Here's my two cents the more I thought about it:
It may not make a difference but the whole experimental Qs on standardized tests is stupid, in the context of every exam-- LSAT, MPRE, you name it.
Every Q should count. In all honesty, why should I have to waste my brain energy on a Q that DOESN'T EVEN HELP ME if I get it right? And better yet-- like somewhat said above^^ what about the panic mode it's going to send people into when we now start seeing 25 stupid vaguely worded Qs as opposed to 10 that we were expecting.
No matter what the scaling is though- take this: NCBE can't account for someone who gets all 25 of those pretest Qs wrong and will not be hurt in their score-- but if someone gets all 25 of those pretest Qs right by luck (which could theoretically happen)- and 25 wrong that DID COUNT AND WERE NOT PRETEST- they would obviously be hurt in their score and no amount of "scaling" would adjust for that because clearly a higher raw score = higher scaled score. How is this fair? It's not...
If the NCBE wants to pre-test Qs they can easily ask currently barred attorneys to volunteer their time for CLE credits or pay them to take exams to see how many people get this Q right to determine if it's a "good future Q to use on the bar exam." I didn't sign up to be NCBE's little guinea pig because they're curious on testing out new Qs...*sigh*
It seems drastically unfair to take this gamble on people who 1) need this multiple choice exam for entry into the legal field and 2) are inevitably already nervous walking into the exam that determines whether you can practice in this field you dedicated the last 3 years of your life to.
--End Rant--