Thursday, July 16, 2009
Bar Exam Questions
So, I've been spending a lot of my time in recent days studying for the bar exam which I am taking starting on Tuesday, July 28 to Thursday, July 30, and I've been getting somewhat frustrated at some of the questions.
The bar examiners like to try to trick us by shaping questions in such a way that it looks like a certain rule (that we were forced to memorize for this stupid test) is being tested, when in fact there is a minor detail somewhere else in the question that nullifies the rule and leads you to another answer. The questions are shaped just like an old riddle that my sister used to ask people whose entire purpose was to trick the person being asked the question. Here's the question: If a rooster lays an egg on the top of a house, which side does the egg fall? Of course, the answer is that roosters don't lay eggs, so the question is null. This is exactly what the bar examiners do except they really lead you down the wrong path. If that riddle was a question on the bar exam it would read more like this: "A farmer got into a dispute with his neighbor who lived on the east side of a duplex shared with the farmer about who owned a prized rooster. The farmer was somewhat eccentric and told his neighbor that they would decide who owned the rooster by placing him on the roof of the building, and whoever's side the egg fell would keep the rooster. After much cajooling, the neighbor agreed. The roof is triangularly shaped such that the roof slopes both toward the East and the West. The wind that day was especially strong and was blowing to the East. Furthermore, the farmer's part of the roof was waxed with a reflective oil to keep the house cooler, but the neighbor's half was not. Who will win the rooster?"
Now also suppose that admidst your hours of studying you had memorized the general rule that spherical objects always roll in the direction of the wind. However, there is a small caveat that if there is part of a roof that slopes to the West and that part is covered with oil, then the spherical object will roll in that direction. Now, you see the answer that says to the East because of the wind and you think to yourself, "wow! I'm glad I memorized that little caveat about the oil!", and you mark down West as your answer. Wrong! It's D, not enough information. Now, what's the point of that? It's just as likely, if not more likely, that someone who didn't study at all would put D because he didn't know there were any rules about egg rolling. In other words, the examiner's are attempting to penalize you for knowing the rules! Assholes!
The problem is that the bar examiners have to think of questions such that people can study for 6 weeks for a knowledge-based test (as opposed to an IQ type test like the SATs or LSATs) that somewhat smart people are taking and yet keep the average around 60%. The only way to do this is to trick them. So, then the question is why does the average have to be 60%? They're gonna pass 80% of the kids that take it, presumably passing people who are getting 40% right on a multiple choice test where choosing randomly should get you around 25%. Does this make sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a test where people that study hard and know the rules can get 80-90%? I think so. I think it would be better to make sure that the ones who pass know the basics really well, not 50% of the trick questions.
The bar examiners like to try to trick us by shaping questions in such a way that it looks like a certain rule (that we were forced to memorize for this stupid test) is being tested, when in fact there is a minor detail somewhere else in the question that nullifies the rule and leads you to another answer. The questions are shaped just like an old riddle that my sister used to ask people whose entire purpose was to trick the person being asked the question. Here's the question: If a rooster lays an egg on the top of a house, which side does the egg fall? Of course, the answer is that roosters don't lay eggs, so the question is null. This is exactly what the bar examiners do except they really lead you down the wrong path. If that riddle was a question on the bar exam it would read more like this: "A farmer got into a dispute with his neighbor who lived on the east side of a duplex shared with the farmer about who owned a prized rooster. The farmer was somewhat eccentric and told his neighbor that they would decide who owned the rooster by placing him on the roof of the building, and whoever's side the egg fell would keep the rooster. After much cajooling, the neighbor agreed. The roof is triangularly shaped such that the roof slopes both toward the East and the West. The wind that day was especially strong and was blowing to the East. Furthermore, the farmer's part of the roof was waxed with a reflective oil to keep the house cooler, but the neighbor's half was not. Who will win the rooster?"
Now also suppose that admidst your hours of studying you had memorized the general rule that spherical objects always roll in the direction of the wind. However, there is a small caveat that if there is part of a roof that slopes to the West and that part is covered with oil, then the spherical object will roll in that direction. Now, you see the answer that says to the East because of the wind and you think to yourself, "wow! I'm glad I memorized that little caveat about the oil!", and you mark down West as your answer. Wrong! It's D, not enough information. Now, what's the point of that? It's just as likely, if not more likely, that someone who didn't study at all would put D because he didn't know there were any rules about egg rolling. In other words, the examiner's are attempting to penalize you for knowing the rules! Assholes!
The problem is that the bar examiners have to think of questions such that people can study for 6 weeks for a knowledge-based test (as opposed to an IQ type test like the SATs or LSATs) that somewhat smart people are taking and yet keep the average around 60%. The only way to do this is to trick them. So, then the question is why does the average have to be 60%? They're gonna pass 80% of the kids that take it, presumably passing people who are getting 40% right on a multiple choice test where choosing randomly should get you around 25%. Does this make sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a test where people that study hard and know the rules can get 80-90%? I think so. I think it would be better to make sure that the ones who pass know the basics really well, not 50% of the trick questions.
# posted by Clyde @ 9:07 PM 
