You do get more coverage with both though. I mean, we talk on HN all the time about how exams are flawed at measuring knowledge, and can be gamed. School is also flawed and does not guarantee learning, but with both school + exam you can have greater confidence in your candidates...
Going the opposite direction, I grew up in a (the?) state that auto-stamps "pass" on the exam if you graduated from an in-state school. Not a figure of speech, you're auto-admitted if you have an in-state accredited law degree.
Yes although the location isn't as important as the concept that in a discussion of removing one half of "diploma plus test" we have a lot of experience with removal of the other half of the requirement.
In practice I don't think the horror stories really matter... if we graduate roughly 2 to 3 times as many new lawyers as there are jobs for them, then by definition we only employ roughly the top 1/2 to top 1/3 of grads, so horror stories about what could theoretically happen if an idiot got past the idiot filter are not entirely relevant if only the far right side of the bell curve will ever get jobs in the field anyway.
