esq wrote: mcmand wrote: justanotheruser wrote:
mcmand wrote:Disappointing that the Court couldn't be a leader on this.
Really surprised given that the State Bar was ready to lower the score
They were ready but still managed to be equivocal in their recommendation. I think the previous posts that looked at this as a cynical ploy to say "we looked at it and decided not to" to tamp down criticism were accurate.
I feel bad that I was part of that cynical group to be honest. Sorry all. Especially since, as some other posters pointed out, this outcome makes no logical sense.
After the CA S.Ct. made such a spectacle of the whole cut-score situation by initially stepping in and bitch-slapping the CA Bar across the face, they should have taken some sort of action against the 1440 cut. It honestly makes the court look a little inept in my view.
The Court expressed concerns about the cut score due to letter from the deans of CA law schools. I think most jdxs don't regularly review their cut score, and CA was no different. It's not a stretch of imagination for the Court to be shocked that the cut score hasn't seemed to have been reviewed once since it was set several decades ago (apparently because no one thought it was a problem until recently, according to the letter the Court just published).
That said, the letter explained why it chose not to change the score:
S.Ct of CA wrote:
Because the pass score has remained constant for three decades as overall bar exam pass rates have fluctuated, the court directed the State Bar to conduct a thorough and expedited study of the exam that would include, among other things, a meaningful analysis to determine whether protection of potential clients and the public is served by maintaining 1440 as the pass score.
On September 13, the court received the State Bar’s “Final Report on the 2017 California Bar Exam Standard Setting Study.” ... Opinions of the study were mixed: two independent psychometricians identified flaws in the study but ultimately found its process and conclusions sound, while a number of legal educators and others concluded the flaws of the study were so significant as to render it unreliable.
Based on that review and balancing all considerations, the court is not persuaded that the relevant information and data developed at this time weigh in favor of departing from the longstanding pass score of 1440.
If nothing else derived, the Court noted the mixed opinions about the one (apparently divisive) study conducted at the direction of the Court to evince the necessity of change as being unpersuasive. Additionally, the Court noted, among other things, that there are other variables that complicate the question of an accurate cut score.
The court also encourages the State Bar and all California law schools to work cooperatively together and with others in examining (1) whether student metrics, law school curricula and teaching techniques, and other factors might account for the recent decline in bar exam pass rates; (2) how such data might inform efforts to improve academic instruction for the benefit of law students preparing for licensure and practice; and (3) whether and to what extent changes implemented for the first time during administration of the July 2017 exam — that is, adoption of a two-day exam and equal weighting of the written and multiple choice portions of the exam — might bear on possible adjustment of the pass score.
I personally think the third point regarding the extent of impact the 2-day change and equal weight to the MBE is critical. If the One-Timers calculator
is to be believed, you can "auto-pass" with 50s in all essays and a 148/200 with a 1442 overall.