Talk:Bar examination

Archives

Also, law students are famous for bitching at any opportunity

POV much? "considered by" is a scourge of Wikipedia, right up there with "best known for" in letting authors slide in their opinions on a topic.

"Bar review is considered by many to be one of the most stressful and unpleasant experiences which a law student faces before becoming a lawyer."

I'm not sure where to put this, and I don't have anything to cite to, but Washington no longer tests on Indian Law. This articles incorrectly states that Washington does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.67.113 (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana

I took Wikipedia's encouragement to be bold and split out the material on the Louisiana Bar Exam. The coverage within this article was excessive, but it was excellent material on a notable subject. I plan to write what I hope will be an even better article on Virginia's exam as soon as I have more fully recovered from taking Virginia's exam. When written, I will give it the same separate article treatment. Erechtheus 01:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

(I'm sorry about my English, so i'm not going to put this on the article. I ask someone to put in there.)

In Brazil, there is a bar examination, that occur in each State in March, August and December. These examinations are organized by Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil, the Brazilian Bar association. The mediocre results led the Brazilian population to question the quality of Law in colleges, because the best results usually tend to concentrate in a few universities, although the most of colleges are severely non-represented[1]. (unsigned comment by 201.67.22.182 at 18:21, 8 February 2007

Hello! I'll take a whack at it, and thanks for the information! Please consider getting a logon & user page, so you can get full credit for your contributions, networking et cetera! rewinn 03:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mistake here: OAB registry is NOT the brazilian BAR. BAR means British Accreditation Registry. Brazilian attorneys are not accredited by the BAR Council. It's better to say that OAB registry is the brazilian EQUIVALENT of BAR.

Yes, the mistake is that there is no such thing as the "British Accreditation Registry".

Germany

(I'm sorry about my English, so i'm not going to put this on the article. I ask someone to put in there.)

In Germany, the bar examination is called "Juristisches Staatsexamen". To become a lawyer or a judge it is necessary to pass two exams.

After university, the first exam has three parts: a written home-based assignment, five written tests under examination conditions and a five-hour oral test. There is no multiple choice in the German bar exam.

Afterwards, successful students then spend two years working in a law court, with a lawyer, prosecutor or with the government. This time is called a "Referendariat". Following this, the student can sit the second exam, which consists of 8 written tests (three of which have to be passed) and a five-hour oral exam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.228.135 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The exams are run by the Ministry of Justice (Justizministerium) of each federal German state.

Students are only allowed two attempts at passing the exam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.228.135 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC) 88.76.157.91 (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Patent Bar"

Many people call the examination to practice before the USPTO the "patent bar." This is inaccurate as the exam is not even a bar at all (nonlawyers may take and pass the exam). Thus, I removed the notion that "the patent bar is the only bar not administered by a state" in this article because I believe that such a reference would propagate the fallacy. Also, I think that the paragraph it is still factually incorrect because D.C. administers its own bar as well and is not a state. Also, there are some "commonwealths" that administer their bar exams and are not states. Basically there are several errors in that two-line paragraph; enough that I don't have the energy to fix them now.--Lawst Student 06:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

A summary of the pro and con arguments should be included rather than requiring the user to read external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anders94 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test parts

Is the bar exam an all or nothing exam or can you pass part of it initially and then the rest at a later date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.26.71 (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

I've removed the following unreferenced paragraph added by User:Hghghghg22 from the article:

The expression 'call to the bar' is said to have originated from a conversation between two benchers in the smoking room of Inner Temple. Members of the Inn sometimes cite 'the conversation' to pupils admitted to Inner Temple upon their admission to the Inn. The details of the conversation are said to have been lost. Like Mornington Crescent 'the conversation' is a red herring and has no formal content, and often leads to apocryphal embellishments at the teller's discretion.

Is this real? Or nonsense? -- The Anome (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's real, a mate of mine is a member of the Inn, I've put back a shorter version Borishell (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of US standard exams

Well, I've already done most of the work. That is, the several multistate exam items have been pasted into this article. I think the result is a unified and logical discussion of this (admittedly US-centric) topic. We now have the 5 different articles and stubs under one roof where they belong instead of an article/stub here and there which duplicated the same info. The only step that remains is to AfD the residue.--S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now the section on the U.S. seems disproportionately large. Should the section be split off, with this article merely summarizing? EditWorker (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals for failed applicants

I've reverted a recent edit about a Maryland lawyer who unsuccessfully sued the California State Bar over the fact that he had failed the exam a number of times. This edit is inappropriate because it focuses too much on one person, raising one issue in one particular state in the United States. The article is about Bar Examinations in general. The edit implied that failed applicants have little or no legal recourse in the courts. In the case cited, the lawyer did have recourse -- his case was dismissed because he did not avail himself of the recourse open to him. Accordingly, the edit and its supporting material is not on-point. I am thinking the IP editor who added this is a failed applicant him/herself. Sorry, WP is not a place to WP:RGW. --S. Rich (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with you on this one in full. Plus the edit violates WP:UNDUE. And as for that particular applicant, the Courts of Appeal already tolerate a lot of snarkiness in briefs, but normally don't bother to comment on it because it's within the bounds of zealous advocacy. The fact that they had to call out that lawyer in his case for going over the line is a strong clue as to the quality of his writing. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand (Bar Exam is a Lie)

I don't know why they keep vandalizing it and putting that the Bar test is a lie in this section. They're also banning people for changing it to "Bar Exams" and fixing the vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.252.84 (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bar examination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090510143850/http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Bar-Exam-Info-History.pdf to http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Bar-Exam-Info-History.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bar examination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bar examination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bar examination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ncbex.org/uploads/user_docrepos/740205_darrowkleinhaus.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111109061951/http://law.unh.edu/websterscholar/ to http://law.unh.edu/websterscholar/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

I propose that section Bar examination#United States be split into a separate page called Bar examination in the United States, and that the latter page be merged with Uniform Bar Examination. The section is currently long, and includes a large amount of detail about the bar examination in the United States. Much of the information is repeated in the Uniform Bar Examination page. In both this section and that page, there is a lack of information about states that do not use the UBE. All these problems could be redressed by creating a new page. Kumar (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no comments, I'm going to go ahead and make this change. Kumar (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On adding section India

I have added a new section on India. The information and references are from article AIBE. I have tried to shorten the article in my own words, you can check it,hence it should not be fully copy editing. Prinaki (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]