[s0kr8s]

A lot of recent "ditch the exam" efforts across a wide variety of professions seem to be centered around post-2020 diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives (evidence: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/17/oregon-advances-alter...).

This is not always stated explicitly, but will turn up in board minutes if you have access to them. Many professional boards have added a DEI committee or incorporated language into their mission statement in recent years as well (Oregon bar statement: https://www.osbar.org/diversity/programs.html).

I'm never clear whether the hypothesis is "more DEI = more efficacy && competency," or whether the hypothesis is "benefits of (DEI) > benefits of (efficacy && competency)." The former hypothesis at least seems more testable, but I'm not sure whether anyone is trying very hard (meta-analysis: https://academic.oup.com/tbm/advance-article/doi/10.1093/tbm...).

[ClarityJones]

Oregon's move is exactly backwards. If anything, they should cancel the law school requirement and allow the public to sit for the bar exam. Schools are notorious for graduating incompetent students who's only ability was to take out loans to pay the tuition. Allowing the public to sit for the bar exam without going to law school would be a much better DEI initiative because it would directly address disparities in the ability to finance a law school education.

[edgyquant]

Also law school is ridiculous. My sister is studying to be a lawyer but may not be able to attend despite passing the initial test (the name I forget.) basically she needs a couple of existing lawyers recommendation, but we’re from a small town and she only knows one. Also the work requirements are ridiculous, she’s not allowed to work for a law office at all while attending a law school which seems so backwards compared to most schools where they actively encourage getting a job working in the field. So she’ll have to quit her current law secretary job if she wants to go to law school.

[bentt]

This makes so much sense that it's nearly indefensible that this isn't how it is.

[tuatoru]

The reason for DEI does not matter. The practical outcome is perhaps perverse.

A potential client will see a "diverse" lawyer and think "this person was hired because of DEI rather than competence."

Prudent clients will insist on white male lawyers because they must be competent to have jobs in a DEI environment. So actually competent lawyers from minorities suffer because of DEI policies and laws.

[jimz]

The ordinary client does not know how to properly evaluate the competency of an attorney anyway, DEI or not DEI. And no, the jingle is not correlated to performance either in motion or trial practice. Hell, Cellino and Barnes literally had a new Barnes and kept the jingle and nobody even seemed to notice.

[vineyardmike]

Not sure if the ditch the exam here is related to that, since there’s a lot of pre-existing discourse around exam practices anyways, but

> I'm never clear whether the hypothesis is … or …

It’s possibly both. I’ve seen a lot of arguments (poorly cited usually) to the affect of

* diverse organizations tend to perform better. The general claim is that providing psychological safety enables people to work better. And diverse groups of people have more different experiences, and can contribute increasingly different ideas and perspectives.

* DEI initiatives are beneficial people and society at large. This claim is obvious.

So it can be true that the benefits of these initiatives are important AND they lead to better performing organizations.

[narrator]

People who are granted access to opportunities based on DEI and not on merit will be forever indebted to the DEI power structure and will aid them in their long march through the institutions by loyally doing whatever it takes to increase and ensure their political power. They claim that their is a conspiracy against DEI and they are just rebalancing the scale and this is why there are different scores on standardized tests, etc. They say the only way for you to get justice is to give political power to the DEI hierarchy and ignore their crimes and corruption and prosecute to the maximum extent those who want to do things based on merit.

[genman]

There is an interesting hypothesis by Oded Galor that states that there should be a balance between not enough and too much diversity when it comes to innovation and progress - with the first you'll get stagnation and with the second you'll get chaos.

[s0kr8s]

I agree that it could certainly be both.

However, most professional boards are created with an explicit mandate to promote efficacy and competency, which makes a hypothesis like "benefits of (DEI) > benefits of (efficacy && competency)" rather troublesome for a professional board to rally around. Even if true, it seems out of scope.

The "more DEI = more efficiency && competency" hypothesis seem like it should be where a professional board should focus its efforts and messaging instead.

[comte7092]

I read the OPB article and it mentions DEI at the end, in a way that suggests that this change did not come as a result of DEI.

[rayiner]

It’s based on the absurd idea that multiple choice tests are racist and so what you need is subjective human grading.

[catlover76]

Yeah, DEI considerations abolishing bar exams is an example of a good result for the wrong reason, IMO.