California Supreme Court Adjusts Bar Exam Scores After Controversy

Categories: California Business NewsCalifornia EducationCalifornia News

Law students preparing for the California bar exam amidst recent controversies.

News Summary

The California Supreme Court has approved adjustments to bar exam scores due to technical issues during the February 2025 exam, affecting over 4,200 applicants. The court ordered the use of the Multistate Bar Exam for the upcoming July exam and acknowledged concerns over the use of AI in question drafting. Following frustrations from test takers and a federal lawsuit against the exam administrator, calls for increased transparency and an audit of the State Bar are surfacing, highlighting the need for reforms in the exam process.

California – The California Supreme Court has approved the State Bar’s request to adjust bar exam scores following significant technical difficulties experienced during the February 2025 exam. This decision paves the way for the release of test results for the 4,231 applicants who took the exam.

The court’s ruling mandates the State Bar to use the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) for the multiple-choice section of the upcoming July exam. Justices noted concerns regarding the question drafting process for the February exam, particularly the undisclosed use of artificial intelligence (AI) to generate some exam questions. Previous test takers will require a raw score of 534 to pass, with the overall score derived from a total of 700 points for the written section and 171 for the multiple-choice section, each weighted evenly at 50%.

For those who took the February 2025 exam, the raw passing threshold had been previously set at 420 points. Additionally, the court has allowed examination graders to employ psychometric imputation for those test takers who responded to at least 114 of the 171 multiple-choice questions and completed at least four of the six written components.

The controversy surrounding the exam surfaced when the State Bar disclosed that 29 out of the 200 exam questions were developed with the aid of AI through their psychometric contractor, ACS Ventures Inc. Reports emerged claiming that certain questions were recycled from a first-year law student exam, prompting backlash from legal educators who stress the importance of maintaining high standards in examination processes.

Test takers expressed frustration over their experiences during the exam. Many reported being removed from online testing platforms, facing lag during the exam, and dealing with ambiguous or unclear questions. This led several applicants to file a federal lawsuit against the exam administrator, Meazure Learning, alleging mishandling during the testing process.

The shift to a new bar exam model was also influenced by a $22 million budget deficit, prompting the State Bar to hire Kaplan Exam Services to assist in developing exam questions. This decision has drawn considerable attention, with law school faculty criticizing the State Bar’s reliance on AI for question drafting. They argue that this practice raises serious questions regarding the validity and reliability of the exam results.

In defense of its actions, the State Bar has affirmed that all exam questions were reviewed by content validation panels and subject matter experts prior to the administration of the exam. However, this does not alleviate the mounting pressure from critics who are demanding greater transparency in the process. Calls for the release of all 200 questions from the February exam for public scrutiny have intensified.

In light of the ongoing issues associated with the exam, California Senate Judiciary Chair Thomas J. Umberg has called for an audit of the State Bar. This further reflects the growing concern regarding the integrity of the bar examination process in California.

Some stakeholders have suggested reverting to the previous administration approach of the bar exam as a solution to the complexities and controversies that have arisen. As preparations for the July exam continue, the implications of this decision and the adjustments made for February 2025 exam takers remain to be seen.