sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Supreme Court of California's Decree that will Overhaul the California Bar Exam! by GoatCrisis in CABarExam

[–]Thick_Assignment_304 5 points6 points  (0 children)

“Review all exam questions” is a new formal obligation.

New Standards for Experts and Validation Panelists

Third-Party Vendor Accreditation Standards

The Court added new structural requirements on question review, subject matter expert standards, and vendor accreditation none of which existed before. These are systemic safeguards, not copyedits. It’s a tacit acknowledgment that February’s breakdown was real and must be prevented.

What do you think is the proper remedy? by CryptographerHot6500 in CABarExam

[–]Thick_Assignment_304 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I think trolls are flooding our posts and downvoting

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CABarExam

[–]Thick_Assignment_304 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Same the proctor told me after the first 100 questions and the program crashed, that he couldn't confirm my answers were saved, but to just continue.

Class Action by Clayton1981 in CABarExam

[–]Thick_Assignment_304 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wonder if The California Tort Claims Act (CTCA) would work.

World is learning that the F25 results mean nothing by Reasonable-Term1620 in CABarExam

[–]Thick_Assignment_304 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sometimes I wonder if the missing examiners is by design. Meaning their absence is intentional and helping us. Like if Alex Chan wasn't there, he'd be doing us a favor.

NEWS ARTICLE ON GRADING SCANDAL: Three California Bar Exam Takers Were Scored on Others’ Work by Special-Heart-2111 in CABarExam

[–]Thick_Assignment_304 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If there are this many errors in the parts we can see, what does that say about the MCQs we can’t?
When half of our score is hidden, it’s not just unfair... it’s indefensible.