This is a volatile time in terms of bar admissions. Some states have added subjects to the bar exam (a terrible idea, in my opinion). Some have or will raise passing scores. In Illinois, most of the deans were recently able to convince the Supreme Court to significantly scale back such a plan. A few have considered Wisconsin-style diploma privileges (as a dean I am too biased in favor of this to comment objectively; it does seem odd to limit this option to graduates of law schools within the state – are graduates of Marquette and Wisconsin really more prepared to practice there than graduates of Loyola or Northwestern?). Others, led by New York, have added, or are considering, a pro bono/public service requirement prior to admission (well meaning, but almost completely unrelated to competence to practice law; why not impose that requirement on experienced lawyers first?). Still others, starting with California, are moving towards experiential learning requirements beyond those in the ABA Standards (quite defensible, although burdensome to law schools and threatening to a national standard of legal education requirements). Meanwhile, this past summer saw a significant drop in bar pass rates around the country, reflecting, depending on your point of view, either a flawed examination or the results of declining admissions standards.
It seems like a good time for modernizing bar admissions. The Uniform Bar Examination is worth serious consideration, as are recent innovations in Arizona and New Hampshire. More effort should be made to test competence to practice law rather than the ability to do well on something that is a mix between a law school essay exam and a standardized test. Bar associations that have been quick to establish law school-bashing task forces, should convene state-wide dialogues on this important topic.