makes sense, and most people want it, which is why we have it. And again, the argument that such regulations keep out competition is usually made by those that cannot compete...which is the reason why we have the regulation in the first place."
We may agree to disagree, certainly. But if the only reasons that a five-state-barred lawyer can provide in support of professional licensing are an appeal to popularity and an ad hominem, perhaps the public has cause for its perception of today's legal profession.
You are arguing first that professional regulation is popular and that if the people didn't want it it wouldn't be there. I submit to you that if you polled this web site and asked people in general whether government regulation of business, ANY business, is a positive or even necessary, you would find differently. Further, if the general proposition that government may regulate all business were put to a vote, I suspect the voters would knock it down faster than a Kennedy puts down a shot glass.
Notwithstanding that FACTUAL error, logically, you are STILL wrong. No matter how popular the idea of regulation of lawyers, plumbers, or any business, it is still true that the regulations do not do what the ideal promises. They do not restrict the incompetent from these professions; the regulations enshrine and protect the incompetent. They do not prevent quackery in these professions; they restrict it from being lawful quackery. They do not make the public safer or better off; they prevent the public from a wide range of choices that would probably better serve the public's needs. Why should I go to a doctor if I have the same cold I had last year, if a pharmacist can tell me I need penicillin? Why should I go to a certified plumber to put a drain pipe in for my pool shower, if all I need is a pipe fit and my neighbor knows how to do it? Why should I be forced to go to a lawyer to draft a will if the guy next door bought a book on making wills last week and we both have similar needs and assets?
You also claim professional regulation is often condemned by those who cannot manage to get through restrictions placed on their profession. That is guilt by association. Is it then true that everyone arguing for government to get out of the business of professional regulation must be a disappointed bar-taker? No, of course not. As a member of the public at large, I want to be able to choose my advocate. I want to be able to choose my plumber, barber, and contractor. I want to be able to do these things without the government restricting my choices. Most people would benefit from a lack of government restriction on, say, who can do a simple rewiring job, or a simple will, or a simple haircut. Yet your argument is that the interests of all these people should be discounted simply because the most vocal are those who are directly impacted by the restrictions professional regulation places upon their ability to pursue a particular profession.
You are playing the Democrat game of calling your opponent 'extreme' and 'out of the mainstream,' attacking all those who want to end your government-enforced union shop as 'disgruntled,' when those who prefer free enterprise include freedom from government intrusion are not extreme, out of the mainstream, or disgruntled (except by Leviathan government, of course). How sad for you, that you don't recognize you are arguing for safety, government protection, and government bloat, instead of the freedom conservatives typically espouse. It may simply be that you recognize your hypocrisy and refuse to admit it. But you are only fooling yourself.
"We may agree to disagree, certainly. But if the only reasons that a five-state-barred lawyer can provide in support of professional licensing are an appeal to popularity and an ad hominem, perhaps the public has cause for its perception of today's legal profession."
As I said, such regulations protect the public against the incompetent would-be attorneys, doctors, and plumbers. While it is true that such regulation does not completely guarantee quality (having just built a house, I can tell you how many incompetent licensed contractors there are out there) it does ensure a minimum standard of competency that professionals must meet before their skills may be offered to the public. Most people would not care to be operated upon by an unlicensed physician. Maybe you're right, and people should be allowed to choose...we have a licensing system for the good doctors and lawyers, and an unlicensed system for those who want to roll the dice. I think you're on to something here...
That being said, there is certainly no reason why people, even under the current "union shop" as you call it, can't write their own wills. I actually make more money when people do, because they create an unbelivable mess for themselves, and then the family comes to me and pays me thousands of dollars to fix it. So I'm all in favor of legal self-help. I'm sure that lawyers in other specialities see the same thing.
But you're right, people should have the right to choose. Maybe you should start a national crusade, and have the Institute for Justice help you.
I know you are kidding, but I think that would work out well, and I think so because what would happen is what happened in the past--private affiliations and endorsements sprung up to license workers in certain areas. The guild systems and the apprentice systems, for example. When it came to products, check out http://www.goodhousekeepingseal.com/r5/home.asp, which sprung up to guarantee quality foodstuffs and home appliances. They would all be far more efficient and useful than the current situation, where we all rely on a government to do that job when unlike a private endorser, it will take no responsibility for its mistakes and suffer not a whit for its failure to properly vet its licensees.
"That being said, there is certainly no reason why people, even under the current "union shop" as you call it, can't write their own wills. I actually make more money when people do, because they create an unbelivable mess for themselves, and then the family comes to me and pays me thousands of dollars to fix it. So I'm all in favor of legal self-help. I'm sure that lawyers in other specialities see the same thing."
I'm sure that there are plenty of people who make mistakes under the current system and make you money. What I'm saying is that fewer would make mistakes had they the opportunity to hire professionals with limited expertise in a certain area as opposed to being forced to hire expensive, broadly certified professionals. Surely you can recognize that your contention that people make mistakes under the current regime helps make my case, not your own. After all, I content that the bar doesn't at all help ensure people get quality legal advice. You're just proving it.
"But you're right, people should have the right to choose. Maybe you should start a national crusade, and have the Institute for Justice help you."
Heck, I'll just donate to them, and leave to them the national crusade. But I'll vocally support them here, too. Lord knows there are enough vocal proponents of the many facets of the nanny state here, at least, where that nanny state benefits them.
Yes, I do think I agree with you that private certification would be better. That way, we can have a voluntary "good housekeeping seal" for whatever profession, and people will really feel like they are getting quality. You've swayed me on this one, so no need to be snarky.
"Surely you can recognize that your contention that people make mistakes under the current regime helps make my case, not your own."
Actually, the example I gave was of non-lawyers screwing up their own stuff, not stuff being screwed up by lawyers.
"After all, I content (sic) that the bar doesn't at all help ensure people get quality legal advice. You're just proving it."
I do think that the bar does help people get a better quality of legal service. That said, I think I agree that there is no reason why the same checks can't be provided by a private guild instead of a govt agency. Nothing I have said "proves" anything to the contrary.
Become a CPA.
I can see failing it once. Test anxiety and all that. This is a very high stakes exam! (By the way, I passed on the first try ;-)
But five times? All it really tests is one's ability to think straight.
After I took the bar exam, I was amazed. I am convinced that one does not even have to attend law school to pass the bar exam. Some professors made things seem so esoteric and difficult it was amazing to study from the exam review outlines and actually learn what I was supposed to have learned while in law school!
I admire this guy's pluck, but perhaps he should choose a state in which the "bar" is set a little lower if he finds it difficult to pass in five times. Frankly, I wouldn't want a doctor, lawyer or pharmacist who had to sue to pass his or her state's licensing requirements!
A few come to mind here as well.
I think mine was one of the last classes at my law school before the magic word "diversity" came into play.
It chafed many that we were paying tens of thousands of dollars to become educated, but all of a sudden all sorts of money was available to try to increase diversity in the bar.
It quickly became screamingly obvious that those who were in my class and above were qualified to be there, while after that even those highly qualified students were in with the mix. I was a teaching assistant for a while and I saw many of these student's work and thought processes first hand. It wasn't a pretty sight!
"It chafed many that we were paying tens of thousands of dollars to become educated, but all of a sudden all sorts of money was available to try to increase diversity in the bar."
And you get to pay back all those student loans with after-tax dollars, too, and the racist scholarships that those "special" students received were tax free. Does that make you feel better?
Is it already April 1?
</Snarkiness>
LOL. Glad I sold you. Sorry if I annoyed you in the process.
Wrong!
Mr. Eames appears to be an Affirmative Action Whiner playing the race card instead of taking remedial courses to get past the exam.
There are always doctors, lawyers, and pharmacists who pass Magna Cum Laude and Nil Cum Laude. Usually they find the right match for their ability in their chosen field.
Next:
The David A. Clarke School for Airline Pilots and Brain Surgeons.
I did not see this as an affirmative action. Moreover, I saw this as a tribute to the academically challenged in either education, upbringing, or ability. I would not fault Mr. Eames in his desire or effort but in his result. Perhaps, remedial courses are a good idea. But if the State could limit the bar attempts to "five", the State could just as easily limit the bars attempts to "one". Many current and accomplished members of the bar would be otherwise engaged if "one" was the number. The number of allowed attempts is arbitrary. Maybe, just maybe, the lawyer who never gave up, never surrendered, and never lost faith is the kind of lawyer some people not only need but also seek.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.