The State Bar of California
  • Log in
  • News
  • Forms
  • Contact
Admissions:
  • Requirements
  • |
  • Examinations
  • |
  • Moral Character
  • |
  • Special Admissions
  • |
  • Law School Regulation
  • Public
    • Need Legal Help
      • Look Up a Lawyer
      • Using a Certified Lawyer Referral Service
        • Certified Lawyer Referral Services Directory
          • LRS FAQs for Consumers
          • File a Complaint about an LRS
          • How to Become a Certified LRS
      • Free Legal Help
    • Complaints & Claims
      • How to File a Complaint
        • Before You File
        • Why File a Complaint
        • Attorney Complaint
        • After You File
        • Después de presentar una queja
        • Nonattorney Complaint
        • Discipline Referral
      • Unauthorized Practice of Law Complaint
        • After You File
        • Después de presentar una queja por práctica no autorizada
      • Fee Disputes
        • FAQ
      • Client Security Fund
        • Client Security Fund Application Process
        • Application Instructions
      • Lawyer Referral Service Complaints
        • Certified Lawyer Referral Service Complaints
        • Uncertified Lawyer Referral Service Complaints
      • FAQ
    • Free Legal Information
      • Before Selecting an Attorney
        • Finding the Right Lawyer
        • What a Certified Lawyer Referral Service Can Do for You
        • Your Initial Consultation
      • Working with an Attorney
        • What to Expect from Your Attorney
        • How to Work with Your Lawyer
        • What to Expect Regarding Fees and Billing
        • How to Avoid Problems
      • Resolving Problems
        • Problem with a Lawyer
        • Lawyer Fee Dispute
          • Lawyer Fee Dispute FAQ
        • Client Security Fund
      • Unauthorized Practice of Law
        • Avoiding Fraud by Immigration Consultants
        • Práctica no autorizada de la abogacía
        • Evite el fraude por parte de los consultores de inmigración
      • For Immigrants
        • Buscando ayuda con asuntos de inmigración
        • Immigration Legal Services Providers
        • Proveedores de servicios legales de inmigración
      • Legal Help After a Disaster
      • For Veterans & Service Members
      • Legal Services Fraud Alert for Homeowners
        • Alerta a Propietarios Referente al Fraude de Servicios Legales
      • Legal Services Fraud Alert for Renters
        • Alerta a Arrendatarios Referente al Fraude de Servicios Legales
      • Legal Guide Pamphlets
      • FAQ
    • Discipline
      • Attorney Discipline
      • Nonattorney Actions
      • Discipline Statistics
      • Look Up a Lawyer
    • Public Trust Liaison
      • Intermediario de Confianza Pública
    • En español
  • About Us
    • Our Mission
      • Protecting the Public
        • Regulation Overview
        • Public Comment
          • Public Comment Guidelines
          • Public Comment Archives
            • 2023 Public Comment
            • 2022 Public Comment
            • 2021 Public Comment
            • 2020 Public Comment
            • 2019 Public Comment
            • 2018 Public Comment
            • 2017 Public Comment
              • 2017-12
            • 2016 Public Comment
            • 2015 Public Comment
            • 2014 Public Comment
            • 2013 Public Comment
            • 2012 Public Comment
            • 2011 Public Comment
            • 2010 Public Comment
        • Reports
        • Public Records
      • Promoting Justice in California
      • Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
        • DEI Leadership Seal Program
          • State Bar DEI Leadership Seal Progress
          • DEI Leadership Seal Application
    • Who We Are
      • Board of Trustees
        • Roster
        • Meetings
        • Audit Committee
          • Roster
        • Executive Committee
          • Roster
        • Finance Committee
          • Roster
        • Regulation and Discipline Committee
          • Roster
        • Public Comment Guidelines
        • Remote Participation Tips
        • Supreme Court Appointments
        • Board Task Forces
      • Committees
        • Meetings
        • Blue Ribbon Commission
          • Resources
          • Roster
        • California Board of Legal Specialization
        • Client Security Fund Commission
          • Roster
        • Committee of Bar Examiners
          • Committee of State Bar Accredited and Registered Schools
            • Roster
          • Law School Council
            • Roster
        • Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct
        • Council on Access and Fairness
          • Roster
        • Judicial Nominees Evaluation
          • Review Committee of the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation
          • Roster
          • FAQ
          • JNE Demographics Reports
        • Lawyer Assistance Program Oversight Committee
          • Roster
        • Legal Services Trust Fund Commission
          • Roster
        • Privacy Law Group
      • Archived Committees
        • Ad Hoc Commission on the Discipline System
        • California Access to Justice Commission
          • Commission Roster
        • California Attorney Practice Analysis Working Group
        • California Paraprofessional Program Working Group
        • Closing the Justice Gap Working Group
        • Committee on Special Discipline Case Audit
        • Governance in the Public Interest Task Force
        • Limited License Working Group
        • Malpractice Insurance Working Group
        • Moral Character Working Group
        • Rules Commission 2017
        • Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services
      • Staff
      • State Bar Holidays
    • News
      • Fact Sheets
      • Reports
      • Multimedia
      • California Bar Journal Archive
    • Careers
      • Make a Difference
      • Develop and Grow
      • Benefits
      • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
      • View All Job Listings
      • Salary
    • Business Opportunities
      • Previous Opportunities
  • Attorneys
    • For Attorneys
      • About Your State Bar Profile
        • Fees & Payment
          • Agency Billing
          • Annual Fees FAQs
          • Voluntary Contributions
          • Fees and Charges
        • Status Changes
        • Address Change
        • Reporting Requirements
        • Certificate of Standing
      • Fingerprinting Rule Requirements
        • For In-State Attorneys
        • For Out-of-State Attorneys
        • For Out-of-Country Attorneys
          • Out-of-Country Deadline Extension Request
        • Multijurisdictional Practitioner
        • FAQ
        • Penalty Schedule
        • Limited Accommodations
        • Glossary
      • Lawyer Assistance Program
        • Voluntary LAP for Attorneys
        • Voluntary LAP for Law Students and Applicants
        • Monitored LAP
        • LAP Resources
        • LAP FAQ
      • Mandatory Fee Arbitration
        • Approved Programs
        • Forms & Resources
        • Arbitration Advisories
      • Opening and Managing Law Office
        • Insurance Programs
        • Limited Liability Partnerships
          • Forms
          • Rules
        • Law Corporations Program
          • Forms
          • Rules
        • Revoking Law Corporation
      • For Judges
      • FAQ
    • MCLE & CLE
      • Requirements
        • Types of MCLE Credit
        • Proportional Requirement
        • MCLE Recordkeeping
        • Attorney Exemptions
        • Attorney Exemptions FAQ
        • Approved Jurisdictions
        • Education Approval
          • Evaluate Credit
          • MCLE Credit Request
        • New Admittees
        • Inactive or Not Eligible Status
        • Out-of-State Residents
        • Good Cause Modification
      • Compliance
        • Who Must Report Compliance
        • Compliance Groups
        • Audit FAQ
      • New Attorney Training Program
      • E-Learning Portal
      • MCLE Providers
        • Provider Search
        • Single Activity Providers
        • Multiple Activity Providers
        • Provider Record Keeping
        • Qualifying Activities
        • ADA
      • MCLE Self-Study
        • MCLE Self-Study FAQs
      • CLE
        • CLE Self-Study
      • Rules
        • Rules Specific MCLE Credits
      • FAQ
    • Conduct & Discipline
      • Lawyer Regulation
      • Self-Reporting FAQ
      • State Bar Court
      • Client Trust Accounting & IOLTA
        • Client Trust Accounting Handbook
        • Client Trust Accounting Resources
        • Client Trust Account Protection Program
        • CTAPP FAQ
        • CTAPP Training
        • Client Trust Account and IOLTA Registration
        • IOLTA Guidelines for Attorneys
        • IOLTA FAQ
        • IOLTA-Eligible Banks
        • Interest Rates
      • Rules
        • Rules of the State Bar
          • Title 1 Global Provisions
          • Title 2 Rights and Responsibilities of Licensees
          • Title 3 Programs and Services
          • Title 4 Admissions and Educational Standards
          • Title 5 Discipline
          • Title 6 Governance
          • Title 7 Miscellaneous
          • Appendixes
          • New and Amended Rules
        • Rules of Professional Conduct
          • Current Rules
            • Chapter 1. Lawyer-Client Relationship
            • Chapter 2. Counselor
            • Chapter 3. Advocate
            • Chapter 4. Transactions with Persons Other than Clients
            • Chapter 5. Law Firms and Associations
            • Chapter 6. Public Service
            • Chapter 7. Information About Legal Services
            • Chapter 8. Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession
          • Previous Rules
        • Selected Legal Authority
          • Constitution Excerpts
          • The State Bar Act
          • California Rules of Court
          • Statutes
      • Ethics
        • Hotline
        • Opinions
          • 2009-176 to Present
          • 1998-152 to 2008-175
          • 1992-126 to 1997-151
          • 1988-96 to 1991-125
          • 1984-76 to 1987-95
          • 1979-48 to 1983-75
          • 1971-24 to 1977-47
          • 1965-1 to 1970-23
        • Rules Spotlight Videos
        • Ethics Schools
          • Class Schedule
          • Ethics School FAQ
        • Ethics & Technology Resources
          • Ethics Opinions Related to Technology
          • Ethics Articles on Technology
          • Online Participatory MCLE Programs
          • Online Communication
          • Electronic Files
          • Law Firm Websites
          • Social Media
          • Internet/Email Scams
          • Miscellaneous
        • Senior Lawyers Resources
          • Rules
          • Opinions
          • Publications
            • Wellness Guide
          • Articles
          • MCLE
          • Links
          • Closing a Law Practice
          • Contact Us
          • Attorney Surrogacy
        • ADA Claims Information
        • Judicial Ethics
        • Attorney Civility and Professionalism
        • Publications
          • Ethics News
          • Ethics News Archive
          • Hotliner Articles
            • Archives
          • Pub 250
          • Compendium on Professional Responsibility Index
        • Committees
          • COPRAC
            • Education
              • Ethics Symposium
            • Opinion Requests
            • Rules
            • Roster
          • Rules Revision
            • Rules Commission 2014
              • Action Summaries
              • Meetings
              • Roster
    • Ethics
    • Legal Specialization
      • About Certified Specialization
      • Becoming a Certified Specialist
        • Exam Information
          • Exam Preparation Information
          • Laptop Computers
          • Testing Accommodations
      • Current Certified Specialists
      • Legal Specialty Areas
      • Specialist Search
      • MCLE Requirements for Certified Specialists
      • Education Providers
      • Governance
        • Board of Legal Specialization
          • Roster
      • Rules & Standards
        • Advertising
      • FAQ
    • Volunteer
      • Special Master
        • FAQ
        • Rules
        • List
  • Admissions
    • Requirements
      • Registration
      • Education
        • Pre-Legal Education
          • College Equivalency Education
        • Legal Education
          • Fixed Facility
          • Correspondence or Distance Learning
          • Law Office or Judge's Chamber
          • Foreign Education
            • Foreign Law Degree
      • Social Security Exemption
      • Attorney Applicants
      • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Examinations
      • Dates and Deadlines
      • Safelisting Tips for Email
      • California Bar Examination
        • July 2023 California Bar Exam
        • Laptops for Bar Exam
        • July 2023 Bar Exam FAQs
        • Instructions for Essay Questions and Performance Test
        • July 2023 Admittance Ticket Bulletin
        • Testing Centers
        • Hotel Information
        • California Bar Examination Scope
        • Exam Results
          • Bar Exam Pass List
        • Past Exams
        • Grading
        • Scaling
        • Refund of Fees Policy
        • Virtual Oath Packet
        • Attorney's Oath
      • First-Year Law Students' Examination
        • June 2023 First-Year Exam
        • June 2023 First-Year Exam FAQs
        • Admittance Bulletin
        • Exam Results
        • First-Year Exam Grading and Scope
      • Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination
      • Requesting Testing Accommodations
      • Exam Administration
        • Becoming a Grader
        • Becoming a Proctor
    • Moral Character
      • Moral Character Statement
      • Governing Law
      • Process
      • Factors and Conduct
      • Further Investigation and Informal Conferences
      • Guidelines
    • Special Admissions
      • Multijurisdictional Practice (MJP) Program
        • MJP Program Requirements and Process
        • MJP Program Types
      • Pro Hac Vice
      • Out-of-State Attorney Arbitration Counsel (OSAAC)
      • Foreign Legal Consultants (FLC)
        • FAQ
        • Foreign Legal Consultants List
      • Practical Training of Law Students
      • Provisionally Licensed Lawyers
        • Search
    • Law School Regulation
      • Law Schools
      • Committee of Bar Examiners Meetings
        • Minutes
        • Minutes Archive
        • Roster
      • Exam Statistics
  • Access to Justice
    • Initiatives
      • California Justice Gap Study
        • Justice Gap Study Survey Data
        • California Law Student Survey Data
      • Publications
      • Leadership Banks
    • Pro Bono
      • Pro Bono Directory
        • Central Coast and Eastern Sierra
        • Central Valley Area
        • Los Angeles Area
        • Sacramento and Northern California
        • San Diego and Imperial Valley
        • San Francisco Area
        • Statewide
      • Pro Bono Practice Program
      • Volunteer Opportunities to Assist Veterans and Service Members
      • Volunteer After a Disaster
      • FAQ
    • Grants
      • Legal Aid Funding
      • 2022 Grant Recipients
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Lawyer Referral Services
    • Financial Institutions
      • IOLTA-Eligible Financial Institutions
  • California Bar Examination
Seal of The State Bar of California The State Bar of California

California Bar Examination Studies

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Share with Email

Reports

  • Recent Performance Changes to the Bar Exam
  • Standard Setting Study
  • Content Validation Study
  • Final Report on 2017 Bar Exam Studies
  • Performance Changes on the California Bar Examination
  • Evaluating Productive Mindset Interventions that Promote Excellence on California's Bar Exam
  • Final Report of the California Attorney Practice Analysis Working Group, 2020

Background

In keeping with a strategic goal to ensure that its admission system is timely and fair, the State Bar of California conducted a comprehensive series of studies of the California Bar Exam. The work was prompted by several factors, including a multiyear decline in pass rates. This trend led the State Bar to evaluate the appropriateness of California's cut score, one of the highest in the nation. 

The California Supreme Court, which has ultimate authority over the Bar Exam and cut score, directed the agency to ensure that these studies:

  1. Identify and explore all issues affecting California Bar Exam pass rates;
  2. Analyze and determine whether protection of potential clients and the public is served by maintaining the current pass line; and
  3. Include broad participation of subject matter experts, stakeholders, law schools, and technical experts.

2017 Studies

The first three studies were completed in 2017. Each study was led by an outside consultant with nationally recognized expertise in the subject. In addition, the State Bar hired additional subject matter experts to serve as external reviewers of the studies’ methods and findings. A working group comprised of a single representative from the California Supreme Court, and two representatives each from State Bar Board of Trustees and the Committee of Bar Examiners, oversaw the work.

The 2017 studies included:

  • A historical analysis of California Bar Exam pass rate trends from 2008, 2012, and 2016, which suggested that downward shifts in law school applicant performance are a contributing factor in declining bar exam pass rates.

    Read More

    Conducted by Dr. Roger Bolus, a nationally known psychometrician with extensive experience evaluating bar exams, the study analyzed data from 2008, 2012, and 2016. It revealed noticeable downward shifts in applicant performance, as measured by law school median LSAT scores. It suggested that approximately 20 percent of the decline in bar exam pass rates could be attributable to changing applicant abilities. However, the lack of individual student performance data limited the ability to identify a causal connection between changes in applicant abilities and bar exam passage rates. Report
     
  • A standard-setting study that defined minimally competent performance expected of entry-level attorneys and applied it to bar exam performance for the purpose of recommending a pass line.

    Read More

    The study was led by Chad Buckendahl, PhD, a nationally recognized expert in educational assessment and testing. It involved a two-and-a-half-day workshop with 20 practicing attorneys, representing diverse demographics, geography, employment and firm type, and legal practice area. The study utilized a modified version of the Analytic Judgment Method, a structured, iterative process of group discussions and individual rating of exam responses. The method was developed in the 1990s and field tested in different settings through a multiyear study funded by the National Science Foundation. It is considered particularly suitable for evaluating constructed response (essay) questions. Participants reviewed exam content specifications, developed Performance Level Descriptors, and sorted exam responses in three categories: not competent, competent, and far exceeding minimum competence. Combining the panelists’ exam sort with actual scores, the study identified a range of scores for borderline cases, evaluated the impact of specific cut scores within the borderline range, and presented cut score recommendations for policy consideration. Report
     
  • A content validation study to assess the alignment of bar exam content with the abilities, skills, and job-related knowledge needed by an entry-level attorney, according to a national attorney job analysis.

    Read More

    The study was also led by Chad Buckendahl, PhD, and involved a two-and-a-half-day workshop with practicing attorneys. They evaluated the fit of items, tasks and scoring criteria relative to job-related content; reviewed knowledge and task statements from a job analysis conducted by the National Committee of Bar Examiners in 2012; and rated test items and tasks by cognitive complexity level and job relevance. The final report evaluated bar exam alignment including:
    • Representation of the exam items in terms of content, cognitive complexity level relative to the knowledge and task statements of the NCBE job analysis;
    • Aspects of the NCBE job analysis that are missing from the exam; and
    • Aspects of the exam that are not aligned with the NCBE job analysis.
    Results suggested that the exam's content and cognitive complexity were consistent with job-related expectations of entry-level attorneys, based on the generalized national job analysis. The study also suggested that the exam's relevance for skills needed by California entry-level attorneys could be better assessed following a California-specific attorney practice analysis. Report

2017 Report; Supreme Court Response

After completing the standard-setting study, the State Bar invited public comment, surveyed practicing attorney and applicants, and conducted public hearings. In September 2017, the State Bar issued a report to the California Supreme Court, which has ultimate authority over the California Bar Exam cut score.

The State Bar Board of Trustees offered three options for the Supreme Court’s consideration:

  • An interim cut score of 1390
  • An interim cut score of 1414
  • No change in the current score of 1440

The report also outlined key issues important for the Court's policy decision–public protection, access to justice, and diversity of the legal profession.

In October 2017, the Supreme Court issued its response, maintaining the current cut score for the time being, as the State Bar continued its research.

Law School Performance Study

The fourth study, completed in 2018, examined changes in the characteristics of students taking the California Bar Exam to provide a better understanding of the declining trend of the bar passage rates. The study found that changes over time in the characteristics of exam takers accounted for between 20 and 50 percent of the decline in bar exam performance during the study period. The study was unable to account for a substantial amount of the decline in pass rates, concluding that other unexamined factors have contributed to the decade-long decrease in bar exam performance. Read More

Dr. Roger Bolus led the study. An advisory group of law school deans participated throughout the project. The study examined detailed data on over 7,000 students (from 11 ABA law schools participating in the study) who took the California Bar Exam in July 2013, 2016, and 2017.

Individual data included information on students’ undergraduate grade point average (GPA), undergraduate major, LSAT score, final law school GPA, course work in law school, and basic demographic information. The study examined these characteristics in relation to bar exam performance—both pass/fail outcomes and scores. The study found that:

  • Changes over time in the characteristics of exam takers accounted for only some of the decline in bar exam performance during the study period. The study found that these changes accounted for between 20 and 50 percent of the decline in bar exam performance during the study period, depending on the performance metric chosen and year compared;
  • The two student characteristics that most strongly predicted performance on the California Bar Exam were a student’s GPA in the final year of law school and a student’s LSAT scores;
  • Changes over time in entering credentials (undergraduate GPA and LSAT) and law school credentials (final law school cumulative GPA) contributed roughly equally to that portion of the decline in bar exam performance attributable to changes in student characteristics during the study period;
  • The proportion of test takers who were ethnic minorities or female grew slightly over the study period, but the study found no correlation between these demographic characteristics and pass/fail outcomes among students with similar abilities; and
  • Ultimately, the study was unable to account for a substantial amount of the decline in pass rates, concluding that other unexamined factors have contributed to the decade-long decrease in bar exam performance. Report

California Strategies and Stories Program

Beginning in 2018, the State Bar has been working with a team of law and psychology researchers from Indiana University, University of Southern California, and Stanford University on an online program for bar exam applicants, intended to help them adopt a productive mindset while preparing for the exam. The Mindsets in Legal Education researchers designed, administered, and evaluated the intervention, known as the California Bar Exam Strategies and Stories Program. The online program includes an introductory film, stories from prior test takers, and a writing activity in which participants share insights and strategies that may be useful to them and to future test takers.

The program was first offered to all applicants for the July 2018 bar exam, and again to July 2019 bar exam applicants. Results from the first two years have been promising: the program increased the likelihood of participants passing the bar exam ranging between 6.8 to 9.6 percentage points, controlling for other factors. The impact was even higher for applicants in disadvantaged groups, including those in underrepresented racial/ethnic populations and those who are first-generation college students. The program was again offered to all bar exam applicants for the October 2020 bar exam.

California Attorney Practice Analysis (CAPA)

In December 2018, the State Bar began the first California-specific study of the knowledge, skills, and abilities required by entry-level attorneys. The study collected detailed, empirical data about how attorneys use their knowledge and skills to perform routine tasks in the practice of law. A working group, with members selected by the California Supreme Court from state and national stakeholder groups, oversaw the study.

The working group’s final report contains three broad recommendations designed to bring the California Bar Exam into closer alignment with the current practice of law for entry-level attorneys in California:

  • Focus the bar exam’s scope on the practice experience of entry-level attorneys, defined as attorneys in their first three years of practice.
  • Focus exam content on the legal topics that are most important and most frequently used by entry-level attorneys, reducing the number of legal topics from 13 to 8.
  • Assess bar exam content against the key competencies identified by the data as the most relevant to the work of entry-level attorneys.

Fact Sheet: California Attorney Practice Analysis

2019 Studies

In addition to CAPA, the State Bar completed two other bar exam studies in 2019:

Differential Item Functioning Analysis, which studied the potential differential impact of exam questions by race, gender, and other factors. Examining 20 bar exams from July 2009 to February 2019, the study found no major areas of concern, but recommended further action to continue improving the exam by eliminating minor sources of differential impact.

Evaluation of Grading Processes—The State Bar evaluated its multiphase exam grading process to identify potential efficiencies and best practices in grading while continuing to ensure necessary consistency in the grading process.

These studies, along with a review of test administration procedures conducted by the California Department of Consumer Affairs, were summarized in a report to the Board of Trustees presented in May 2020.

2020 Cut Score Simulation

In March 2020, the State Bar published a simulation of the impact of different bar exam cut scores on bar passage, by gender, race/ethnicity, and law school type. The simulation was based on results from 21 bar exams administered over 11 years, from February 2009 to February 2019. The study simulated what the pass rates for the bar exam would have been for various populations by race/ethnicity and gender. If the cut score had been 1300, 1330, 1350, or 1390 at the time of those exams. The smallest reduction in the cut score increased the overall pass rate by 8 percentage points, while the greatest reduction in cut score increased it by 31 percentage points, with wide-ranging impacts depending on the subgroup. 

For questions contact: Ron Pi, Principal Program Analyst, Office of Research & Institutional Accountability, 415-538-2013, ron.pi@calbar.ca.gov

Bar Seal
Protecting the public & enhancing the administration of justice.
  • Public
  • About Us
  • Attorneys
  • Admissions
  • Access to Justice
  • News
  • Forms
  • Careers
  • Staff Log in
  • San Francisco (Main Office)
    180 Howard St.
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    415-538-2000
  • Los Angeles
    845 S. Figueroa St.
    Los Angeles, CA 90017
    213-765-1000
Copyright © 2023 The State Bar of California
  • FAQ
  • User Policies
  • Contact
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on LinkedIn