California's new bar exam hits early snags, examinees report
Jan 31 (Reuters) - California will roll out its new bar exam on Feb. 25, but test takers say they have already encountered technical and logistical problems ranging from crashed computers and distracting online proctors on mock exams to an inability to schedule their tests.
The stakes are high for the state's more than 5,300 February bar takers — who must pass the two-day exam in order to become licensed lawyers — and for the State Bar of California, which last year became the first to ditch the national bar exam and develop its own test to cut costs.
The February test will also be the first bar exam to allow remote participation since the COVID-19 pandemic pushed testing online in 2020 and 2021, which led to technology problems.
With about three weeks to go, some examinees have been unable to schedule their in-person tests and are finding that there are fewer locations than they anticipated. Many say communication with the State Bar and Meazure Learning — the vendor contracted to deliver the exam — has been sparse and at times contradictory.
'I know people say the bar exam is supposed to be tough, but this is getting to a point of absurdity,' said Santa Clara law graduate Gino Mazzoni. He said he gave up on taking the test remotely due to frustration with online proctors talking and creating distractions, and then lost a day of studying Thursday as he struggled to book a testing site.
Spokespeople for the State Bar and Meazure Learning acknowledged that technical problems prevented some planned test registrations on Thursday but said that the issue had been fixed by Friday.
The State Bar in August fast-tracked a new exam written by Kaplan Exam Services and gave examinees the option of testing in person or remotely under the supervision of online proctors — a change projected to save as much as $3.8 million annually by eliminating the need to rent out large event spaces.
Bar officials said Friday that 67% of February bar takers are remote while 33% will test in person. But only four large in-person testing sites are planned — one each in the San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento areas — meaning farther travel for many.
Frustrated examinees have flocked to Reddit and other message boards to trade information, troubleshoot and complain about the exam's rollout.
Harshita Ganesh, a 2024 Georgetown law grad who practices at a small firm in Massachusetts, said the exam has been a much rockier experience than the Uniform Bar Exam she took and passed last year. (California does not reciprocate bar admission, meaning attorneys licensed by other states within the past four years must take and pass its full bar exam.)
Ganesh still doesn't know where she will be taking the exam after encountering problems Thursday with Meazure Learning's online booking system.
'This entire process has been horrible,' Ganesh said.
California finalizes deal to give its own bar exam
California to allow its new bar exam to be taken from anywhere
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
TRADING DAY Good vibrations turn sour
ORLANDO, Florida, June 11 (Reuters) - TRADING DAY Making sense of the forces driving global markets By Jamie McGeever, Markets Columnist I'm excited to announce that I'm now part of Reuters Open Interest (ROI), an essential new source for data-driven, expert commentary on market and economic trends. You can find ROI on the Reuters website, and you can follow us on LinkedIn and X. The US and China have reached a trade deal, or at least agreed on the framework of a deal, which together with surprisingly soft U.S. inflation data, gave markets a lift on Wednesday. But Wall Street's gains were mild, and they were later wiped out by rising tensions in the Middle East. In my column today I look at the 'equity risk premium' and other metrics that suggest relative U.S. equity and bond valuations are getting very stretched. More on that below, but first, a roundup of the main market moves. If you have more time to read, here are a few articles I recommend to help you make sense of what happened in markets today. Today's Key Market Moves Good vibrations turn sour It's a "done" deal, according to U.S. President Donald Trump, although the he and Chinese leader Xi Jinping still have to finalize the wording of the trade agreement between the two superpowers and sign off on it. The main points of the deal appear to be: China will remove export restrictions on rare earth minerals and other key industrial components; U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods will total 55%; Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods will total 10%. Trump could not have been more enthusiastic in his praise for the agreement on Wednesday, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said 'deal after deal' with other countries will follow in the weeks ahead. Yet, judging by the relatively muted market reaction, investors are less enthused. And given the chaotic and unpredictable nature of the Trump administration's tariff announcements thus far, the irony of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent calling on China to be a "reliable partner" in trade negotiations will not be lost on some observers. Especially, one suspects, in Beijing. Based on these proposed China levies, and with the US expected to conclude more trade deals in the coming weeks, the overall U.S. effective tariff rate will be lower than feared a couple of months ago. That's a relief. But the effective tariff rate of around 15% that many economists expect will still be significantly higher than the 2.5% rate at the end of last year, and would be the highest since the 1930s. Also, as the May inflation figures showed, tariffs have yet to be felt on prices. Investors - and Fed policymakers, who meet next week - are in a state of limbo. How will corporate profits and consumer spending be affected? What proportion of the tariffs will companies "swallow", and how much will they pass on to their customers? Zooming out, inflation appears to be cooling around the world, although this trend is expected to reverse once tariffs start to fuel higher goods price inflation. Figures on Wednesday showed that U.S. consumer inflation and Japanese wholesale inflation were lower than expected in May. These reports follow similar numbers from Europe recently, and China remains stuck in its battle against deflation. Next up is India, which releases consumer inflation figures on Thursday, which are expected to show annual inflation slowed to 3.0% in May, the lowest in more than six years. Another focus for investors on Thursday will be the auction of 30-year U.S. Treasury bonds. US stocks-bonds warnings flash amber again Calm has descended on U.S. markets following the 'Liberation Day' tariff turmoil of early April. But Wall Street's rally has revived questions about U.S. equity valuations, as stocks once again look super pricey compared to bonds. Since the chaotic days of early April, U.S. equities have rebounded fiercely, with the S&P 500 up 25%, putting the Shiller cyclically adjusted price-earnings (CAPE) ratio for the index in the 94th percentile going back to the 1950s, according to bond giant PIMCO. Stocks are looking expensive in absolute terms, and in relation to bonds. The equity risk premium (ERP), the difference between equity yields and bond yields, is near historically low levels. According to analysts at PIMCO, the ERP is now zero. The previous two times it fell to zero or below were in 1987 and 1996–2001. In both instances, the ultra-low ERP precipitated a steep equity drawdown and sharp fall in long-dated bond yields. "The U.S. equity risk premium ... is exceptionally low by historical standards," they wrote in their five-year outlook on Tuesday. "A mean reversion to a higher equity risk premium typically involves a bond rally, an equity sell-off, or both." But reversion to the mean doesn't just happen by magic. A catalyst is needed. Equities have recovered largely because they were oversold in April, trade tensions have been dialed down, and investors remain confident that Big Tech will drive solid AI-led earnings growth. So even though huge economic, trade, and policy risks continue to hang over markets, there is no sign of an imminent catalyst that would cause an equity market selloff. The flip side of equities looking expensive is that bonds look like a bargain. Indeed, the relative divergence between stocks and bonds is such that, by one measure, U.S. fixed income assets are the cheapest relative to equities in over half a century. Using national flow of funds data from the Federal Reserve, retired strategist Jim Paulsen calculates that the total market value of U.S. bonds as a percentage share of the total market value of U.S. equities is the lowest since the early 1970s. "Since the aggregate U.S. portfolio is currently aggressively positioned, investors may have far more capacity and desire to boost bond holdings in the coming years than most appreciate," Paulsen wrote last week. But bonds are 'cheap' for a reason. Washington's profligacy – the reason ratings agency Moody's recently stripped the U.S. of its triple-A credit rating – and inflation worries have kept yields stubbornly high. The term premium - the risk premium investors demand for holding long-term debt rather than rolling over short-dated loans - is the highest in over a decade, reflecting concerns about Uncle Sam's long-term fiscal health. And the diagnosis here shows no signs of improving. Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' is expected to add $2.4 trillion to the U.S. debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, likely putting more upward pressure on yields. Of course, equity investors do seem to be pricing in a very rosy scenario, and the past few months have shown how quickly the market landscape can change. The U.S. economy could weaken more than expected, the trade war could escalate, or there could be a geopolitical surprise that causes bond yields and equity prices to fall. Investors should therefore be mindful of the warnings being sent by ERPs and other absolute and relative valuation metrics. However, they should also remember that stretched valuations can get even more stretched. As the famous saying goes, markets can stay irrational longer than investors can remain solvent. What could move markets tomorrow? Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, opens new tab, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias.
Reuters
7 hours ago
- Reuters
China puts six-month limit on its ease of rare-earth export licenses, WSJ reports
June 11 (Reuters) - China is putting a six-month limit on rare-earth export licenses for U.S. automakers and manufacturers, The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday citing people familiar with the matter.
Wales Online
7 hours ago
- Wales Online
Company linked to Tory Peer Baroness Mone should pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE, High Court hears
Company linked to Tory Peer Baroness Mone should pay back £121m for 'faulty' PPE, High Court hears PPE Medpro is being sued for an alleged breach of contract over the supply of PPE during the Covid pandemic, with the Government claiming the gowns were unusable The company in court is linked to Baroness Mone (Image: PA Archive/PA Images ) A company linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone should pay back more than £121 million for breaching a Government contract for 25 million surgical gowns during the coronavirus pandemic, the High Court has heard. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is suing PPE Medpro for allegedly breaching a deal for the gowns, with lawyers for the Government telling the court they were "faulty" because they were not sterile. The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone's husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded Government contracts by the former Conservative administration to supply PPE during the pandemic, after she recommended it to ministers. Any wrongdoing has been denied. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, as well as the costs of transporting and storing the items, which amount to an additional £8,648,691. PPE Medpro said it "categorically denies" breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed the company had been "singled out for unfair treatment". Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: "This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. Article continues below "It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns." Mr Stanley said in written submissions the "initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone", with discussions about the contract then going through one of the company's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained "active throughout" the negotiations, Mr Stanley said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had "years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains". But he told the court Baroness Mone's communications were "not part of this case", which was "simply about compliance". He said: "The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody." In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October, 2020, with £121,999,219.20 paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December, 2020, and told the company it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage, unable to be used. In written submissions for trial, Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract, equating to one in a million being unusable. The DHSC claims the contract also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise the gowns using a "validated process", attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said "none of those things happened", with no validated sterilisation process being followed, and the gowns supplied with invalid CE marking. He continued that 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing. He said: "Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered. "On that basis, DHSC was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs." In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the "only plausible reason" for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to "the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject", after they had been delivered to the DHSC. He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not "representative of the whole population", meaning "no proper conclusions may be drawn". He said the DHSC's claim was "contrived and opportunistic" and PPE Medpro had been "made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors" by the department. He said: "It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it. "In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money." He also said there was a "delicious irony" that Baroness Mone was mentioned in the DHSC's written submissions, when she had "zero relevance to the contractual issues in this case". Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence in the trial, and did not attend the first day of the hearing on Wednesday. A PPE Medpro spokesperson said the company "categorically denies breaching its obligations" and will "robustly defend" the claim. Article continues below The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
