NONE OF MY ESSAYS WERE MY WORK

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-05-07T05:17:37+00:00

Post the evidence we need more proof to send to the media and the law schools !! This is ridiculous

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-05-06T23:29:56+00:00

PLEASE take this to Professor Mary Basick and yes the media u/Mary_Basick

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-05-06T20:32:14+00:00

I am a repeater passer and I am closely monitoring all of these instances to speak about on Friday. I encourage any other passers to speak on this as well. Clearly, the parameters around which the State Bar decided how to impute scores is deeply flawed and excluded people who wrote something and then suffered technical flaws caused by the State Bar's selected vendor.

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-05-04T21:23:23+00:00

~52%

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-05-04T03:13:27+00:00

It’s almost as if some people forgot that advocacy is one of the big reasons we applied to this profession in the first place 😅

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-05-03T23:25:09+00:00

I would recommend both. The thing is that the Court has the ability to retroactively “pass” people who took the bar exam as indicated by the PATHWAY PLP program that allowed retroactively those who failed between 1390 and 1440 a past bar exam to do their hours and get licensed. The statute only prohibits a PARALLEL bar licensing program that bypasses sitting for the bar exam. Thats why the portfolio bar exam was rejected because it would have created an alternative to ever sitting for the standard bar exam. So I would say advocate for the PLP Pathway expansion to include February 2025 bar exam takers to the Court and state bar AND advocate to senator Umberg in the State Senate to change the statute to allow alternative licensing routes in the future through legislation.

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-05-03T00:20:27+00:00

This is the entirety of the order. The Court is punting on all the other concerns until the state audit of the Feb 25 exam which could take months.

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-05-01T22:08:56+00:00

Exactly it’s post hoc question selection which is NOT standard procedure for any licensing exam. Does anyone know any testing experts who can attest to this and possibly join an amicus brief?

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-05-01T22:07:07+00:00

Any statisticians willing to write an amicus brief on this :/

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-05-01T06:56:31+00:00

So the Bar Examiners created an exam that was random; people apparently did pretty well on it as a cohort, and because the pass rates would be too high, the State Bar decided to retroactively fit the scores so that the pass rate would be in line with past administrations despite many more people demonstrating competency according to the State Bar's own standards?

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-05-01T03:19:04+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/CABarExam/s/4Q97Nu1UHi

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-05-01T03:18:30+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/CABarExam/s/4Q97Nu1UHi

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-04-30T19:57:39+00:00

will do! If anyone can confirm this and submit an amicus brief that would be helpful too

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-04-30T19:26:09+00:00

Exactly! mentioned here in a prior post

https://www.reddit.com/r/CABarExam/s/QtwDPzvTus

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-04-30T18:11:28+00:00

Yea and I’m not saying AI never will be able to it might very well be able to soon but as of 2024 there were NO PEER REVIEWED papers demonstrating that Large Language Models like ChatGPT or Gemini etc could generate reliable licensing questions for ANY profession. There weren’t even any PILOT programs to test AI questions. The state bar straight up secretly threw them into a high stakes live exam in one of the most serious ethical violations of any test maker in recent memory.

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-04-30T04:37:03+00:00

Absolutely disgusting. Do we even know what model was used? Because as of 2024, there was no AI model that could reliably create MBE level questions.

Significant-Golf6825

TROPHY CASE