logo
ENع
More than 200 California bar exam-takers move from fail to pass after new scoring adjustment

More than 200 California bar exam-takers move from fail to pass after new scoring adjustment

Fox News5 days ago

More than 200 people who took California's bar exam in February will have their scores changed from "fail" to "pass" after a California Bar committee approved new scoring adjustments.
The grading change affected 230 test takers in the State Bar of California's latest attempt to mitigate the fallout of its disastrous February test, which was plagued with technical and logistical problems. That exam prompted several lawsuits, including at least two filed by test takers and one filed by the state bar against the company that administered the exam.
With the changes approved on Friday, the exam's overall pass rate jumped from 56% to 63%, nearly double the state's historical average of 35%.
Applicants who nearly passed and received a second read on their written questions will be given the higher of two scores for each question, as opposed to the average of the first and second-read scores that the Bar had initially done.
Test takers will be notified this week if the adjustments gave them passing scores. This change, unlike many other remedies, does not require approval from the state Supreme Court, the Bar told Bloomberg Law.
Applicants for the July exam will automatically be withdrawn if the Bar determines they passed the February test, the Bar said.
The scoring changes are the latest in a series of remedies Bar leaders are approving for thousands of applicants whose legal careers were impacted by the exam that crashed on test day.
After approval from the state Supreme Court, the state bar has already implemented a lower raw passing score and "imputed" scores for test takers who failed to complete significant portions of the two-day exam.
The Committee of Bar Examiners will soon ask the state Supreme Court to also approve a scoring method that could increase some scores on the performance portion of their exams using statistical analysis, according to Bloomberg Law.
The state Supreme Court was also asked to consider a proposal to allow all February applicants — including those who withdrew before the exam — to practice law provisionally under an attorney's supervision.
The February exam was the debut of California's hybrid remote and in-person test without the components of the national bar exam the state has used for decades. The change aimed to save as much as $3.8 million annually, but resolving all its issues for the July exam is now expected to add nearly $6 million in costs.
Some state Bar trustees have expressed discomfort with some of the exam's proposed remedies and the higher pass rate, pointing to the bar's duty to protect the public from unqualified lawyers.
The Bar said it faced the difficult task of finding "fair solutions" that maintained the exam's integrity. The Bar "would never take any steps to detract from its public protection mission," it said in a statement.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the State Bar of California.

Hashtags

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds

Forbes

time36 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds

Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store