On the substantive side, I doubt that the ability to determine whether or not a particular trust violates the Rule Against Perpetuities has any bearing on an individual’s abilities as a lawyer. That said, the substantive aspect of the bar exam isn’t even my real objection: Rather, I object to the cost.

The cost of prepping for and taking the bar exam is prohibitive. Many law school graduates – who would make fine lawyers – can’t afford to dedicate the appropriate amount of time to their studies because they’re busy working full-time. I know that’s a hard thing for lots of folks at the top to fathom. But the truth is, the legal profession has long been a profession for people from affluent backgrounds. Spare me the anecdotes about Abe Lincoln, etc. The overwhelming majority of kids at my school were from moneyed families. They could study for the bar without worrying about paying the rent. They could take an expensive prep course without worrying about the cost. For the kid whose family doesn’t have money, its not just studying for the bar: its working, paying for the prep class, and studying for the bar.

Recognizing the inherent inequity in the entire process, I certainly don’t object to Wisconsin’s system.

Also, as regards this particular case, I don’t find the argument that persuasive. The distinction in question is Wisconsin graduates v. non-Wisconsin graduates. You can – as your article suggests – look at their classes & the amount of Wisconsin law. But it could be the case that individuals who attended law school within Wisconsin – regardless of classes taken – have had much more exposure to Wisconsin law. This could come through law-related jobs, internships, clinics, volunteer work, etc. Any number of factors could lead the Wisconsin bar to conclude that students who attended law school in-state are “different” than students who attended school elsewhere.