At 86% first-time passage, Missouri Law clears the national average with room to spare, a real signal, worth exactly as much as your understanding of what produced it. Pass rates compress incoming credentials, program rigor, and jurisdiction difficulty into one figure, and this page decompresses it.
MetricFigureContextFirst-time bar passage86%8 pts above the national midpointNational first-time average~75 to 80%Annual benchmarkPrimary jurisdictionMissouriVerify in the ABA 509U.S. News rank#50Peer-tier context
By any reasonable benchmark, yes: 86% beats the national band with margin, and rates at that level usually mean strong inputs and a program that holds its middle. Confirm which state produced the figure, then credit it.
For calibration: 86% is 8 points above the national midpoint, margin that survives jurisdiction adjustments in most states.
Decompose the number and it stops being mysterious. Inputs: the credentials of admitted students, which track bar results closely. Program: how hard the school works its middle of the class, rigor and writing predict passage better than prestige. Denominator: attrition decides who even sits for the exam, so two schools with identical teaching can post different rates by graduating different fractions of their entrants. The 509 disclosure exposes each piece.
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.
Like most ABA-accredited schools, Missouri Law supports bar preparation through commercial-course partnerships, readiness programming, and faculty advising, ask admissions for specifics rather than assuming the label covers the substance.
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 86% on the first attempt, above the national first-time average of roughly 75 to 80%. Treat the figure as jurisdiction-specific until the 509 says otherwise, and read it across years, not in isolation.
Different inputs, different exams, different denominators. Admitted-student medians drive much of it; state difficulty drives more; and attrition policy quietly shapes who gets counted. Strip those out and the remaining gap, the part that is actually about teaching, is smaller than the raw numbers suggest.
Partly, but it equally reflects who was admitted and who persisted to graduation. Read it alongside the LSAT median and attrition data: when all three are strong, the rate means what it appears to mean.
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.