[ad_1]
After the California bar exam was plagued with technical issues last week, California bars recommend agents return to in-person testing to scrutinize whether the vendor behind the new testing system meets contract obligations.
“Based on the management of the February bar exam, staff cannot recommend that they proceed with Meazure Learning,” state Bar Admissions Director Donna Hershkowitz wrote to the agency’s council meeting in a staff memo referring to the vendor. Instead, she wrote, staff members recommend returning to the in-person test for the next round of exams in July.
The 13-member board of State Bar, scheduled to take place on March 5, will ultimately decide on plans for the July bar exam and relief package for the test taker who faces challenges.
In a statement Monday, state bar said that in administering California State Examinations in February, “we are “examining closely to see whether Meezle’s learning meets contractual obligations” and “we will work actively with psychologists and other stakeholders to determine the full scope of repair measures needed for the February 2025 Bar Examination Take.”
It is unclear exactly how much this episode will cost state bars.
Last year, in the face of a $22.2 million budget deficit, the agency decided to save money by abandoning the national conference of bar examiners’ multi-state bar exams, a system used in most states, and switching to a new system of direct and remote testing. I reduced my transaction with the test preparation company Kaplan Exam Service to create test questions and hired Meazure Learning to manage the exam.
As a result, disasters have occurred for many candidates. Some reported being kicked out of online testing platforms. Experienced screen that delayed error messages. And there were directors who were unable to answer basic questions. Others raised questions on multiple choice test questions, consisting of nonsense questions, featured typos and ruled out important facts.
State bars are based on issues with Meazure Learning, several deans of California’s top law schools noted that the issues are not limited to technology.
“While state bars focus on issues raised by platform administrators (Meazure), alumni also reported typos and errors in new multi-choice questions that reflected what they saw in practice questions published this fall, as well as new choice questions that they saw in disruptive conditions at the test center,” the accredited law school wrote Monday in a letter to the California Supreme Court.
The dean urged the California Supreme Court to allow candidates who sat through the exam and to fail to obtain a provisional license under the supervision of an experienced lawyer.
“The interim license allows candidates with offers of employment that are subject to bar passages to hold them,” the dean wrote. “It would give those who have reduced their savings the opportunity to get a loan to study for the bar exam and get the income they need to prepare for another attempt.”
The dean also urges the state to return to using multiple choice questions for the multi-stage judicial commander exam, rather than Kaplan’s questions, and note that there is not enough time to fully investigate and resolve the issues of technical and multi-choice questions.
“We understand that the first departure from the nationally used MBE was spurred by budgetary considerations caused by the need to rent a large space for test takers,” the dean wrote. “The shift didn’t solve the financial problems as alternative exams have proven to be much more costly than initially expected, but it could have made it worse while generating a lot of other people.”
If State Bar returns to the MultiState BAR exam and California essay for the July exam, the dean said they would provide campus space to agents for free.
Irwin Kemenski, dean of Berklece School, California, praised state bar staff for recommending that they return to in-person exams.
“Last week was a huge failure and going back to face-to-face makes perfect sense,” he told The Times, adding that he hopes state bars will rethink starting from national standards for their work with Kaplan. “The problem is much bigger than the class learning. The choice was to abandon the national conference of bar examiners who prepared the Kaplan test.”
Last year, when state bars announced a new agreement with a new $8.25 contract to approve test preparation company Kaplan Exam Services to create multiple choices, essays and performance test questions, they promoted the new testing system as savings of up to $3.8 million a year.
In September, the board approved up to $4.1 million for Meazure Learning to conduct the February and July 2025 exams. However, Hershkowitz noted in a Staff memo that State Bar was planning to seek additional funds from the board to run the July exam.
Hershkowitz was predicted to cost $3.9 million in July’s trials for a hybrid model with Meazure. But “actual costs can be high,” she noted. “We are expected to see an increase in the number of test takers as many applicants have offered to waive the July exam fee.”
Hershkowitz also wrote that he would switch plans five months ahead. “Applicants may have fewer choices, which results in higher costs for applicants who have to travel further from the community to take the exam.”
Michael Kaufman, dean of Santa Clara University Law School, said there is always doubt as to whether it is a wise decision for state bars to leave the national system.
“The other question is whether it actually happened,” he said. Last week’s fiasco said it could ultimately cost state bars more money than less. “I think their efforts to save money have gone through the roadside.”
Law school deans are motivated to work with the state to come up with new, fair ways to assess the capabilities of aspiring lawyers, he said.
“Now, this will never happen again, as it’s time for a productive, carefully measured conversation with decision makers, including the California Supreme Court,” Kaufman said. “And we can actually come together in collaboration with fair and reliable mechanisms to assess our community and clients’ ability to practice law in ways that are useful to the public. That’s the goal.”
Some candidates who chose to take the exam remotely did not welcome return to in-person testing.
“We can’t afford to go to California,” said Ray Hayden’s test, who was tested from Lake County, Florida. He said it would cost $1,000 to travel around the country and find accommodation for a few nights.
“All they really need to do is push it through with the remote,” he said. “Find a better provider that can actually handle the bandwidth.”
[ad_2]Source link
