gaagoots wrote: L’Étranger wrote:
Yikes. Watching this at this point seems like a horrible idea. I think my head would explode like the guy in scanners if I watched this now.
I also believe it's not necessarily a given that if your answers don't match the ones on the debrief that you failed.
Based on the way they grade, the so-called issues come from the calibration sessions. The way I read how the grading process works is, they have a meeting with 15 different sample essay books (ours). The group grades them, and then discuss the answers and assign the grades. Then they independently grade 20 more books and submit the answers for review at the 2nd calibration session. Then there is a third calibration session to make sure the graders are on the same page.
The breakdown of the Feb 2015 exam by BarSecrets is only ONE person's opinion as opposed to 8 groups of 11 discussing the answer booklets we submitted. So this is why, on the message boards some spotted; piercing the corporate veil, or Erie, or blah blah. As a group, they can see how often *we* came up with those issues and if they are fair game then assign point values to those issues. http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals ... rade_R.pdf
I don't see how "calibration" does much of anything.
I suspect that as a rule of thumb the graders quickly read an answer and award what they feel to be an average answer a 60, above average answer a 65, and below average answer a 55.
I suspect 70's and 75's are rare. A 75 on just one PT is essentially an autopass (PTs count x2), and a 70 on just one PT is a huge boost.
The CA bar likely furthers a low overall passage rate on the exam by grading the essays in a tight range of typically 55-65. If graders were truly awarding grades above 65 regularly, I believe there would be a much higher overall passage rate.