The Recorder, State Bar Blocked Law School Academics From Vetting Troubled Bar Exam:
California's state bar last month blocked a group of legal academics from participating in a previously scheduled review of content on the troubled February 2025 bar exam, raising new questions about the material on the licensing test.
About a dozen law school deans and professors had agreed in January, at the state bar's invitation, to scrutinize the exam's multiple-choice questions, essay topics and performance test material as part of a process, known as standard setting. The review, according to an email sent to invitees, would help shape scoring of the licensing exam.
Bar officials confirmed plans for the reviewers to travel to the agency's office in Los Angeles two times, once in March and again in April, to see the questions administered to applicants on the Feb. 26-27 exam.
But in the days that immediately followed the exam, which was marked by widespread technical problems that rendered some examinees unable to finish or even start the test, bar officials called the reviewers and rescinded their invitations. The reason wasn't entirely clear, although it appeared connected to the bar's use of Kaplan North America for the first time ever to write the exam's multiple-choice questions.
Mary Basick, assistant dean for academic skills at UC Irvine School of Law, was one of the uninvited reviewers. She said a bar staffer told her the agency's general counsel, Ellin Davtyan, had determined that anyone who had worked in recent months with material from the National Council of Bar Examiners, or NCBE, had a conflict of interest and could not see the bar exam content. …
The NCBE writes the multistate bar exam, which the state bar used until retaining Kaplan last year to craft questions. Bar leaders made the switch in hopes of saving money since Kaplan, unlike the NCBE, allows examinees to take its test from home instead of at large convention centers that are costly to rent. …
The original invitees had received emails from the bar's admissions office in January, identifying them as "uniquely qualified to serve" as reviewers "given your experience at your law school. Your participation is vital for maintaining the integrity and rigor of the [California Bar Exam], ensuring that only those applicants who are adequately prepared can progress in their licensure," the email stated. …
NCBE has raised concerns over the last year about Kaplan potentially infringing on its copyright-protected test materials, particularly given the state bar officials' repeated public assurances that the format and content of the multiple-choice questions on the exam would not change with a new vendor. …
Events surrounding the expert review of the February exam shine a light on an aspect of the test—the validity and quality of the questions—that has been overshadowed by the administration's many technical problems. Some examinees have criticized the multiple-choice questions for appearing to omit vital facts or for providing two potentially correct answers.
Prior TaxProf Blog coverage:
- California Bar Exam Suffers Catastrophic Meltdown: ‘I’ve Never Had This Much Despair And Hopelessness’ (Feb. 27, 2025)
- The California Bar Exam Fiasco: Is Provisional Licensure The Appropriate Remedy? (Mar. 1, 2025)
- New York Times: California Bar Exam Fiasco Enrages Test Takers And Clouds Their Futures; Chemerinsky Calls For Provisional Licensure (Mar. 3, 2025)
- 17 Deans Ask California High Court To Provisionally License Grads Who Fail February Exam And Scrap New Kaplan-Written Questions And Revert Back To In-Person Exams In July (Mar. 4, 2025)
- California Supreme Court Reverts Back To In-Person Bar Exam In July (Mar. 5, 2025)
- Law Profs: California State Bar Must Be Held Accountable For Its Catastrophic Failures (Mar. 6, 2025)
- California Bar Orders Investigation Of February Exam Disaster As Beleaguered Test-Takers Fume (Mar. 9, 2025)
Editor's Note: If you would like to receive a daily email with links to legal education posts on TaxProf Blog, email me here.
