<p>What am I missing? </p>
<p>How big was the class that graduated and took the bar? Looking at the employment status of the class 9 months after graduation, it would seem that there were 50 people in this graduating class. Of those, 46 took a bar exam. (Note that there were 219 people enrolled of which 105 were first years. So, it seems probable that there were about 50 people who graduated that year. )</p>
<p>The numbers are small which makes percentages less meaningful, imo. Still, that means that 4 people, or 8% of the class, didn’t take ANY bar exam. How did that happen? I don’t know, but personally I think you have to keep that % in mind before calculating the percentage of the class that passed the bar. If 8% did not take the bar…I wouldn’t claim that 100% passed the bar. Adding up the numbers, I see that 41 of 50 people or 82% passed the bar . </p>
<p>I note that roughly 45% of the student body took the Virginia bar exam, so it may well be that Liberty offers black letter law courses in some aspects of Virginia law. (Fordham, for example, offers courses in New York Civil Procedure.) </p>
<p>And part from other considerations, when roughly 45% of the grads of a law school work in one state and in a total of 14 states, I personally would not consider it a national law school. YMMV.</p>
<p>Like A-ski, I think bar passage rate is an idiotic way to judge law schools. Even if you think it’s valid, it’s only fair to limit it to comparing the grads of two schools on the same bar exam. If California is a tougher bar than Virginia, then if most UCal-Berkely grads take the Cal bar and most UVa grads take the VA bar, UVa isn’t a better law school because a hgher percentage of its grads pass an easier bar. (I’ve no idea of the actual numbers.)</p>