Every law student knows the same dread: months of cramming, thousands spent on prep courses and the looming fear that one test will decide their future. But the bar exam does not measure real legal skills. Instead, the exam tests those who can afford to take time off work and survive the grind. 

Before the bar exam became the standard, many future lawyers trained through apprenticeships, working under seasoned attorneys to learn about the profession from the ground up. That system emphasized mentorship, ethics and practical judgment — the real cornerstones of legal work. In other words, it produced lawyers, not test-takers.  

Now, a growing number of states are rediscovering that model. 

Utah, Oregon and Washington have recently adopted programs that let graduates skip the traditional bar exam if they complete supervised practice or coursework that demonstrates their readiness to serve clients. These states are proving that there’s more than one way to ensure competent lawyers.

So, what does an apprenticeship-based path look like? In Utah’s new model, graduates can earn a law license after completing around 240 hours of supervised practice, mandated coursework and a performance exam. Washington’s program involves a six-month apprenticeship under a practicing attorney, plus a portfolio of legal work reviewed by a committee. These systems mimic how medicine licenses new doctors — through demonstration, not memorization. 

Is hands-on experience better than the bar exam? According to the Harvard Law School’s Center on the Legal Profession, apprenticeships and experiential learning can help build critical competencies that any standardized exams simply can’t measure, like communication, ethical decision making and client relationships. Real legal practice is unpredictable, nuanced and human; a multiple-choice test is not. 

Defenders of the bar exam argue that it protects the public by ensuring lawyers have an established baseline knowledge. But common sense suggests otherwise. The exam measures those who can memorize the law under time pressure, not those who can apply it responsibly. 

The exam filters test-taking skills, not real-world skills. It also filters financial privilege, deepening socioeconomic inequity. Prep courses cost thousands and many graduates cannot give up studying time while working full-time jobs. The result is a system where wealth, not wisdom, determines who enters the field.  

Data from the American Bar Association show wide disparities by race and ethnicity in bar pass rates in 2023 — 84% for white first-time takers versus 58% for Black first-time takers — which often mirror socioeconomic disparities. 

None of this means the legal profession should abandon the standards of competence or ethics. Competence isn’t proven by passing a two-day exam. It’s proven through months of applied, supervised work that reflects the reality of being a lawyer. 

The bar exam may still have a place in the legal profession, but alternative pathways should be available. Open doors and give people the opportunity to become lawyers through equity-minded methods. The bar exam can test endurance, but it can’t test being a lawyer. Institutions like Tulane University should take the lead in pushing alternative pathways to becoming a lawyer. As a powerful law institution, Tulane is uniquely positioned to help dismantle the economic and racial barriers of the bar exam.