First, Boyd changed the game by lobbying for and obtaining a twice-per-year exam.
Next, with law school applications dramatically down, schools have admitted lower-caliber students, yet our bar passage rate has remained reasonably consistent. This indicates that grading has become more liberal, the exam has become easier, or both.
Finally, it has become progressively easier to obtain accommodations for supposed learning disabilities, ADHD, etc. Doctors are more willing to provide these disability diagnoses and bar-takers have become more aggressive in seeking accommodations.
It was the repeat Boydsters and winter grads which caused the bar to be given twice a year. But the net result of that was out of state attorneys signed up for the February exam and most passed particularly from California, Arizona, and Utah. Nevada is one of the few places you can still get a job or hang out a shingle and make a living. The exam has been dumbed down since the mid-2000s when Boyd complained about it. They tweaked the grading. I have seen graduates merely restate an essay question (when they did not know the answer) and get a near passing grade for that question. The MBE is pretty much the same but what they accept as the supposed "cut score" has been lowered. Boyd really wants diploma privileges for the bar or an easy bar (UBE) with reciprocity. The law school should not run the profession. Even Boyd grads are opposed to reciprocity and the UBE.
Why are so many saying the UBE is easier? When I looked at it, it appeared slightly more difficult as the concepts were "distilled" from various state law, common law, etc.. In other words, testing more widely seems more difficult then testing more specifically. What am I not seeing?
Boyd,I believe, has now been around for about two decades.
Yet it seems that many veteran attorneys, as well as newer attorneys who are not from Boyd, have a condescending attitude toward Boyd graduates, hold them in low regard, and view them as creatures worthy of ridicule and derision.
But how can all the Boyd alumni be the clueless newbies they are portrayed as if some have now been practicing law for almost two decades? It is assumed that some of them have developed into decent attorneys.
Yet this negative attitude goes much further than postings on this blog. Just last week a colleague referred to opposing counsel as "Boyd'16, so I shouldn't have any real problem beating them in court."
Now referencing that the person only graduated law school in 2016 may be indicative of a relative lack of experience, but his main focus was not on the graduation year, but the school attended.
So, submitted for your approval: Is bashing on Boyd graduates simply
what some attorneys consider a mildly amusing diversion, or is there some general consensus that the Boyd graduates are truly lacking and don't have "the right stuff", so to speak?
I think the problem with Boyd is that it wants to be a BIG name law school. But its difficult to do when the state in which you are located has a lower population count, than for example California. As a consequence, the Dean, UNLV Board etc. do apply pressure to 1. get more people into school (lowering admission standards) and 2. Get more grads to pass the bar (dumbing down questions and 2 bar exams per year). Both tend to raise Boyd's national ratings (high body count, high passage rate).
Multiple yearly bar exams makes sense in high population states, but no so much here where the SBN bows to the politics.
My take is its 80% for the lolz, while 20% really think you can tell everything about a person by where they went to school (hint, they went to a good one). But even that 20% knows you never disrespect Boyd '13.
Boyd's admissions standards have gone up in recent years so I'm not really sure how people can say admissions standards have gone down. They have also shrunk the class size at points to keep admissions standards higher. Just check the ABA disclosures…
Hey 3:42, fact check.
Boyd HAS NOT shrunk admissions. Per the ABA disclosures Boyd made 272 offers for 2018. Enrollment: 1L is 157, 2L is 116 and 3L is 126. Current enrollment totals about 417.
You ok over there 3:53? "They have also shrunk class size at points." This year's class is not one of those instances. The class of 2018 was one of those instances. It was significantly smaller than the previous year. From the numbers you are showing us it also seems like the current 2L class is also one of those instances. The class of 2019 was slightly larger than 2018 but still smaller than 2012-2016. They only recently re-increased the class size and did so while increasing the median LSAT score. So, like I said, they have shrunk the class size at points and admission standards have gone up in recent years.
Having taken both the Nevada Bar and the UBE in another jurisdiction, the multiple choice portion of the exams are identical–the MBE. Both exams have the MPT as well. The only difference is in the essays: the UBE has the MEE, which is six 30-minute essays, and the Nevada Bar has eight 60-minute essays. Perhaps that makes the Nevada essays marginally harder, and makes the Nevada exam slightly more rigorous since it lasts half a day longer. UBE jurisdictions may also have a separate "do it on your own time" state law component, but that's not really a part of what one things of when thinking "bar exam." In terms of what I did to prepare for both, they are roughly equivalent exams.
What is the problem with Boyd some ask? UNLV Boyd is a local law school that attracts a majority of their students from Southern Nevada (some Northern Nevada). It is publicly supported. The legal market in Southern Nevada would never support a law school on its own. The graduates never leave Southern Nevada. Nothing wrong with that–Las Vegas is a great city. But this is why reciprocity and the UBE is not a good idea and a one way street.
I think you're wrong, 11:19. I had a 170 LSAT and could have gone almost anywhere for law school. I chose Boyd, primarily for financial reasons, and I'm doing fine. However, I like the idea of reciprocity because I might want to leave someday. I doubt I'm the only one who would welcome that possibility. So I disagree that it would be a "one way street."
12:38 and 2:08 PM–I am pleased to hear that 12:38 had an LSAT of 170. But are you from Southern Nevada. Presume you chose Boyd instead of leaving the state. Now you want to leave the state but want reciprocity to do so. Sorry that is not going to fly. 2:08PM–More attorneys will chose to waive into Nevada than Nevadans waiving into other jurisdictions. It will be lopsided to say the least. Fortunately, for now it is not going to happen.
Guest
Anonymous
October 9, 2019 4:50 pm
Off Topic: Does anyone use Google AdWords to advertise their firm? If so, (I don't expect you to share any firm secrets) what "negative keywords" do you recommend i.e., what words do you not want to use? So far I have "legal aid," "international," and areas of law I do not practice like "personal injury."
I have not started it yet. I am just trying to make my first Campaign. Am I supposed to tell the Bar? Sorry, newbie here. Can you refer me to any rules or procedures as to how to do that? Do they approve it or something?
9:50 here. Thank you for the link. It is not clear to me what to submit in that it could be an account, Campaign, AdGroup, text Ad, or keyword. To further complicate it, the Dynamic ads change meaning they are compiled "on the fly," and thus there really isn't anything to submit except, I suppose, the instructions within AdWords (now Google Ads) that tell the system to produce the Ad. Also, how would they charge as one campaign could literally produce (and probably would) thousands of ads per month. Interesting problems. Maybe there is a service that does all this and knows how to report to the Bar. Any names would sincerely be appreciated.
We understand that you have to, and we have, submitted each unique FB ad to the Bar. There is a staff person there trying to cope with the whole social media and electronic ad mess.
Reading through stuff it says you don't have to submit "tombstone ads." Those appear to allow some information, but it isn't clear how absolute the definition of "tombstone ad" is. Could you post tombstone ads that link to you website and not report without running afoul of the bar?
Guest
Anonymous
October 9, 2019 5:03 pm
So we have a prosecutor publicly stating he plans to charge people after the fact for a criminal ordinance that didn't exist when they allegedly committed the act. Nice.
I've visited here a few times and this is what I learned: "he who has no name", blog is dead, Sisohack, and the Bar sucks. I'll be visiting other blogs now. Goodbye.
Overturning an election. This is such a moronic position. A successful impeachment does not overturn an election. Sure, it removes a person from office, and in that sense it supersedes the election that put the removed officeholder into office. But it does not thereby install the election's runner-up into office. It doesn't change which party holds the office (unless the Veep happened to be from a different political party, but we solved that problem with the 12th Amendment after the 1796 and 1800 elections). Impeachment is nothing more than the the constitutionally prescribed process and remedy for a misbehaving officeholder.
I hadn't thought of that 4:26. Good point. By refusing to comply with the House's impeachment inquiry the White House is trying to overturn the 2018 election. What's good for the goose…
Not Josh. If I were I would tell you it is Josh or Josh Cole Aiklen, never just Josh Aiklen. With that out of the way, 3:28 is correct. Josh is a brilliant attorney and has the benefit of an equally motivated crew of go getter partners on his team. The real question is who is the carrier and what is its litigation model. Either way, underestimate Josh and company at your own peril.
"The entire process of being admitted to the bar in Nevada is easier now than it was 25 years ago."
Discuss. Show your work.
It's way easier nowadays in a lot of ways. I remember having to walk 20 miles uphill both ways in the snow to school every day.
First, Boyd changed the game by lobbying for and obtaining a twice-per-year exam.
Next, with law school applications dramatically down, schools have admitted lower-caliber students, yet our bar passage rate has remained reasonably consistent. This indicates that grading has become more liberal, the exam has become easier, or both.
Finally, it has become progressively easier to obtain accommodations for supposed learning disabilities, ADHD, etc. Doctors are more willing to provide these disability diagnoses and bar-takers have become more aggressive in seeking accommodations.
Yes, it is easier now to be admitted to the Bar.
It was the repeat Boydsters and winter grads which caused the bar to be given twice a year. But the net result of that was out of state attorneys signed up for the February exam and most passed particularly from California, Arizona, and Utah. Nevada is one of the few places you can still get a job or hang out a shingle and make a living. The exam has been dumbed down since the mid-2000s when Boyd complained about it. They tweaked the grading. I have seen graduates merely restate an essay question (when they did not know the answer) and get a near passing grade for that question. The MBE is pretty much the same but what they accept as the supposed "cut score" has been lowered. Boyd really wants diploma privileges for the bar or an easy bar (UBE) with reciprocity. The law school should not run the profession. Even Boyd grads are opposed to reciprocity and the UBE.
LOL, Boydsters
Why are so many saying the UBE is easier? When I looked at it, it appeared slightly more difficult as the concepts were "distilled" from various state law, common law, etc.. In other words, testing more widely seems more difficult then testing more specifically. What am I not seeing?
*than
Boyd,I believe, has now been around for about two decades.
Yet it seems that many veteran attorneys, as well as newer attorneys who are not from Boyd, have a condescending attitude toward Boyd graduates, hold them in low regard, and view them as creatures worthy of ridicule and derision.
But how can all the Boyd alumni be the clueless newbies they are portrayed as if some have now been practicing law for almost two decades? It is assumed that some of them have developed into decent attorneys.
Yet this negative attitude goes much further than postings on this blog. Just last week a colleague referred to opposing counsel as "Boyd'16, so I shouldn't have any real problem beating them in court."
Now referencing that the person only graduated law school in 2016 may be indicative of a relative lack of experience, but his main focus was not on the graduation year, but the school attended.
So, submitted for your approval: Is bashing on Boyd graduates simply
what some attorneys consider a mildly amusing diversion, or is there some general consensus that the Boyd graduates are truly lacking and don't have "the right stuff", so to speak?
I usually assume it's salty Cal Western/TJLS tier law grads.
I think the problem with Boyd is that it wants to be a BIG name law school. But its difficult to do when the state in which you are located has a lower population count, than for example California. As a consequence, the Dean, UNLV Board etc. do apply pressure to 1. get more people into school (lowering admission standards) and 2. Get more grads to pass the bar (dumbing down questions and 2 bar exams per year). Both tend to raise Boyd's national ratings (high body count, high passage rate).
Multiple yearly bar exams makes sense in high population states, but no so much here where the SBN bows to the politics.
My take is its 80% for the lolz, while 20% really think you can tell everything about a person by where they went to school (hint, they went to a good one). But even that 20% knows you never disrespect Boyd '13.
12:53 pm is correct about Boyd '13s.
Boyd's admissions standards have gone up in recent years so I'm not really sure how people can say admissions standards have gone down. They have also shrunk the class size at points to keep admissions standards higher. Just check the ABA disclosures…
Hey 3:42, fact check.
Boyd HAS NOT shrunk admissions. Per the ABA disclosures Boyd made 272 offers for 2018. Enrollment: 1L is 157, 2L is 116 and 3L is 126. Current enrollment totals about 417.
You ok over there 3:53? "They have also shrunk class size at points." This year's class is not one of those instances. The class of 2018 was one of those instances. It was significantly smaller than the previous year. From the numbers you are showing us it also seems like the current 2L class is also one of those instances. The class of 2019 was slightly larger than 2018 but still smaller than 2012-2016. They only recently re-increased the class size and did so while increasing the median LSAT score. So, like I said, they have shrunk the class size at points and admission standards have gone up in recent years.
Having taken both the Nevada Bar and the UBE in another jurisdiction, the multiple choice portion of the exams are identical–the MBE. Both exams have the MPT as well. The only difference is in the essays: the UBE has the MEE, which is six 30-minute essays, and the Nevada Bar has eight 60-minute essays. Perhaps that makes the Nevada essays marginally harder, and makes the Nevada exam slightly more rigorous since it lasts half a day longer. UBE jurisdictions may also have a separate "do it on your own time" state law component, but that's not really a part of what one things of when thinking "bar exam." In terms of what I did to prepare for both, they are roughly equivalent exams.
4:05 wins. Just sayin'.
All I have to say is Gina Bomgiovi.
What is the problem with Boyd some ask? UNLV Boyd is a local law school that attracts a majority of their students from Southern Nevada (some Northern Nevada). It is publicly supported. The legal market in Southern Nevada would never support a law school on its own. The graduates never leave Southern Nevada. Nothing wrong with that–Las Vegas is a great city. But this is why reciprocity and the UBE is not a good idea and a one way street.
I think you're wrong, 11:19. I had a 170 LSAT and could have gone almost anywhere for law school. I chose Boyd, primarily for financial reasons, and I'm doing fine. However, I like the idea of reciprocity because I might want to leave someday. I doubt I'm the only one who would welcome that possibility. So I disagree that it would be a "one way street."
Reciprocity, by definition, is a two-way street. It's right in the name.
12:38 and 2:08 PM–I am pleased to hear that 12:38 had an LSAT of 170. But are you from Southern Nevada. Presume you chose Boyd instead of leaving the state. Now you want to leave the state but want reciprocity to do so. Sorry that is not going to fly. 2:08PM–More attorneys will chose to waive into Nevada than Nevadans waiving into other jurisdictions. It will be lopsided to say the least. Fortunately, for now it is not going to happen.
Off Topic: Does anyone use Google AdWords to advertise their firm? If so, (I don't expect you to share any firm secrets) what "negative keywords" do you recommend i.e., what words do you not want to use? So far I have "legal aid," "international," and areas of law I do not practice like "personal injury."
Do you report your advertising on adwords to the bar?
I have not started it yet. I am just trying to make my first Campaign. Am I supposed to tell the Bar? Sorry, newbie here. Can you refer me to any rules or procedures as to how to do that? Do they approve it or something?
And do you pay $100 to the Bar per Adword campaign / per Facebook Ad?
Here's a start for you: https://www.nvbar.org/member-services-3895/lawyeradvertising/
9:50 here. Thank you for the link. It is not clear to me what to submit in that it could be an account, Campaign, AdGroup, text Ad, or keyword. To further complicate it, the Dynamic ads change meaning they are compiled "on the fly," and thus there really isn't anything to submit except, I suppose, the instructions within AdWords (now Google Ads) that tell the system to produce the Ad. Also, how would they charge as one campaign could literally produce (and probably would) thousands of ads per month. Interesting problems. Maybe there is a service that does all this and knows how to report to the Bar. Any names would sincerely be appreciated.
We understand that you have to, and we have, submitted each unique FB ad to the Bar. There is a staff person there trying to cope with the whole social media and electronic ad mess.
Reading through stuff it says you don't have to submit "tombstone ads." Those appear to allow some information, but it isn't clear how absolute the definition of "tombstone ad" is. Could you post tombstone ads that link to you website and not report without running afoul of the bar?
So we have a prosecutor publicly stating he plans to charge people after the fact for a criminal ordinance that didn't exist when they allegedly committed the act. Nice.
ex post whato?
I've visited here a few times and this is what I learned: "he who has no name", blog is dead, Sisohack, and the Bar sucks. I'll be visiting other blogs now. Goodbye.
P.S. The Bar does suck.
1:08PM Obama & Hillary voter. You people lost. Your deep state machine is waging an impeachment war to overturn the 2016 election.
1:08, you forgot the reopening of the RJ comment section.
Overturning an election. This is such a moronic position. A successful impeachment does not overturn an election. Sure, it removes a person from office, and in that sense it supersedes the election that put the removed officeholder into office. But it does not thereby install the election's runner-up into office. It doesn't change which party holds the office (unless the Veep happened to be from a different political party, but we solved that problem with the 12th Amendment after the 1796 and 1800 elections). Impeachment is nothing more than the the constitutionally prescribed process and remedy for a misbehaving officeholder.
Not to mention that there was an intervening election in which Americans arguably expressed interest in greater oversight over the Executive…
How come no one is going after Biden or his flunkie punk-ass kid?
4:47, maybe, just maybe, because the Bidens didn't do anything wrong? Just a thought.
I hadn't thought of that 4:26. Good point. By refusing to comply with the House's impeachment inquiry the White House is trying to overturn the 2018 election. What's good for the goose…
Also, if the Democratic party was solely interested in "overturning the 2016 election," why the hell would they wait until October of 2019 to do so?
I think the impeachment inquiry is going to blow up in the democrats face.
Thoughts on Josh Aicklen as opposing counsel?
He will outwork you.
@ 1:44,thanks Josh
Not Josh. If I were I would tell you it is Josh or Josh Cole Aiklen, never just Josh Aiklen. With that out of the way, 3:28 is correct. Josh is a brilliant attorney and has the benefit of an equally motivated crew of go getter partners on his team. The real question is who is the carrier and what is its litigation model. Either way, underestimate Josh and company at your own peril.
@ 6:34,how long have you been at Lewis Brisbois?
3:28 and 6:57 definitely wears tighty whities.
3:28 and 6:34 I mean.