Latest news with #barExam
Reuters
4 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
California's February bar exam mess is costing millions to clean up
June 6 (Reuters) - The State Bar of California said on Thursday that it has hired a consulting firm to review the scoring of its February bar exam, adding to the millions the organization has spent to clean up mess from the botched test rollout. State bar trustees approved a $185,000 contract with the Human Resources Research Organization to look at how the February exam was scored and investigate whether test takers with disabilities received their approved accommodations such as extra time on the exam or a private testing room. While the contract amount is relatively small, it is part of the more than $6 million the organization is spending for February's exam problems and to ensure the upcoming July exam goes smoothly. The state bar did not immediately provide comment on Friday about the growing costs, but it has said that it will do all that it can to address February's problems. The February exam — the debut of California's hybrid remote and in-person exam that did not include any components of the national bar exam the state had used for decades — was marred by technological and logistical problems. The investigation is a 'critical step to independently assess scoring and accommodation concerns raised by applicants,' said State Bar Board of Trustees Chair Brandon Stallings in a prepared statement. The state bar launched the development of its own test in 2024, after its fund for administering the exam was projected to reach insolvency in 2026. Using its own exam was expected to save the state bar up to $3.8 million annually because it would not have to rent out large conference spaces. Instead, the new exam has become a financial drain. The California Supreme Court has ordered the state to return to in-person testing in July and restore use of the Multistate Bar Exam — the 200 multiple-choice section of the national bar exam designed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners. The state bar, which has an $8 million budget this year to cover its costs for administering the exam and the admissions process for lawyers seeking to practice in California, said it will cost about $720,000 to return to the MBE, $1.7 million to rent out July testing locations, and more than $1 million to hire proctors. The state bar has also approved $4.9 million in fee waivers that will enable those who withdrew from or failed the February exam to retake the bar at no additional cost. State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson said in May that she will step down in July, citing the bungled rollout of the new exam. The state bar has also sued the company that provided the testing platform for the February test over the many tech problems. Human Resources Research Organization is expected to complete its scoring review prior to the July bar exam, according to a state bar memo. The investigation into the delivery of testing accommodations is expected to be completed by September 30. February examinees have repeatedly raised concerns over how the exams were scored and the lack of promised testing accommodations in public comments during state bar meetings. And 13 test takers went from failing to passing after the state bar uncovered scoring mistakes. Another 230 are expected to move to passing after the bar enacted a grading change on May 30. Read more: More California bar examinees wrongly told they failed, state bar says Hundreds of California bar exam-takers move from fail to pass with new scoring
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Kim Kardashian graduates from law school apprenticeship
NEW YORK — Kim Kardashian's legal ambitions are nearly a reality — now that the reality star has graduated from her law school apprenticeship. An insider told Us Weekly that the 44-year-old also has passed the bar prerequisite known as the multistate professional responsibility exam. On Wednesday, 'excited and proud' friends, family and legal mentors threw a surprise party for Kardashian in Beverly Hills, which the SKIMS founder initially believed to be a 'regular family brunch.' The accomplishment comes six years after Kardashian, who still needs to pass the bar to practice law in her native California, first made public her dream to practice law, which was revealed in Vogue's May 2019 cover story interview. Kardashian at the time said she 'aced' her torts test. In late 2021, she passed the 'baby bar' after three failed attempts, writing on Instagram: 'This wasn't easy or handed to me. 'I failed this exam 3 times in 2 years, but I got back up each time and studied harder and tried again until I did it!!! (I did have COVID on the 3rd try w a 104 fever but I'm not making excuses),' she continued. Kardashian's late father, Robert Kardashian, was one of O.J. Simpson's defense attorneys in his trial for the murders of ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, for which Simpson was acquitted. Months after announcing she'd passed the baby bar, Kardashian was declared legally single from Kanye West, and they settled their divorce in late 2022. But it doesn't seem like the 47-year-old controversial rapper, now legally known as 'Ye,' will be using his ex-wife's legal services any time soon, even as he faces mounting lawsuits for alleged antisemitic harassment of Jewish employees, copyright infringement, sexual harassment and 'real estate issues.' Sources revealed to Us Weekly earlier this year that Kardashian might file for 'full custody' of their four children.
Reuters
15-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
California bar exam-takers were told they failed. Oops, they passed.
May 15 - The State Bar of California said on Wednesday that a number of scoring errors had occurred on its February bar exam — the latest black eye for the disastrous test plagued by logistical and technical issues. A review of the February exam's scoring revealed three separate categories of mistakes, which resulted in four examinees going from failing to passing after those problems were corrected, the bar said in an email to test takers, opens new tab that Reuters reviewed. More than 4,200 people sat for California's February exam. The state bar is still looking into a fourth category of potential problems involving the incomplete transfer of performance test answers and does not yet know how many examinees were impacted by that issue, it said. The February exam was marred by problems ranging from delays and computer crashes to lax exam security and distracting proctors. Those issues prompted the state bar on May 5 to sue Meazure Development, the company that delivered the exam. Meazure, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, said after the bar filed its lawsuit that the bar was trying to "shift the blame" for the flawed rollout of the test. Test-takers have filed a separate lawsuit against the company. The faulty February exam also spurred the resignation of the bar's top administrator. The state bar's email on Wednesday also said the agency plans to hire an 'independent third party' to undertake a comprehensive review of the registered complaints of the scoring and grading of the exam. California isn't the first to give out incorrect bar exam results. Kentucky in 2020 wrongly told 15 bar examinees they had passed when they actually failed, while three were wrongly told they failed when they passed. Three Michigan bar examinees were incorrectly marked as failing in 2021. And scoring errors led to 90 Georgia bar examinees in 2015 and 2016 being wrongly told they failed. Some February test takers raised concerns about scoring anomalies in public comments to the state bar and on social media after the results were released on May 5. The February exam had a 56% overall pass rate — far higher than the historical average of 35% — after the California Supreme Court allowed the state bar to implement a lower raw passing score because of all the exam's problems. The state bar also plans to ask the court to approve a provisional licensure program under which those who failed osuedr withdrew from the February exam can work under the supervision of an experienced attorney for up to two years while they retake the bar exam. The February exam marked 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 — a change that was intended to save as much as $3.8 million annually. In addition to the tech issues, the state bar later revealed that a small portion of the multiple-choice questions were generated by a third-party contractor using ChatGPT. The state high court has ordered the July exam to be conducted in person and to return to the Multistate Bar Exam—the 200-question multiple choice portion of the exam developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners which the state had used prior to the February test. Those changes are expected to add nearly $6 million in costs. State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson has said she will step down in July, citing the botched rollout of the new exam. And the state bar has sued testing platform Meazure Learning over the many tech problems, as have at least two groups of test takers. Read more: California Bar backs provisional licensing after February exam mess California scraps new bar exam for July, adjusts scores on botched February test
Reuters
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
California Bar backs provisional licensing after February exam mess
May 12 - Aspiring lawyers who withdrew from or failed California's disastrous February bar exam may still be eligible to work under the supervision of an experienced attorney until they can pass the attorney licensing exam. The State Bar of California's Board of Trustees on May 9 voted to extend an existing provisional licensure program, which it had enacted in 2020 when the bar exam was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, to give unsuccessful February bar examinees or those who withdrew a period of two years to pass that test while working under supervision. Expanding the provisional licensure program still requires the approval of the California Supreme Court. A court spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday. The high court earlier this month had approved two remedies already requested for by the state bar for the February bar exam problems and previously signed off on the 2020 provisional licensure program during the COVID-19 pandemic. Provisional licensure is one of several remedies February examinees requested in public comments to the board, though many advocated for a program that would allow them to practice under supervision without having to take and pass the bar. The board did not discuss that option on Friday. Board of trustees chairman Brandon Stallings said expansion of the provisional licensure program and several other proposed remedies for February bar examinees strike a balance between protecting the public and helping applicants become licensed. The February exam marked 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 — a change that was intended to save as much as $3.8 million annually. But the test was marred by widespread technical and logistical problems. Some test takers were not able to log in to the exam at all, while others faced delays, computer crashes, lax exam security, distracting proctors and a copy-and-paste function that didn't work. The state bar later revealed that a small portion of the multiple-choice questions were generated by a third-party contractor using ChatGPT. The state high court has ordered the July exam to be conducted in person and to return to the Multistate Bar Exam — the 200-question multiple choice portion of the exam developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners which the state had used prior to the February test. Those changes are expected to add nearly $6 million in costs. The California Supreme Court had earlier granted the state bar's request to lower the raw score needed to pass the February exam and 'impute' scores for test takers who weren't able to complete significant portions of the two-day exam. That process involves using a test taker's submitted answers to project their performance on questions which were missing. Those remedies helped boost the overall February pass rate to 56%, up from the historical 35% average. Several trustees pointed to that higher pass rate as a reason not to expand the provisional licensure program, saying further remedies undermine the state bar's duty to protect the public. "What's the purpose of a bar exam if you let everybody be provisionally licensed who failed?" said trustee Sarah Good during the Friday meeting. But trustee Raymond Buenaventura said the provisional licensure program offers a path forward for those negatively impacted by the faulty test. "There is no perfect solution," he said. Read more: California scraps new bar exam for July, adjusts scores on botched February test California bar hits pause on provisional lawyer licensing tied to exam meltdown
