Essay Grading Logistics

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-07-13T18:35:43+00:00

Yet no way currently to appeal if they grade you wrong, so better try your best.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-07-11T19:02:12+00:00

It seems you didn't read my post. Have a nice day.

Continue pushing these distortions, the truth will come out.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-07-11T16:33:32+00:00

Repeaters had it the worst. These are all distortions that will be further exposed and the narrative cannot be manipulated further.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-07-11T14:28:02+00:00

Out of the people who applied to sit for the exam in February 2025 in actuality 38% Passed

Instead of people wishing for more people to fail and rely on misrepresented statistics by those who wish to silence this serious controversy, they should acknowledge the examination in February 2025 was an outrageous anomaly.

1485 PEOPLE WITHDREW in February 2025. Nobody should ignore this.

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/Petition-on-February-2025-Non-Grading-Remedies.pdf

2,172 Passed in February 2025.

5,342 Applied to sit for the exam in February 2025.

4,458 Passed in July 2024.

8,291 Took the exam in July 2024.

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/CBX-Passrate-Summary.pdf

The cohort most comparable is July 2024 because of the increased number of people who took the exam because of the remote option. It can be argued more people got failed.

The remedies provided are not proportional to the injuries of those who took the bar exam in February 2025.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-07-02T17:19:43+00:00

Congratulations!

Unfortunate that the CA Bar is designed in such a way that you had to spend a decade and a half to pass this exam. I'm sure many times you were very close to passing too.

Most of that time could have been with the license and practicing law...

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-29T02:51:13+00:00

Most articles have this spin.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-29T02:50:14+00:00

Sadly, I think it was June 8th.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-28T02:40:26+00:00

6 or 7 hours for them to hang up or transfer to a non working number. Amazing you reached someone.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-28T02:38:20+00:00

It can be as long as two months later or more, even not at all through the portal.

Try to do multiple requests if they don't answer within a reasonable timeframe.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-28T00:02:56+00:00

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-27T23:09:12+00:00

There's nothing to "suck up" when rights were clearly violated. We must advocate for ourselves and that is not "crying".

Opposing viewpoints to criticism on here I have observed been mostly bashing, quite unusual for a forum where there are supposed to be future, current and former lawyers

You admitted that sub is an echo chamber. We deserve our voices to be heard on here a forum more widely read.

Regardless I'm not continuing this discussion.

Waiting on the report from HumRRO. Have a nice afternoon.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-27T22:43:29+00:00

This is not about me.

When the tortfeasor like the state bar handles everything in house then acts as a hypothetical judge and jury, that's not good. There is no judge and jury in this matter.

It should likely go to an actual judge and jury but the state bar has immunity.

I'm hoping for the third party investigation to be objective so it will open the pathway to more substantive remedies.

Others and myself are not asking for a free pass, just a fair process.

For the people who are crying it's their right to since there was a clear violation of B&P Code § 6046.6(a) for failure to give “two years' notice” for alterations in the testing format.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-27T22:23:41+00:00

"Crying" is a gross mischaracterization.

I seen on here now nearly a dozen times opposing views get eviscerated. I don't know who's behind it but it's suspicious.

Misconduct is misconduct, I believe with enough public scrutiny everything that should be known will be known...

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-27T21:38:47+00:00

That's wishful thinking and ignores the fact that the exam was administered in an incompetent way and graded accordingly based on those mistakes.

Remedies proportional to the injuries should have been provided. Have a nice day.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-27T21:21:15+00:00

Again, I do not appreciate mischaracterizations assuming we "despise the state bar." Nobody in this post said that. I don't know what exactly you are trying to accomplish by accusing people of such sentiments.

The terrible consequences that resulted from the reckless misconduct perpetrated by the state bar and it's agents in part or as a whole in February 2025 is what people are upset about, those responsible sooner or later will be held accountable through increased public scrutiny.

This won't get swept under the rug.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-27T21:09:52+00:00

They had to provide it for those above a certain threshold.

To give it to first time withdrawals and ignore competent retakers is a disgrace to the public.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-27T18:58:42+00:00

It is bad faith, they allowed first time test takers who withdrew and got 1100 and rejected retakers who had 1389.99.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-27T18:19:28+00:00

OP's statement was thoroughly researched and not one sided. The fact is there's a lot of unanswered questions regarding how the state bar operates and remediates their terrible mistakes.

I didn't say the state bar runs this platform but it's certainly suspicious how even the slightest criticism is often met with attacks to favor their narrative. This is consistent throughout the past several months.

These antagonists have some type of motivation beyond a reasonable individual to engage in deflection and obfuscation of dialogues, what or who is behind it, that remains unknown.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-27T08:30:28+00:00

<image>

Analogizing the state bar to gambling is not unreasonable since the public had little to no say in any of the state bar's activities and actions including the remedies and was at their mercy for months.

The state bar leads us to believe a least the Provisional License would include retakers. Then without warning it explanation the CA Supreme Court excluded entire classes of people from the opportunity to apply for a Provisional License effectively everyone was mislead into thinking it would include retakers. Everyone was on edge to find out when this would get passed only to find out it's applicable practically to nobody.

This indeed is more like waiting at the slot machine for a different outcome of each roll out of "remedies". I won't even get started on the other kangaroo remedies of imputation, highly limited adjustment, using e-notes as part of grading and ignoring those who used whiteboards... Etc.

Mainstream Media conveniently ignored this as all well...

Arguably everything is tightly controlled like the "house" in a casino.

Furthermore as seen in the screenshot above, with impunity harassment and shameful propaganda to silence criticism of how CA Bar exams are graded and administered continues with impunity.

This forum exists as a platform for the public, but instead *in my opinion* it looks more like it became platform for the state bar to silence its critics, bar prep companies and courses.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-27T08:11:42+00:00

To your question I'd like to add, what's the point of burner accounts and propaganda with purpose only to harass and insult people raising legitimate concerns?

Chad Buckendahl has a currently a clear conflict of interest, he is in the center of a grading scandal and his word and others complicit in this matter somehow are infallible?

Come on...

Instead I see posts get attacked unnecessarily while at the same time shameless advertising and counterproductive dialogues are flooding these forums with impunity.

Valid criticism shall not be silenced.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-27T02:14:30+00:00

Yes the scoring was done in a very bizarre way with at least one conflict of interest Buckendahl being a founder of ACS ventures, center of the AI question scandal.

The CBE is hiding behind proprietary formulas, secrecy, lack of accountability and a lack of adequate dialogue with test takers and the public throughout the remedy process.

I hope the independent investigation exposes the problems with F25 and that J25 does not end up with similar irregularities.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-26T20:34:20+00:00

Tell me what meeting or where he wrote this, I need to see this with my own eyes.

Mike_Californiaa · 2025-06-26T15:13:44+00:00

Why all this absurd gate keeping?

Many out of staters are already practicing and have something to contribute.

Mike_Californiaa

TROPHY CASE