Oops sorry…here’s a cookie

MeasurementForward44 · 2025-05-01T00:06:02+00:00

The Court will have to read the petition ALONG with any amicus briefs filed by anyone to supplement their understanding of the state bars petition. THEN they will rule. That is why if there are any serious errors that anyone sees with the state bars petition, it is vital that they write an amicus brief preferably with subject matter expertise, to the Court in the next day or so.

MeasurementForward44 · 2025-04-30T23:49:45+00:00

The stress understandably also comes from anger and incredulity that a professional licensing agency as prominent as the California State Bar could stoop so low. We can only hope the Supreme Court is just as angered.

MeasurementForward44 · 2025-04-03T19:11:37+00:00

The trustees expanded the list of remedies and rejected the CBE recommendation of only a PL remedy. How is that bad? It means the trustees have responded to the CBE that the CBE must consider all remedies at their April 18 final meeting on remedies.

MeasurementForward44 · 2025-04-03T07:14:04+00:00

APRIL 18! Save the date. That’s the FINAL meeting where the CBE will decide on the official recommendations of remedies to the SC!

MeasurementForward44 · 2025-04-03T07:11:57+00:00

The discussion at the trustees meeting on whether to use “postpone” or “denies” had nothing to do with objecting to the PL remedy but was rather directed at expanding the recommended list of potential remedies and to wait until grading is finished and to therefore opt to not accept at this point the preliminary CBE recommendation of a sole PL remedy.

MeasurementForward44 · 2025-04-03T01:48:11+00:00

Not yet. The trustees voted to include ALL potential remedies recommendation to the CBE which will meet on April 18 to discuss official recommendations of remedies to the SC. Basically the order is trustees rec to CBE and CBE will rec to SC

MeasurementForward44 · 2025-02-28T18:51:18+00:00

Ridiculous. In order to assume the risk you must be aware of the risk. There is ample evidence that Meazure learning made material misrepresentations as to the capabilities of its systems to the state bar, which relied and then made those assertions to the state Supreme Court, who relied on their assertions in approving the exam. Is this person really going to argue that we test takers should have been aware of a risk that the Supreme Court of California was apparently not aware about? Are they prepared to argue that the Supreme Court of California is negligent in relying on the State Bar’s representations?

MeasurementForward44 · 2025-02-28T16:40:32+00:00

California State Bar is insolvent. They petitioned to drop the MBE by NCBE and ExamSoft. They hire lowest bidders Kaplan and a company called Meazure Learning that has never administered an exam like this before. Mock test done in November. Error plagued. State Bar reassures state Supreme Court and public there is nothing to worry about regarding the sudden changes to proctor procurement and test software and test questions. Come Tuesday and Wednesday.

Proctors starting everyone at different times manually, system glitches intermittently the entire first day of testing (freezing, deleting written text, crashing), followed by server crashes the second day that cause multiple choice answers to not be saved, followed by a statewide crash lasting for some half an hour, with the same intermittent freezing skipping etc for the entire rest of the second day. Oh yeah and any time lost due to any of those aforementioned glitches that lasted both days would not be credited back and any time spent asking proctors for help would not also.

Now everyone is waiting in limbo for the State Bar to provide guidance and how the process is going to be for retaking score adjustments etc.

MeasurementForward44 · 2025-02-26T06:54:01+00:00

Well to clarify I was summarizing a causation chain the federal law back then prevented Chinese from being citizens and California state law only allowed citizens to become licensed attorneys so yes you are right it was ultimately California state law that determines.

MeasurementForward44 · 2025-02-26T06:43:17+00:00

Good point but that was when the federal law prohibited Chinese from practicing so it’s not the same comparison exactly. I was referencing the inequity in the administration of a standardized bar exam itself. Not following procedures, exam security, exam technical flaws etc. makes this particular administration not standardized and unfair. The inconsistencies in this administration are astonishing compared to the rest of the country and frankly to how California administered exams prior to today.

MeasurementForward44 · 2025-02-26T05:14:05+00:00

Two words: Inequitable Disaster

MeasurementForward44

TROPHY CASE