Of course, as it usually happens in the legal profession, the messenger was blamed for failing test scores of law students - failing on a national scale.
Law schools turned their ire against the examiner of tests who pointed out to the schools that, since they are accepting less qualified students to law schools, at graduation the students fail bar exams more.
The poor woman was rolled into asphalt by criticism such as "how can a person who has never taken a bar exam herself, is in charge of administering a bar exam"?
Such a question never arose in the past, during "that woman"'s 20-some years of career doing the same thing. By the way "that woman" has a Juris Doctor degree herself and is, thus, properly trained in the law for her job.
Yet, law schools, despite further plummeting job prospects for law students, continue to try to lure students with more marketing tricks:
- they lower admission scores;
- they offer tuition discounts - kind of;
- New York recently changed the bar exam to suit the less qualified student body;
- and, legal ethics professors make it their "policy" not to tell law students what disciplinary proceedings entail (with their unfairness, unconstitutionality, corruption, antitrust issues and quashing competition and critics of misconduct under the guise of discipline while allowing "blue blood" attorneys to get away with murder) - allegedly, for the purpose of discouraging students from committing ethical violations (!), while a more apparent reason appears to be to prevent future investors in the increasingly volatile investment of legal education and law license from knowing how exactly fragile and volatile the investment is...