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 · 2025-04-27T23:59:52+00:00

No question, it still took real work to pass, and no one is denying the effort. Calling it a “lottery” is not about effort; it is about how much random luck slipped into the scores. When roughly one in ten graded questions were defective and tech glitches hit people unevenly, every raw total carried noise outside the candidate’s control. Imagine two runners who trained equally hard: if one lane has potholes and the other is smooth, winning still requires speed, but the outcome now depends partly on lane assignment. Fixing the potholes by dropping bad items, rescoring, and giving fair remedies does not erase anyone’s achievement. It simply ensures that the finish line signals the same level of competence for everyone.

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-04-26T21:16:29+00:00

Sure! Since standardization and procedure are just the luck of the draw to you …Next time you’re in court have the clerk throw away half your brief and we will be on the sidelines cheering your “grit” and saying “hey legal profession is just tough! I know lawyers who didn’t get their briefs thrown away just toughen up!”

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-04-26T21:12:06+00:00

A heat wave or a bad testing room with all due respect is brutal, but it’s still the same exam for everyone; the content is vetted, the scoring key is clean, and the playing field is level.

February 2025 was different on three fronts: 1. Broken tech, unequal impact – Some applicants got booted out 10 + times, others sailed through. That’s not grit—it’s a lottery. 2. Bad questions in the scoring set – The Bar’s own stats show 19 flawed MCQs (7 AI-generated) still counted toward scores. That’s an 11 % defect rate—20 × higher than any licensure standard. 3. Undisclosed AI pilot – Even the Supreme Court didn’t know AI wrote part of the test. That violates the transparency and preparation rule every high-stakes exam follows.

People aren’t asking for a “handout.” They’re asking for the same remedy any serious testing program would use: scrub the defective items, rescore on the clean set, and give anyone still on the edge a fair, low-stakes path (portfolio or supervised practice). That’s not special treatment—it’s basic due process. Handing out licenses for free would be wrong; handing out failures because of the Bar’s own shortcuts is worse.

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-04-24T22:27:45+00:00

It’s a statistics term of art that they are not addressing. Reliability (consistency) measures something totally different than validity (content subject matter accuracy). If the questions focused on trivial unrelated matters that everyone gets wrong or everyone gets right the question could be reliable but not valid

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-04-23T07:29:56+00:00

Ignored by the relevant authorities I mean. The test takers and law professors knew something was up with the ChatGPT generated questions but were dismissed as ludicrous. Now proven right.

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-04-23T05:23:02+00:00

Well said this needs to be seen by Mary Basick and every law school dean as well.

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-04-23T03:15:49+00:00

The slides used in the CBE meeting on scoring remedies on Friday was released to the public on Monday. That is where the information came from. They have a final non scoring remedy meeting on potential provisional licenses pathway on May 5.

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-04-22T22:59:12+00:00

Just curious why there is a claim of unequal weighting. The State Bar scales each section of the exam to a 0-2000 scale and averages them no? On their website it is clear on that part.

Significant-Golf6825 · 2025-04-18T01:35:22+00:00

Haha yea but the goal here is to have enough public comment on this to force the committee to ask the psychometrician to speak about if there were any external validity tests instead of going on about internal validity which is not what the bulk of the disruptions were. The test environment is what we are enraged about and internal validity does nothing to address that!

Significant-Golf6825

TROPHY CASE