So if MBE scores look a lot like they did back then, why is there such a commotion about them? Perhaps a few reasons.

First, expectations have changed. Gone are the days with the mythic "look to your left, look to your right" fears of dismissal. There is an expectation that virtually all law school enrollees complete their JD, and another expectation that those who secure the JD and take the bar will pass the bar. The challenges are no longer deemed to be the failure rates in law school or the bar exam, but in the process that one must "survive." A dip in bar pass rates upsets existing expectations.

Second, the fiscal consequences have changed. Indebtedness of students at graduation is quite high (for many), especially when law school loans are coupled with undergraduate loans (and sometimes credit card debt). Indebtedness has outpaced inflation over the decades. For students pressed with this debt, the prospect of failing the bar exam--and likely delaying or losing job opportunities--is more significant.

Third, the bar looks different today, and pass rates may differ despite similar MBE scores. Perhaps the sample size is just a little smaller in the 1980s--and perhaps these jurisdictions with the MBE had disproportionately lower pass rates. There's little question that states that have administered their own bar exams (like Louisiana) can have more inconsistent results. Consider a recent example from Oklahoma, which adopted the Uniform Bar Exam and saw pass rates plunge so significantly that it modified the passing score. Perhaps, then, the MBE score in the 1980s was not as indicative of overall pass rates--but that's more a lack of data on my end.

It's good to see the MBE score improve slightly. In an absolute sense, unfortunately, the pass rates will not approach what they were a few years ago. But while bar pass rates are historically low, the history is worth reflecting upon.