Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/232

206 206 HAIiVARD LAW REVIEW. Of the 257 who had not attended a law school, 68, or about 26 per cent, failed to pass one or more times. Of the 433 who were graduates of colleges or universities, 51, or about 1 1 per cent, failed to pass one or more times. Of the 65 college graduates who had had only office experience, 16, or about 24 per cent, failed to pass one or more times. Of the 83 college graduates who had both law school and office experience, 11, or about 13 per cent, failed to pass one or more times. Of the 285 college graduates who had only law school experi- ence, 24, or about 8 per cent, failed to pass one or more times. Of the 652 who were not college graduates, 133, or about 20 per cent, failed to pass one or more times. Of the 192 who had attended neither college nor a law school, 51, or over 26 per cent, failed to pass one or more times. Of 349 who had no college education, but who had both law school and office experience, 72, or over 20 per cent, failed to pass one or more times. Of the 83 who had no college education, and had attended a law school but not an office, 10, or over 12 per cent, failed to pass one or more times. The Board has examined 14 women and admitted 12. Of the 1 1 18 who have applied for examination, there are 85 who are entitled to another examination. The provision that entitles an applicant to three examinations, without further fee, operates favorably. The applicant who fails to pass the first time looks upon his failure not as a rejection, but only as a postponement and an incentive to do better work. The work that the State Board has done is not primarily educa- tional. The steady adherence to its purpose to maintain a high standard for admission to the bar has, however, strengthened the hands of instructors of the law. It is unhappily true that, ordi- narily, the question that the student asks is, What is the least amount of preparation that will enable me to pass the examination for admission to the bar? Thus the requirements of the State Board become of direct assistance to the cause of legal education. In one respect the rules of the Court of Appeals ought, I think, to be changed. The rule allows an applicant to count one year's study of law before he has taken his Regents' examination. The requirements of that examination are not very severe, and the ap- plicant ought not, I think, to be allowed to count any time that