CA Bar July 2019 Subjects Leak-Email Discussion

[Pema]

I'm starting this thread for the leak/email specifically and to avoid discussing test day, missed issues, post-mortem - reserved for the July 2019 CA Bar thread.

I, others and hopefully the Bar want to know what people think about the leak and subsequent email, and how it should be handled by the Bar. Particularly, whether the exam should be graded, scaled, adjusted, curved differently. My thoughts:

The Bar should have contained the issue, conducted an investigation and controlled the damage. The Bar should not have released the subjects to everyone. They should have told everyone after the bar exam that they were investigating X schools, deans, students and faculty due to the leak to make sure there wasn't an advantage. The Bar then could address (or not) scores from those schools only if they found clear evidence that the leak was shared. Given our general duty as applicants and a dean's oath, it is doubtful one test taker received the subjects. If the Bar discovered an advantage, even if it was 10 people, that wouldn't be material compared to the hundreds or thousands who didn't or couldn't timely leverage the email release.

The original damage from the leak was speculative. The subsequent email caused actual damage.

There are "truly innocent examinees" who were not able to leverage the release of the subjects at all or who received the information later than those who were fortunate to see the email or read it on SM/news or here like me. The Bar cannot alter scores, grading, curve, for this exam because it would actually injure the truly innocent. If grading/calibration/curve remain the same then the pass rate may be slightly higher. The Bar must accept this to protect the truly innocent.

Regarding any inequity related to past and future test takers, I don't think this can be remedied. For the Bar to disregard (i.e. throw under the bus) the truly innocent who took this exam and were actually measurably damaged, just to make it appear they are being fair to past and future exam takers would be unconscionable. Each administration should be addressed in isolation. Some administrations, if you see the subjects and issues tested, IMO, are literally twice as hard as others. Is that a material inequity? Some test centers experience conditions that materially effect test takers, but there is rarely a grade adjustment for that test center. And if there is one, it isn't fair to later administrations that are effected by similar conditions and don't receive a concession. It is an arbitrary decision by the Bar, but always isolated to that administration and with no concern for past or future administrations. This issue/remedy should remain isolated to this exam.

As such, the Bar cannot alter the grading, scoring, curve for this bar. What are your thoughts?

[cavalier1138]

Has the California Bar indicated that they're contemplating changing the grading scale for this exam because of the leak?

[Pema]

Has the California Bar indicated that they're contemplating changing the grading scale for this exam because of the leak?

From the court:

"Exercising its oversight responsibilities over matters relating to bar admissions, the court will ensure that there is a thorough and independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disclosure, and that appropriate steps are taken to protect the integrity of the bar examination
and identify and address any consequences.

I read this as: ... identify any consequences of the leak, one of which is the subsequent injury the email caused to those who didn't see it, and addressing any consequences, which requires an affirmative act as opposed to another statement. The only action they can take to address the above injury is re scoring/grades/curve/calibration/scale. I think we need to anticipate an action, unless the they ignore the clear injury and make a statement that they've concluded they've identified no consequences of the leak or subsequent email, which isn't true for those who didn't see the email before the exam.

[cavalier1138]

I think your reading is (understandably) informed by paranoia. There's not even a hint of a suggestion that they're going to change the grading or punish the people who took the exam for their own mistakes.

Try to find something else to occupy your time for the next three months. If you have a job, get excited about that. If you don't have a job, work on getting one. Or read a book. Go on vacation. Literally anything but what you're trying to do in this thread.

[Pema]

I think your reading is (understandably) informed by paranoia. There's not even a hint of a suggestion that they're going to change the grading or punish the people who took the exam for their own mistakes.

Try to find something else to occupy your time for the next three months. If you have a job, get excited about that. If you don't have a job, work on getting one. Or read a book. Go on vacation. Literally anything but what you're trying to do in this thread.

What if I'd said a week ago that I'm worried the Bar will leak the subjects and I won't know about it? Now that would be paranoia. Now that the unforeseeable has happened, I don't think it is paranoia to state I believe based on the memo that they could alter the scoring. It won't be an intentional punishment. The harm is incidental. They just aren't considering that some people didn't see the email. The Bar believes they remedied the issue when the email went out. As such, they likely believe there will be a slight advantage for everyone uniformly. They will then adjust scores down a bit uniformly to insure the pass rate is comparable to other administrations. The story will die, but the results will be unfair. I don't see this as paranoia.

Instead of "Lets wait and see what they do (after they do it)," lets influence policy by using a public forum.

[cavalier1138]

lets influence policy by using a public forum.

You do you. But TLS isn't that kind of public forum (thankfully).

[yespasscbx]

What if I'd said a week ago that I'm worried the Bar will leak the subjects and I won't know about it? Now that would be paranoia. Now that the unforeseeable has happened, I don't think it is paranoia to state I believe based on the memo that they could alter the scoring. It won't be an intentional punishment. The harm is incidental. They just aren't considering that some people didn't see the email. The Bar believes they remedied the issue when the email went out. As such, they likely believe there will be a slight advantage for everyone uniformly. They will then adjust scores down a bit uniformly to insure the pass rate is comparable to other administrations. The story will die, but the results will be unfair. I don't see this as paranoia.

Instead of "Lets wait and see what they do (after they do it)," lets influence policy by using a public forum.

Did you receive the email informing you of the leak before the exam AND you still decided to take this exam (instead of withdrawing and receiving 100% refund)?
If yes, I think what you're REALLY worrying about is 'they likely believe there will be a slight advantage for everyone uniformly. They will then adjust scores down a bit uniformly to insure the pass rate is comparable to other administrations'

I don't think more than 1% exam takers in this administration stepped into the test center without any knowledge of the leak, so it's still a fair play for 99% exam takers in this administration.
And I think the possible 'adjusting scores down a bit uniformly to insure the pass rate is comparable to other administrations' is also a fair play for all past and future exam takers, because you did get an advantage - you knew what subjects to focus on in the last three days, and you did not need to rack your brains about what subject to discuss (which is always the first barrier to overcome when doing any essay question).

Of course the leak itself is crazy ... absolutely the state bar deserves the blame for that

[Pema]

What if I'd said a week ago that I'm worried the Bar will leak the subjects and I won't know about it? Now that would be paranoia. Now that the unforeseeable has happened, I don't think it is paranoia to state I believe based on the memo that they could alter the scoring. It won't be an intentional punishment. The harm is incidental. They just aren't considering that some people didn't see the email. The Bar believes they remedied the issue when the email went out. As such, they likely believe there will be a slight advantage for everyone uniformly. They will then adjust scores down a bit uniformly to insure the pass rate is comparable to other administrations. The story will die, but the results will be unfair. I don't see this as paranoia.

Instead of "Lets wait and see what they do (after they do it)," lets influence policy by using a public forum.

Did you receive the email informing you of the leak before the exam AND you still decided to take this exam (instead of withdrawing and receiving 100% refund)?
If yes, I think what you're REALLY worrying about is 'they likely believe there will be a slight advantage for everyone uniformly. They will then adjust scores down a bit uniformly to insure the pass rate is comparable to other administrations'

I don't think more than 1% exam takers in this administration stepped into the test center without any knowledge of the leak, so it's still a fair play for 99% exam takers in this administration.
And I think the possible 'adjusting scores down a bit uniformly to insure the pass rate is comparable to other administrations' is also a fair play for all past and future exam takers, because you did get an advantage - you knew what subjects to focus on in the last three days, and you did not need to rack your brains about what subject to discuss (which is always the first barrier to overcome when doing any essay question).

Of course the leak itself is crazy ... absolutely the state bar deserves the blame for that

The bar doesn't know how many saw the email the moment it was released, or who saw it a day or two later or who didn't see it, or if anyone saw it when the deans saw it. Do you think there is a distinct, gradient advantage at each level? I see it as distinct, gradient disadvantages for those who saw it later or not at all.

[Bingo_Bongo]

As somebody who was looking in from the outside, I thought everyone really overreacted to the whole thing, but it makes sense why applicants would.

You spend months and thousands of dollars preparing to take a test under certain conditions, then 48 hours before the test, everything seems like it's uprooted. A lot of prep programs recommend to stop studying and relax for the 24-48 hours going into the exam. If you were one of the people who decided to call it quits studying the few hours before that e-mail came out, I can especially see how it would be jarring. Instead of relaxing and letting all the information you've acquired soak in those last few hours, you suddenly feel the need to start cramming the five subjects that were released for fear that if you don't everyone else will have some huge advantage over you.

But, looking in from a place of comfort, what I saw was a huge overreaction. There is so much information that can be tested for each topic, 48 hours of cramming isn't going to make that huge of a difference. With 48 hours to go, everyone should have already had every rule statement they needed for all the essay topics memorized. Either you were where you needed to be the night the topics were released, or you weren't. In law school, everybody knows the topics that they're going to take a final in, yet, a nice curve always seems to naturally form.

And in hindsight, everybody seems to be saying that the bar should have just kept their mouths shut, reached out to the affected deans privately, ascertained whether or not they deceminated the information, and reminded them their ethical obligations not to. But, those same people were also screaming at the bar right after the release that they absolutely knew that kids at USC must have had access to this information giving them an unfair advantage. We now know that to be categorically false; a knee-jerk reaction kindled by the recent SAT scandal. But, you can imagine how out of an abundance of caution the bar would try to make absolutely sure there is as level a playing field as possible in case the topics did get leaked out to students a head of time. Heck, from what I saw right after the leak everyone was so sure that there was an entire class of privileged students at elite universities who had these topics for months ahead of time. It just fit the recent admissions narrative so well.

[Pema]

But, looking in from a place of comfort, what I saw was a huge overreaction. There is so much information that can be tested for each topic, 48 hours of cramming isn't going to make that huge of a difference. With 48 hours to go, everyone should have already had every rule statement they needed for all the essay topics memorized. Either you were where you needed to be the night the topics were released, or you weren't. In law school, everybody knows the topics that they're going to take a final in, yet, a nice curve always seems to naturally form.

If only the Bar were this pragmatic. Then they would say the leak and the email regardless who saw it and when made no difference. As such they wouldn't adjust the scores even if the pass rate is slightly higher. That would be the fair thing to do. Of course, the email did give some an advantage, but uniformly adjusting down for them would mean adjusting down for those who saw the email late or not at all. I suspect half the bar takers did not see it the day the email the day it was sent. If the email gave some a material advantage, the Bar must accept a slightly higher pass rate and not try to create a formula to get rid of the advantage in order to lower the pass rate. if they do, those who were the most disadvantaged by the email will be injured even further.

[Bingo_Bongo]

But, looking in from a place of comfort, what I saw was a huge overreaction. There is so much information that can be tested for each topic, 48 hours of cramming isn't going to make that huge of a difference. With 48 hours to go, everyone should have already had every rule statement they needed for all the essay topics memorized. Either you were where you needed to be the night the topics were released, or you weren't. In law school, everybody knows the topics that they're going to take a final in, yet, a nice curve always seems to naturally form.

If only the Bar were this pragmatic. Then they would say the leak and the email regardless who saw it and when made no difference. As such they wouldn't adjust the scores even if the pass rate is slightly higher. That would be the fair thing to do. Of course, the email did give some an advantage, but uniformly adjusting down for them would mean adjusting down for those who saw the email late or not at all. I suspect half the bar takers did not see it the day the email the day it was sent. If the email gave some a material advantage, the Bar must accept a slightly higher pass rate and not try to create a formula to get rid of the advantage in order to lower the pass rate. if they do, those who were the most disadvantaged by the email will be injured even further.

From everything I've read, the bar isn't doing anything different. They sent out the topics 48 hours in advance, and that was it. I don't know why you're so sure they're going to be adjusting the grading, when they've actually explicitly said they have no plans of doing that.

To be honest, I doubt the disclosure of the topics 48 hours in advance greatly improved many essays. It's not like you were given the entire summer to only focus on 5 topics, or anything like that. The pass rate is probably going to be in line with the pass rates of prior years; maybe slightly higher. I don't think you're going to be seeing a 70%+ pass rate or anything dramatic like that, though.

[Pema]

I don't know why you're so sure they're going to be adjusting the grading, when they've actually explicitly said they have no plans of doing that.

Below is the last I've seen. Have they stated explicitly they won't adjust scores?

Exercising its oversight responsibilities over matters relating to bar admissions, the court will ensure that there is a thorough and independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disclosure, and that appropriate steps are taken to protect the integrity of the bar examination and identify and address any consequences.

[Bingo_Bongo]

I don't know why you're so sure they're going to be adjusting the grading, when they've actually explicitly said they have no plans of doing that.

Below is the last I've seen. Have they stated explicitly they won't adjust scores?

Exercising its oversight responsibilities over matters relating to bar admissions, the court will ensure that there is a thorough and independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disclosure, and that appropriate steps are taken to protect the integrity of the bar examination and identify and address any consequences.

Yes, they explicitly said they have no plans of adjusting scores. The only change for this administration was that the topics were released 48 hours in advance. Per, their FAQ located here http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/docu ... -Facts.pdf:

We anticipate using the same scoring protocol and procedures as have been used in the past. In large part due to the bar exam grading process itself, we do not expect there to be an impact on bar exam results.

What you quoted from the Supreme Court is just that they're going to investigate. It's a far step away from saying that they're going to order the State Bar to modify their grading

[rcharter1978]

I don't think anyone overreacted and I don't necessarily believe the story from the California Bar.

Having said that, many of the schools on that list are small schools that aren't aba accredited. Taft law school, two Lincoln law schools and the venerated people's college of law are not sending in a lot of students to take the CBX.*

And honestly, even if you handed a list of the actual essay questions to graduates from the peoples college of law....they would still struggle to pass the exam.

The fact that a lot of the law schools on the list aren't aba approved and don't even require LSAT scores makes me suspicious....but as I said, even if students from those institutions had the actual essay questions they probably would have still struggled. And those schools aren't graduating large classes that can significantly impact the grading. Had the topics gone out to larger, aba accredited law schools, I think it would be more worrisome.

The fact that people didnt take the bar up on their BS offer of a refund three days before the exam doesn't mean anything IMO. No matter what, the situation sucked and everyone just had to deal with it.

*--hastings was on the list, but I knew people from that school taking the exam and they had no information in advance.

[Pema]

Per, their FAQ located here http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/docu ... -Facts.pdf:

We anticipate using the same scoring protocol and procedures as have been used in the past. In large part due to the bar exam grading process itself, we do not expect there to be an impact on bar exam results.

I do not understand this statement. Are they saying the existing grading process is such that a material advantage or disadvantage can't affect the results? That's troubling.

Also, if they believe the above, after the leak why didn't they say "While the subjects were inadvertently leaked to a handful of deans, in large part due to the bar exam grading process itself, we do not expect the leak to have an impact on bar exam results." "Therefore, there is no reason to email the subjects to applicants." ?

Are you saying the Bar doesn't believe the leak was material, but they believe applicants believed it was material so they emailed the subjects only for appearances knowing, based on the Bar exam grading process, there is no possible way for anything to affect the pass rate? That would be condescending, a bit diabolical and even more troubling.

[cavalier1138]

You're right. You definitely aren't paranoid or overthinking this...

[ReasonablePersonSSC]

I don't think anyone overreacted and I don't necessarily believe the story from the California Bar.

Having said that, many of the schools on that list are small schools that aren't aba accredited. Taft law school, two Lincoln law schools and the venerated people's college of law are not sending in a lot of students to take the CBX.*

And honestly, even if you handed a list of the actual essay questions to graduates from the peoples college of law....they would still struggle to pass the exam.

The fact that a lot of the law schools on the list aren't aba approved and don't even require LSAT scores makes me suspicious....but as I said, even if students from those institutions had the actual essay questions they probably would have still struggled. And those schools aren't graduating large classes that can significantly impact the grading. Had the topics gone out to larger, aba accredited law schools, I think it would be more worrisome.

The fact that people didnt take the bar up on their BS offer of a refund three days before the exam doesn't mean anything IMO. No matter what, the situation sucked and everyone just had to deal with it.

*--hastings was on the list, but I knew people from that school taking the exam and they had no information in advance.

Using July 2018, the schools that received the memo accounted for 881 enumerated examinees (less than 10 examinees from a school are not enumerated) for about 10% of the total examinees. Of these, 525 graduated ABA approved schools (Hastings, La Verne, and Western State). The numbers for 2019 aren’t yet released, but likely will be similar.

[Bingo_Bongo]

I do not understand this statement. Are they saying the existing grading process is such that a material advantage or disadvantage can't affect the results? That's troubling.

Also, if they believe the above, after the leak why didn't they say "While the subjects were inadvertently leaked to a handful of deans, in large part due to the bar exam grading process itself, we do not expect the leak to have an impact on bar exam results." "Therefore, there is no reason to email the subjects to applicants." ?

Are you saying the Bar doesn't believe the leak was material, but they believe applicants believed it was material so they emailed the subjects only for appearances knowing, based on the Bar exam grading process, there is no possible way for anything to affect the pass rate? That would be condescending, a bit diabolical and even more troubling.

E-mailing the list out to everyone was definitely the safest thing to do, and I think the right choice. At the time, the bar was dealing with a fluid situation. They received notice of the leak sometime Saturday afternoon with only a few days to go before the exam, and at that time they had no idea if the topics had been leaked beyond just the deans. They only knew that they had lost control over the information, and they needed to act quickly to mitigate the damage in the event of a worst case scenario, where students at certain schools would have gone into the bar knowing the topics, and other students wouldn't have.

Imagine the outrage if the bar wouldn't have released the topics to everyone. Everyone would still be yelling that privileged students at certain schools had received the information in advance. You would see topics on here debating, "Hey, was question x testing remedies or con law?" And you would see posts responding, "I don't know. Ask the students at School Y. They knew what the topics were going in. They probably even knew the questions." Instead, the worst case scenario now is students at certain schools received the information only a day or so before everyone else did (which, to reiterate, there is absolutely no evidence that even happened; and this is the type of thing I'm pretty sure we would have heard of by now if it did).

In terms of the leak effecting the pass rate, this is where I think applicants are overreacting. The bar essays aren't subject to a draconian curve where only so many students can pass them. If every applicant writes a competent essay, every applicant can score a 65 or higher. It's why California's passage rate jumps or falls 15% or more in proportion with the average LSAT score of the test takers. There's not some cut-off where only 50% can pass. To put it bluntly: don't be so worried about how the leak effected other people. You had 48 hours advance notice of the topics; that can really only benefit you. This is why a lot of recently bar'd attorneys are a little bitter over this. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

I get why the leak was jarring to students. As I said, you all had been extensively prepping for months to take the exam under certain conditions, and it was all uprooted at the last minute. It's also a nice scapegoat for applicants to fall back on in the event they don't pass. But, if you were doing what you were supposed to be doing, you all should have been where you needed to be when that e-mail was sent. 48 hours out, you all should have been able to write a competent essay on any topic they threw at you.

I also found it funny that instead of taking advantage of the leak -- and actually studying the topics -- a whole bunch of applicants instead spent the 48 hours before the exam on social media blasting the bar and the blaming them for their impending failure. I just went through they bar's twitter posts, and there is this same girl on every single tweet (for like the entire day after the leak) yelling at the bar for screwing her over. Looking at the time stamps, she was on there for hours instead of actually studying the topics.

And finally, just so nobody gets the wrong idea, the bar was absolutely beyond negligent here. No question about that. Whichever manager came up with the system of drafting the e-mail before the end of the exam, and putting it in an automated system to be sent on a specified time, should probably be fired (at least severely disciplined). There is absolutely no reason for that e-mail to have been drafted and Q'd up to be sent before the end of the exam. I highly doubt it was an intentional "leak". Grossly negligent, yes. Maybe even reckless. But not intentional. There are far less visible ways of leaking things than doing what happened here.

[Pema]

You're right. You definitely aren't paranoid or overthinking this...

Probably, but the statement below clearly says that the email was to create the same advantage (level the playing field). But, the Bar doesn't realize that the email did not level the playing field, it created more disparity in injury. If the Bar believes the email leveled the playing field uniformly, then they will consider adjusting scores down uniformly to account for the advantage. This would be wrong and unjust and must not be a consideration. Hopefully they get the message before they make materially decisions affecting scores. Unfortunately, their focus is on the leak and not the damaging email, which they still believe was the right thing to do.

FYI- Paranoia is believing the deans actually leaked the subjects to students before the exam. I've never believed that.


"out of an abundance of caution and fairness, and in an attempt to level the playing field should any applicants have had access to the information contained in the memo, on Saturday evening, we emailed the same information, verbatim, to all those preparing to take the examination.”

[Pema]

Imagine the outrage if the bar wouldn't have released the topics to everyone. Everyone would still be yelling that privileged students at certain schools had received the information in advance. .

I haven't seen SM posts, but I truly believe 99% of applicants do not believe the deans shared the subjects with other applicants. That would be an indictment of the profession, infrastructure and humanity in general. I haven't met one person that believed the deans would do that. That said, everyone believes it was negligent. Yes, people will yell, but again, unless you're ready to indict the entire system, it doesn't hold much weight.

[Bingo_Bongo]

If the Bar believes the email leveled the playing field uniformly, then they will consider adjusting scores down uniformly to account for the advantage. This would be wrong and unjust and must not be a consideration.

Again, there is nothing to suggest that they are considering doing that, which is why I think your post comes off as overly paranoid. In fact, everything they have released thus far has indicated that there will be no changes to anything.

I'd put your mind on something else. There's not much else to do but wait until November. Whatever happens will happen. A part of being an attorney is learning to roll with the punches and adapting.