Curriculum Design and Bar Passage:
The Impact of Sequencing Doctrinal Courses
Background
Historically, law schools taught certain rule-based, bar-tested subjects (e.g., Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law) as a sequence of two three-credit courses. Recently, however, schools have transitioned to teaching a single, typically four-credit course to cover this material instead. It seems reasonable to theorize that lengthening exposure to bar-tested material would yield greater mastery of the subject matter, in turn yielding higher pass rates. This research brief tests the hypothesis that, all else equal, schools that sequence learning in foundational courses will have higher first-time bar passage rates than schools that do not. To do so, we compiled a dataset comprised of course information from the websites of the nearly 200 ABA-approved law schools in the U.S., recording whether each of the six doctrinal bar courses were taught in a two-part sequence across the past five years (2020-2024).
Key Findings
The proportion of schools sequencing at least one doctrinal course remained relatively unchanged from 2020-2024. Approximately two-thirds of schools in our sample sequenced at least one doctrinal course each year, most often Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure, or Contracts.
At first glance, it seems that schools that choose to sequence doctrinal bar courses have lower overall first-time bar passage rates than those that do not. However, the effect of sequencing courses seems to be mitigated by the school’s jurisdiction (UBE vs non-UBE). Schools that sequence courses in UBE jurisdictions have higher first-time bar passage rates than schools that do not sequence courses in UBE jurisdictions.
Research Questions
1. How curricular decisions regarding the sequencing of Civil Procedure, Contracts, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Real Property, and Torts vary over time and by jurisdiction (UBE or non-UBE).
2. Whether sequencing these courses correlates with first-time bar passage outcomes when controlling for school selectivity, year, and UBE requirement.
The effect of sequencing courses also varies by a school’s selectivity. Among less selective schools (those up to the bottom 16th percentile), sequencing courses is associated with a higher likelihood of first-time bar passage relative to schools of the same selectivity. However, above that threshold for selectivity, there is no practical relationship between sequencing courses and first-time bar passage rates.
Sequencing just one course is associated with lower odds of first-time bar passage regardless of school selectivity or UBE jurisdiction. Sequencing two or three courses, however, is associated with higher predicted odds of first-time bar passage.
Implications
Some schools may be benefitting from the sequencing of at least one of their doctrinal bar courses, though our evidence is limited. Our findings provide some evidence to consider when making curricular decisions around whether to shift away from a two-course sequence in favor of a single course or vice-versa. They also point to the possibility of a more robust study that encompasses more years of analysis with additional information on schools’ required sequenced courses.