Bar/Bri Controversy and Legal Education
The The New York Times ran an article this week on a lawsuit filed against Bar/Bri’s parent company charging that they are running an illegal monopoly. Some of the complaints about the company include allegations that Bar/Bri has dominated the market through tactics such as paying off competitors or potential competitors so that Bar/Bri can be the ‘only game in town.’
I agree that if Bar/Bri is indeed engaging in unethical practices to gain market position, they should be stopped. However, if BarBri has gained its market position by agressively marketing and producing results, perhaps we should consider thinking differently about the cost of the bar review course.
Taking a bar review course is like taking any other test preparation course – whether it’s to prep for the SAT, the LSAT, etc. Each individual must weigh the cost of the course against the cost of failing the exam, and the chance of success without such a course. The question one should be asking is what value can be gained by taking such a course, what are the risks costs involved in not taking it. The cost to Bar/Bri in providing the course shouldn’t be the central focus – you’re not just paying for the hotel room and the video setup – you’re paying for the experience, the expertise, the teaching methods, and the results.
The different courses work to people with different strengths. If it’s worth it to a student to pay for any bar review course, it’s worth it to do the homework to find out the details of each program and how it works and compare it with your own learning style, regardless of how small or large the program is. Nobody should be blindly spending $2600, or even $500, on a bar review course without learning about the options.
There are many costs associated with law school and the practice of law. Bar preparation courses are only one such cost, and a cost with which all law students should be familiar during their first year, if not sooner. Bar/Bri’s aggressive promotion of its course is one way that law students learn about the cost and availability of bar review courses, and they can plan accordingly. If the cost is too high, there are other options. Many people pass the bar without taking any bar review course, and certainly without taking Bar/Bri. Taking the course isn’t a guarantee of success, just as not taking the course isn’t a guarantee of failure.
Jonathan Stein weighs in with his opinion about the controversy on his blog The Practice. You can view my comments there, as well as comments from Carolyn Elefant of My Shingle.
Jonathan’s post explores, among other things, the idea that bar review courses should not be to blame because attending law school is not enough (or is not perceived as enough) to prepare students to pass the bar exam. Although I don’t think Jonathan was suggesting this, I should point out that law school should not be merely an education in how to pass the bar exam. And there are so many subjects on the exam that learning all of it in three years of law school would be difficult, to say the least. There are, however, law schools that are known for ‘teaching to the test,’ and that require students to take many courses that are covered on the bar exam, sometimes to the exclusion of other courses which might be more practical for practicing law, rather than just passing the bar exam.
A law school education should provide a good foundation for the student to become a practicing lawyer (whether or not it currently does may be a topic for another post). It should teach a student how to think about legal problems, and how to use different tools and resources to help with the resolutions of those problems. It shouldn’t be all about passing the bar – that misses the point. But maybe law schools can be better at educating their students about the different options for bar preparation, and the advantages and disadvantages of each.