Bar exams: Research highlights attainment gap between white and ethnic minority wannabe barristers
As Oxbridge grads clean up across the board
Reformed bar exams still put ethnic minority students at a disadvantage, Bar Standards Board (BSB) research shows.
Changes to the Bar Course’s centralised assessments in 2016 failed to close the attainment gap between white and non-white candidates.
The report also shows that going to Oxbridge or another Russell Group uni is a significant predictor of bar exam performance.
These differences are after controlling for other variables, such as how well someone did on their degree.
BSB number-crunchers looked at the bar exams in civil litigation, criminal litigation and professional ethics. Between 2011 and 2015, these all involved a mix of multiple choice and problem questions. From 2016 to 2019, they changed to multiple choice only for the two litigation exams and problem questions only for ethics.
Previous research had found, under the old format, ethnic minority bar candidates scored 4.7 points lower than white students. The new format seems to have done little to improve that, with the report stating:
“Those from Asian/Asian British, Black/Black British, Mixed/Multiple ethnic backgrounds, and from other ethnic backgrounds were all predicted to do worse on the assessments than White students on each centralised assessment, even when controlling for other variables such as prior academic attainment.”
The 2016 format change “did not appear to lead to a consistent change in differential outcomes”.
This is not, the report cautions, down to non-white people being inherently worse at exams. “Ethnicity per se is most probably not the effective variable affecting students’ success on the BPTC”, the statisticians write. “Instead, it is a proxy for other factors correlated with ethnicity that are not controlled for in the analyses that have been undertaken; these are likely to relate to socio-economic status and psychosocial-cultural experience (including family and other support networks), and differing behaviour towards those of different ethnicities.”
Meanwhile, Oxbridge types tend to do better across the board. Graduates of Oxford and Cambridge scored 14.4 points higher in civil litigation, 12.3 points in criminal and 10.1 points in professional ethics (again controlling for other variables).
Graduating from a non-Oxbridge Russell Group uni was also a predictor of higher exam scores, although to a lower extent.
For all the latest commercial awareness info, news and careers advice:Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter
Taking a degree score into account will not help substantially control the experiment, because degree standards are different from university to university; bachelor degree classifications are roughly equally distributed at most universities, even though the entry standards very wildly differ. Clearly, the average ability of Chichester students does not equal that of Oxonians at the end of their degrees. The reason that Oxbridge graduates do so well on the test compared to the rest is obviously that they are on average more intelligent. If we compare black and white Oxbridge graduates’ (who attained firsts) average bar exam results, the difference in outcome will be far less than the that between black and white examinees generally.
There are plenty of Black and Asian Oxbridge graduates with Firsts who never get pupillage.
These extra tests are a distraction from what’s actually going on.
Capable Black and Asian candidates simply aren’t being picked for pupillage by barristers. End of.
First rule of internet comments, anyone that says “end of” has not said anything worth reading.
Astounding that you seem to care more about words than the real fact a Black barrister could earn less than a White barrister for exactly the same work.
The research did control for university attended though. The relationship between results and ethnicity was in addition to the relationships seen between university attended and results, and degree classification and results.