the first six being those prepared by Examiner A; the next six prepared by Examiner B; and the last three prepared by Examiner C. Each examination book is so made that it can be readily taken apart and divided into three smaller books, the first part containing answers to the first six questions prepared by Examiner A; the next part containing answers to the next six questions, those of Examiner B; and the third containing answers to the last three questions, those of Examiner C.

In the afternoon the arrangement is the same except that the first of the smaller books contains answers to the first three questions in the afternoon, those prepared by Examiner C. The other two parts of the afternoon book contain respectively answers to six questions, those of Examiners D and E.

The examination being completed and the books separated each member of the board takes away with him the bundle of smaller books containing the answers to his own questions.

Examiner C takes two bundles, those containing the answers to the last three forenoon questions and the answers to the first three afternoon questions. As each bar examiner reads each book he places on the back of the book his mark for each answer and when he has finished reading the book, places the total of his marks on the back of the book. When he has read one hundred books, he sends to the chairman of the board a list of his totals. Each member of the board does the same. The chairman tabulates the totals in a book prepared for the purpose and adds the marks and computes the percentage on each book, i. e., for each. applicant.

While the books are being read a typewritten short description of each applicant is prepared and the chairman examines this summary and considers the percentage of each applicant and makes a list of those applicants whose standing seems in any degree doubtful. A list containing the numbers, but not the names of the applicants considered as doubtful is then sent by the chairman to each member of the board and the books of these doubtful applicants are read a second time. Each member of the board on this second reading reads the answers to his own questions as he did on the first reading. As the books are read this time, the marks are placed on the front page of the book, no reference being had to the marks of the first reading

until the second reading is completed. When the second reading of each book is completed, each bar examiner compares the marks of his second reading with the marks of his first reading, and if there is any difference the answers are examined still further and the differences are reconciled. The corrected totals of the second reading are then sent to the chairman and the final percentage is arrived at for each applicant. Up to this time no member of the board other than the chairman has known the applicants in any way except by number, and the chairman has not known them while engaged in reading and marking the books.

After the final percentages have been reached, all the members of the board meet and consult and decide which of the applicants shall be recommended.

At this meeting the summary giving a description of each applicant, and showing his course of study and his degrees, if any, is considered as well as the marks and percentage of each applicant, and a credit of one or two points is given for a degree from a good law school or for other good preparation. The conclusions reached, however, as to which of the applicants shall be recommended are based almost entirely upon the marks of the applicant, and the use of discretion is reduced to a minimum.

In this system the doctrine of averages plays a considerable part. If one member of the board marks strictly this is offset by the more liberal marking of another member of the board. If there are any errors one error very often will offset another error. When the work is completed, each member of the board has read and marked one-sixth of the answers of each applicant and the entire board has carefully considered all the marks and also has considered the history of each applicant.

If the answers of the applicants who have graduated from the best law schools or who have had good preparation elsewhere indicate that the examination was unusually hard, the board can take this into account in fixing the pass mark. Any decision on this point, however, is made without any regard to the effect it may have on the fate of individual applicants.

No board of bar examiners can do its full duty if it allows itself to be influenced by the hardships which exist in individual The welfare of the community and the standing of the profession must be the controlling factors.

cases.

If, as in Massachusetts for many years now, more than onehalf of the applicants are rejected on each examination it is easy to see that the individual hardships are serious and the temptation to charge favoritism is great.

The system above outlined is the result of twenty years of experience. We believe it is a good system and we present it for the consideration of the bar examiners of the different states and all others who are interested.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS

The summer meeting of the Association of American Law Schools was called to order in the assembly room of the Central Library, St. Louis, Missouri, on Monday, August 23, at 8 P. M., by the President, Eugene A. Gilmore.

The roll call disclosed the attendance of the delegates named: Cincinnati Law School:

Earl C. Arnold.

Francis B. James.

Columbia University School of Law:

Underhill Moore.

Cornell University College of Law:

G. C. Bogert.

O. L. McCaskill.

Creighton University College of Law:

L. J. TePoel.

Drake University College of Law:

C. J. Hilkey.

George Washington University Law School:
Lyman P. Wilson.

Harvard University Law School:

Samuel Williston.

Indiana University School of Law:

Charles M. Hepburn.

Northwestern University School of Law:

John H. Wigmore.

Herbert Harley.

F. B. Crossley.

George P. Costigan, Jr.

State University of Iowa College of Law:

D. O. McGovney.

Percy Bordwell.

Syracuse University College of Law:

Frank R. Walker.

Tulane University of Louisiana College of Law:

E. J. Northrup.

University of Chicago Law School:

Frederic C. Woodward.

University of Idaho College of Law:

Alvin E. Evans.

University of Illinois College of Law:
William E. Britton.

O. A. Harker.

University of Kansas School of Law:
H. W. Humble.

E. H. Lindley.

University of Michigan Law School:

Edward S. Rogers.

University of Minnesota Law School:

Andrew A. Bruce.

Noel T. Dowling.

W. R. Vance.

University of Missouri School of Law:

James P. McBaine.

Kenneth C. Sears.

University of Nebraska College of Law:

W. G. Hastings.

University of North Dakota School of Law:

H. A. Bronson.

University of Oklahoma School of Law:

John B. Cheadle.

Julien C. Monnet.

University of Oregon Law School:

Sam B. Warner.

University of Pennsylvania Law School:

Wm. Rufus Lewis.

University of Pittsburgh School of Law:

John G. Buchanan.

A. M. Thompson.

Nathan Isaacs.

University of Southern California College of Law.

Charles E. Millikan.

University of South Dakota:

Jason E. Payne.

University of Tennessee College of Law:

Malcolm McDermott.

University of Texas Department of Law:

Robt. E. Cofer.

Jno. C. Townes.

University of Wisconsin Law School:

John B. Sanborn.

E. A. Gilmore.

H. A. Richards.
Frank T. Beesel.