67% first-time passage at Hawaii Law sits meaningfully under the national band. Treat that as the beginning of an investigation, not the end of one: state difficulty, incoming credentials, and attrition policy each explain part of a low rate, and the ABA 509 disclosure tells you which is doing the work here.
MetricFigureContextFirst-time bar passage67%vs. ~77.5% national midpointNational first-time average~75 to 80%Annual benchmarkPrimary jurisdictionHawaiiConfirm in the 509
It is below the national average, and that fact should drive your due diligence rather than end it. The 509 disclosure, the trend across years, and the school’s attrition pattern explain the rest, demand all three before enrolling.
For calibration: 67% is 10 points below the national midpoint, a gap large enough that no single factor should be allowed to explain it without evidence.
Bar rates are built, not bestowed, from three materials: who enrolled (medians forecast passage with uncomfortable accuracy), what the program demanded (curves, writing, doctrine), and who remained to be counted (attrition quietly edits the denominator). A school controls each lever differently, which is why the honest comparison is never rate against rate, but rate against inputs, against jurisdiction, against the count of who actually sat.
Withheld Tip: trend beats snapshot. Pull three consecutive years of the school’s 509 bar data before believing any single figure, one strong year is a cohort, three is a program. Rates that swing widely year to year are telling you about the denominator, not the teaching.
Hawaii Law’s bar prep apparatus will resemble the industry standard, commercial course partnerships, a readiness program, advising, and the differences that matter live in the details: what is subsidized, what is required, and when it begins. Make admissions name all three.
Keep one eye forward: the licensing exam itself is in transition, with states adopting the NextGen bar exam on a rolling basis through 2028. The emphasis shifts toward applied lawyering skills, which rewards exactly the habit the LSAT should have taught you: training the underlying skill under feedback rather than memorizing around it. Ask any school how its bar curriculum is adapting; the question itself signals you understand what you are buying.
The rule: no jurisdiction, no judgment. Until you know which state’s exam a rate describes, the figure cannot be compared, contextualized, or trusted, and any school materials that present it bare are asking you not to check.
Roughly 67% on the first attempt, below the national 75 to 80% average. Treat the figure as jurisdiction-specific until the 509 says otherwise, and read it across years, not in isolation.
Because they compress three things into one number: the credentials of admitted students, the rigor of the program, and which state bars graduates sit for. Comparing rates without comparing states and inputs is comparing headlines, not outcomes.
Sometimes. A strong rate built on strong inputs and low attrition is the genuine article; a strong rate built on heavy academic dismissal is a denominator trick. The 509 lets you tell the difference in about ten minutes.
You are about to spend three years learning to interrogate evidence for a living. Start now, on the school itself: jurisdiction, baseline, trend, denominator. A school that welcomes those questions is telling you something. So is a school that doesn’t.