Motivation Metrics: Using Data to Drive Student Motivation and Increase Bar Passage

This article originally appeared in The Bar Examiner print edition, Summer 2025 (Vol. 94, No. 2), pp. 7–13.By Nicole Lefton, C. Benjie Louis, and Cara D’AgostinoIntroduction

“Just take students with higher LSATs and GPAs!” As legal educators, we have heard this sentiment many times over the years as we explore new ways to improve our students’ bar passage results. Unfortunately, this seemingly simple strategy is untenable for three reasons. First, our law school, like many across the country, must face economic realities when evaluating students for admission, and this means we cannot simply accept only students with 175+ LSAT scores and 4.0 undergraduate GPAs. Second, when reviewing our applicant pool, we find that applicants tend to cluster in the same range on these metrics; the slight differential among these scores (say, an LSAT score of 155 vs. 156) is virtually meaningless as a predictor of success in law school or on the bar exam. The final reason is a bit more complicated, and it led us to write this article. We have seen our share of capable law students undershoot such predictors—those with both a high LSAT and undergraduate GPA who perform poorly in law school and on the bar exam. Thus, in our experience, the traditional methods of ranking law school applicants’ intelligence alone may not predict success.

This incongruous result led us on a quest to find the secret sauce that can help us spot those law students who are on the right track and reroute those who are not. We seek to understand why some seemingly strong law school applicants struggle in law school and ultimately fail the bar exam, and why some applicants with weaker incoming metrics go on to succeed in law school and pass the bar exam.

As we examine these questions, we find that the answer may reside in a key ingredient of success: grit. Grit is a resolute steadfastness when approaching a challenge. One can see its applicability in the law school and bar exam contexts. The idea that a student who possesses a strong work ethic and a serious attitude toward their studies will outperform another who lacks this drive is not novel. However, until five years ago, our Academic Success team had not considered how to identify and measure this drive—and, more importantly, how to improve it among our students.

This article explores grit as a performance factor by examining different components of our students’ performance using particular data points. In the second section, we establish the correlation between grit and bar exam success. Next, we show the methods we use to identify and measure our students’ grit. We conclude by articulating strategies we have deployed to help improve this grit level—particularly among students whose GPA rank falls in the middle and bottom rungs of their class.

Correlation Between Grit and Bar Passage

Popular understandings of grit are commonplace—think of such adages as “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” and “just try harder,” which revolve around the idea that hard work gets rewarded. Angela Duckworth’s 2016 bestseller, Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance,1 brought attention to the concept in the educational space specifically; she posits therein that “our potential is one thing. What we do with it is quite another.”2 Malcom Gladwell also considered the idea in Outliers: “Practice isn’t the thing you do once you’re good. It’s the thing you do that makes you good.”3 So how does grit relate to law school and bar exam performance?

Getting admitted to law school is impressive; it shows that a school believes in a student’s potential to be a good attorney. However, how a student uses that potential is where the underlying grit factor resides. Although law schools strive to prepare their students for success in law school and on the bar exam, it is the self-motivated student who puts in the work necessary to achieve both. The correlation between grit and bar exam success can be seen in the evolution of the academic success movement in American law schools and its quest for data-driven measurements. 

In a study about the variables that predict law school success, researchers found law school GPA (LGPA) to be the strongest predictor of bar exam success.4 In addition, they found the most compelling observation was the extent to which LGPA increases affect the bar passage chances of individuals with below-average first-semester grades.5 Thus, a student’s ability to raise their LGPA from, say, 1L to 3L would be an important indicator of grit, which in turn is an indicator of bar exam success. Unfortunately, the cumulative 3L GPA is not available until graduation, mere weeks before the bar exam; therefore, not much time remains at this point to help students develop more grit if they need it. This article now turns to other possible ways of measuring grit earlier in legal education.

Identification Methods: How to Measure Grit

Our goal, like that of our colleagues at other law schools, is to improve overall bar passage by reinforcing skills for our strong students and providing targeted assistance to those students at risk of failing the bar. Our data has shown that students ranked in the top half of their class consistently perform well on the bar exam.6 However, students ranked in the bottom half of the class are more likely to struggle on the bar. Of course, many of these lower-ranked students do pass the bar—the trick is to identify which students need the most help.7 To improve our bar exam outcomes, we sought to identify data that would help us predict which students in the bottom half of their class would pass the bar exam. We aimed to identify factors that might contribute to these students’ success, which could help us more accurately predict future outcomes for others and intervene as necessary. Our next step was to develop a bar success program that increases these predictors.

We began by looking at certain predictors to see their correlation with our students’ bar success. Both the data and insights in this article come from the authors’ work on the Academic Success Program (ASP) at Hofstra Law.

Grades as Predictors

The obvious place to start was with students’ grades in certain courses, but we generally found that these data did not help differentiate which students in the class’s bottom half were at risk of bar failure.

Class Rank: Decile

Although class rank may seem duplicative with grades, the cumulative impact of all individual grades may negate the risks that we previously mentioned. We found 3L cumulative GPA to be the best indicator here, but students have already begun bar prep when we have these data in hand. 1L GPA and 2L GPA correlate with bar passage to a degree but are most reliable when looking at the top and bottom of a class, not students ranked in the middle.

Performance in 1L Classes

We examined our students’ performance in their 1L classes, which has been a relatively solid predictor of law school success, but relying on these grades alone has several inherent flaws.

First, we, like many other schools, divide our 1L class into several sections—so, different professors may teach a given 1L subject. The 1L experience in Torts, for example, can thus be drastically different from a pedagogical standpoint, i.e., the classroom experience may be better in one section than in another. Although this may be difficult to quantify, the bigger issue is that, even with a fixed curve, there may be no uniformity in grading criteria from section to section: an exam that earns an A in one Torts section could earn a B in another. In addition, because these doctrinal courses (e.g., Torts, Criminal Law, and Civil Procedure) are graded on a curve, slight variations in student performance in a particular section can affect grades. Finally, grade inflation may create a false assumption that a student has achieved proficiency in a core subject where they actually struggled.

The above factors led us to conclude that it is helpful—but not determinative—to consider individual grades in core doctrinal courses when predicting law school and bar exam success. For example, our data show that 1L doctrinal grades do not sufficiently identify students who are at risk of failing the bar exam.

Performance in Academic Success Program8 Classes

We also looked at the grades of students who were required to participate in our ASP courses. Students ranked in the bottom third of their class, based on their first semester 1L GPA, are placed on a track that requires them to take certain doctrinal courses as well as two ASP courses (Legal Methods in the spring of 1L, in lieu of Property; and Approaches to Legal Analysis and Writing in the fall of 2L). Both classes are designed to help students improve their law school performance through a focus on studying and test-taking strategies.

We determined that grades earned in these courses are not terribly indicative of bar exam passage or failure, because all students in these courses are, by definition, in the bottom third of their law school class. The grade correlation is helpful in identifying students who ultimately struggle on the bar exam; however, we found it less reliable than other measures due to these students’ class rank. Thus, even the students who performed best in these courses were in a pool of students who had struggled during their first semester of law school.

Academic Probation and Academic Dismissal

Students with a cumulative GPA below 2.20 after two semesters are academically dismissed from our school. Those students may seek readmission through an appeals process. Students who successfully appeal (which is uncommon) often do not pass the bar on their first attempt.

In addition, students with a cumulative GPA (after two semesters) between 2.20 and 2.33 are placed on academic probation. Our data show that students in this cohort historically perform extremely poorly on the bar exam—even in cases where they ultimately raise their GPA above 3.33.9 Thus, these two data points are strong predictors regarding bar passage.

Other Useful Predictors

In addition to the course grade data mentioned above, we found other data points where will, not skill, was a dominant factor. Such data points would help us identify the students who were motivated to succeed, not just those who got good grades with minimal effort. We identified the following target data points that measure this motivation. Some are unique to Hofstra Law,10 but we are confident other law programs can identify similar metrics.

3L Diagnostic

We require all our students to complete a 120-question, multiple-­choice diagnostic in the fall of 3L that covers various bar-tested subjects. The thought behind this diagnostic is twofold: we want students to have a benchmark from which to measure their improvement as they prepare for the bar exam; plus, we want to light a fire under our students, so they recognize the urgency of bar prep and take the process seriously. Each student gets detailed feedback on their diagnostic score. We receive a compilation of the students’ performance. However, we do not consider the performance details as a predictor of bar success. Instead, we simply consider timely completion—those who make a good-faith effort and complete the diagnostic by the deadline receive full credit for this component, which counts toward 5% of their grade in the Perspectives course we offer (to be discussed in the next section of this article). Most students complete this diagnostic, but we have found that those few who do not complete it typically perform poorly on the bar exam.11

Performance in Perspectives in Legal Analysis and Writing

All our students outside the top 20% must take Perspectives in Legal Analysis and Writing in their final semester of law school, which focuses on skills needed to pass the bar exam. Students ranked in the top 20% of the class may choose to not take this course, but very few do so.12 This Perspectives course consists of a midterm and final exam, along with a great deal of homework assignments, which must be submitted by set deadlines.

Performance on the midterm and final exams carry the greatest weight on a student’s grade, but our data show that the percentage of other assignments completed in this course is a wonderful tool to measure students’ grit. There is a fair amount of classwork and homework each week. These assignments range from passive learning (e.g., watching videos, reading outlines) to more active engagement (e.g., answering multiple-choice questions and completing essays and practice Multistate Performance Tests). We give students short timelines in which to complete these assignments—and we do not accept late work. As a result, we see a clear difference between the students who take the course seriously by completing their assignments on time versus those who do not.

The combination of skills and work ethic needed for success in the Perspectives course makes it a solid predictor of bar success. In fact, our data show that students who receive a B+ or higher have a strong correlation with student success on the bar exam.13 Approximately one third of the cohort receiving a B+ or higher was ranked in the bottom half of their class, and they still outperformed bar passage rates for the class overall.14 The Perspectives course is uncurved, which gives us better ability to track students’ performance against an objective standard rather than a comparison.

Bar Prep Company/Method

Most of our students purchase bar review courses from the major bar prep providers. These companies give our students a tremendous amount of information about how they are progressing—both regarding the quantity of assignments (compared to what they should have completed) and the quality of the work. We have found that students who opt for those bar prep companies that do not provide this level of performance tracking often perform worse.15 Moreover, we have consistently seen that students who request exemption from the feedback and reach-out efforts, both by the bar prep providers and our school, have failed the bar at a higher rate; therefore, refusal to receive this feedback is a major red flag.

This is to say: knowledge is power. The more open students are to feedback about the amount and quality of work that they have completed, the higher their chances of success on the exam. Our feedback encourages them to apply more grit because working harder can change results for the better.

PASS (Practice, Assess, Simulate, Succeed) Supplemental Workshop

We offer a free, supplemental bar prep workshop to both our July and February first-time takers. The workshop meets weekly over the course of five weeks (February bar exam) or seven weeks (July bar exam). In each workshop, students complete practice MEEs and MPTs under simulated conditions. We then review the answers and writing strategy in class and/or provide detailed individualized feedback. When we first began offering this PASS workshop, our student participation was fairly low. Over the course of the past five years, the number of participants has thankfully increased each year. For example, in summer 2023, approximately 160 students enrolled in PASS. This number increased to approximately 210 students the following summer. Our data show that, year over year, students who participate in PASS outperform those students who do not.16 Therefore, PASS participation (and the increase in participation) has been a good predictor of bar passage.

Multistate Bar Examination Midterm

BARBRI, Themis, and Kaplan bar review courses all provide students with an opportunity to complete a simulated, 200-question MBE “midterm” approximately halfway through the course. We found a strong correlation between completion of the midterm in a timely fashion and bar passage. Although a high (>115) or low (<100) midterm score often correlates with bar success or failure, respectively, the mere fact that a student completes the midterm proved to be another predictor of bar success.17

Amount of Bar Prep Work Completed

We measure our students’ completion of their daily bar review assignments—measuring both the total amount of work completed at the end of the course and, more significantly, the average of amount of work completed each week relative to the amount of work assigned for the week. Our data show a significantly higher bar passage rate for students who completed an average of 80% or more of the work assigned each week throughout bar prep.18 Although we see some students underperform throughout the summer and then cram for the last few weeks, these students’ bar passage is lower than those who reach the 80% level. Originally, we set the threshold at 75% of assigned work; however, we found that the correlation between 80% or more proved to be more accurate. The message is clear—those who do the work consistently achieve greater success on the bar exam.

Improving Outcomes

After identifying various markers that we believe indicate the grit needed for bar exam success, we next needed to look at strategies to improve students’ outcomes relative to these markers. We set out to accomplish this goal by improving student motivation and student professionalism.

Improving Motivation

It is important to light a fire under our students, particularly as they begin their bar prep efforts. Therefore, we implemented several strategies to incentivize them to complete more of their bar prep assignments in a timely fashion.

To further bolster students’ completion rate, we did two things:

1.  Reiterated messaging. We repeated the message regarding the 80% threshold at various points throughout the semester in our Perspectives class. We also showed students the data demonstrating that completion of the bar prep assignments had a strong correlation with bar passage.

2.  Emails. Every week throughout bar prep, we sent one of the following emails to each student.

• A “green” email went to students who completed 80% or more of the assigned work, which complimented them on their hard work over the past week.
• A “yellow” email went to students who completed between 70% to 79% of the work. These students received a motivational message that encouraged them to push just a bit harder.
• A “red” email went to students who had substantially underperformed. This email stressed the importance of completing the work and reminded them about the correlation between work done and bar passage. We stressed that we are available to meet and help them get back on track.

Increase Professionalism

We believe our role in ASP is to offer students guidance and assistance throughout law school, but we often feel that too much nurturing can be detrimental to our students’ independence and professionalism. This can, in turn, hurt their motivation and drive. Therefore, we focused on the following:

1.  Emphasis on professionalism. Starting at orientation, we repeat the message that professionalism is a critical characteristic of a successful lawyer. We also make sure that our syllabi reflect how important it is to complete work and arrive for class on time. Students who do not take this message seriously will see it impact their grade. For example, assignments in the Perspectives course get delivered on an online platform; these assignments disappear after the deadline. If an assignment is due at 11:59 PM, the student will be unable to complete the assignment (and will receive a zero) when the clock strikes midnight. We do offer students an opportunity to complete any missed work—not for credit—at the end of the semester so they do not lose out on the benefit of completing the work and the impact it might have as they prepare for the final exam.

The ability to adhere to deadlines is a skill that many of our students lack—even those who have the requisite grit. Therefore, we work on developing time-management skills, as well as skills needed to juggle multiple assignments in our Legal Methods and Approaches to Legal Analysis and Writing courses.

2.  Tougher grading. In our syllabi, we changed grading components and made our grading slightly tougher. We also increased, percentage-wise, the component that is based on professionalism. After multiple students arrived late to class and failed to complete homework in a timely manner, we included language that such behavior would result in a lowered grade. Therefore, grades would not be based solely on the midterm and final grades.

Conclusion

Students enter law school expecting to be prepared for their ultimate goal—passing the bar exam and embarking on a legal career. We have found the critical factor of grit to be an essential, and measurable, component of law school success. Although this article’s focus has been on the impact of our ASP, all parts of a law school must recognize that hard work, professionalism, and grit are critical to success.

By measuring the data points discussed in this article, our students, and our institution, can envisage the ingredients that lead to success. Grit should be part of institutional culture. By cultivating this data on grit, we were able to find and measure the elusive secret sauce to improve our bar passage numbers and communicate a cohesive message to our students about the power of hard work and its ability to lead them to their dream of being a lawyer. We are also able to share our methodology on measuring universal benchmarks of success showing that hard work pays off, no matter what the usual factors may say about a student.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank our Research Assistants at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law, Sadie Mehr and Daniel Eidelstein; and Professor Catherine Christopher, Director for Bar Success at Texas Tech University School of Law, for her invaluable advice. 

Cara D’Agostino is Assistant Professor of Law and Assistant Dean of Academic Excellence and Bar Success at Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center.

Contact us to request a pdf file of the original article as it appeared in the print edition.