February Multistate Bar Exam Scores Inch Up After a Five-Year Slide
Despite the national average MBE score increasing 1.2 points, early results from individual jurisdictions are mixed.
April 16, 2019 at 01:18 PM
4 minute read
Things may finally be looking up for February bar takers.
The national average score on the Multistate Bar Exam—the multiple-choice portion of the test—increased by 1.2 points to 134 for the February 2019 test, according to the National Conference of Bar Examiners. That represents the first increase in the mean February MBE score since 2013, which was followed by a five-year slide in bar exam pass rates. (Read more about that decline in the first installment of “The Big Fail,” a four-part series on falling bar pass rates and their impact on the legal industry.)
“This is good news,” said national conference president Judith Gundersen in an interview Tuesday. “It should translate into higher pass rates because the MBE is half the exam. We would expect that in jurisdictions that do have a better MBE score, their pass rates will go up. Now, not every jurisdiction had an increase in their MBE mean.”
Early results from the February exam are mixed. The Pennsylvania Board of Bar Examiners announced last week that 60 percent of the 510 people who took the February exam passed. That's up from 53 percent the previous year. Virginia's February pass rate went from 50 percent in 2018 to 63 percent this year.
However, the overall pass rate slipped slightly in Florida, where 57.3 percent of takers passed. The pass rate was 57.9 percent in 2018. Illinois also posted a lower pass rate at 52 percent—three percentage points lower than in 2018. Most jurisdictions have not yet released their February results. New York is expected to release them later this month, while California generally announces pass rates midway through May.
Significantly fewer people take the bar exam in February than in July, which is the more closely watched of the two test administrations. This year, 21,316 people took the February exam, compared with 45,274 in July of 2018. The February exam also has a higher percentage of repeat bar takers, so pass rates tend to be lower. (The average MBE score last July was 139.5—more than five points higher than the most recent February average.)
According to the new data from the national conference, the percentage of people taking the bar for the first time in February continued to drop this year. They accounted for just 22 percent of recent test takers. Similarly, the percentage of people taking the bar again after already passing in another jurisdiction continued to fall, landing at 6 percent. The national conference did not have data for 10 percent of February test takers, as to whether they were first-time or repeat takers.
Since first-time test takers and takers who have already passed the exam in another jurisdiction generally pass at a higher rate than those repeating the exam after failing, the higher average MBE score for February is somewhat unexpected. Repeat test takers saw a larger increase in their average MBE score than did first-time takers, the national conference noted.
“That surprised us a little,” Gundersen said. “It's great that the repeaters improved so much. What does that mean? I don't know. Did people study differently, or did they put more time into it? Our researchers are looking at it. Part of it—for us—is that there is a lot we don't know. We don't know what people did to prepare for the exam. We don't know about their curriculum choices.”
It's uncertain whether the increase in the February average MBE marks the start of a sustained recovery in pass rates. Many legal educators hoped that a higher average MBE on the July 2016 and 2017 bar exams meant that pass rates were recovering, but the average MBE sank to a historic low the following year.
Derek Muller, a professor at Pepperdine University School of Law who tracks bar exam trends on his Excess of Democracy blog, said that the uptick in February's average MBE score could correlate to the large number of people who failed the bar in July if there were many people who just barely missed the cut then.
“It might simply have been some bad luck from test-takers [in July], and there were more near-fails than previous years,” he said. “So that cohort looked stronger this February 2019.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUniversity of Chicago Accused of Evicting Student for Attending Gaza-Israel Protest
3 minute readSanctioned Penn Law Professor Amy Wax Sues University, Alleging Discrimination
5 minute readThe Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Trending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250