80% first-time passage puts St. Thomas Law Minnesota squarely at the national average. Read that as a baseline, not a verdict: average rates at hard-bar states and easy-bar states mean very different things, and the ABA’s own disclosures let you tell which story this is.
MetricFigureContextFirst-time bar passage80%The headline under reviewNational first-time average~75 to 80%Varies year to yearPrimary jurisdictionMinnesotaConfirm in the 509
It is solidly average, 80% sits inside the national 75 to 80% band. At this range, the state being measured and the credentials of the entering class explain most of the picture, which is why the 509 breakdown matters more than the headline.
Placed on the national curve, St. Thomas Law Minnesota’s 80% lands 2 points above the midpoint of the 75 to 80% band, a gap small enough that state difficulty alone could account for it.
Three inputs, braided together. First, incoming credentials: LSAT and GPA medians predict bar performance better than most schools like to admit, which is why the admissions chart and the bar chart usually rhyme. Second, academic program: required-curve rigor, writing intensity, bar-tested doctrine in the upper years. Third, the one nobody advertises, the denominator: academic attrition policies shape who reaches the exam at all, so a pass rate describes the students who finished, not everyone who started.
Withheld Tip: the ABA 509 disclosure is published annually for every accredited school and breaks bar results out by jurisdiction. Pull it, find the state line, and check whether the state you actually intend to practice in appears at all, a New York rate tells a California-bound student almost nothing. Verify the rate for your state, not the school’s headline.
Like most ABA-accredited schools, St. Thomas Law Minnesota 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.
About 80% first-time, in line with the national 75 to 80% average, a figure that means the most once you know which state’s exam it describes and how that state’s baseline runs. The 509 disclosure carries both.
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.
It means inputs, instruction, and attrition jointly produced a number. Untangle them, median in, dismissal rate, jurisdiction, before crediting the classroom. When all three check out, so does the rate.
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.