California Supreme Court Orders State Bar to Revert to National Exams After Testing Debacle

Introduction to the Debacle

The California Supreme Court on Friday lowered the passing score on the State Bar of California’s botched February exam and ordered the agency to ditch its new multiple-choice questions in July and revert to the traditional test format. “The Court remains concerned over the processes used to draft those questions, including the previously undisclosed use of artificial intelligence,” the state’s highest court said in a Friday order.

The Decision and Its Implications

In light of the particular issues encountered in February, the court lowered the total raw passing score for general bar exam takers to 534 points or higher on the essay, performance test, and multiple-choice questions. This decision comes as a response to the widespread criticism and issues faced by the exam, including technical glitches and irregularities, as well as the lack of transparency regarding the use of artificial intelligence in developing multiple-choice questions.

The Role of Artificial Intelligence

The use of artificial intelligence in developing questions has been a point of contention. Critics argue that this method lacks transparency and may introduce biases, potentially affecting the fairness and validity of the exam. The court’s order to revert to traditional methods for the July exam reflects these concerns and seeks to ensure that the examination process is fair and reliable.

Leadership Change at the State Bar

The order came just hours after the State Bar of California announced that its embattled leader, who has faced growing pressure to resign after the exam debacle, will step down in July. Leah T. Wilson, the agency’s executive director, informed the Board of Trustees she will not seek another term in the position she has held on and off since 2017. She also apologized for her role in the February bar exam chaos.

Accountability and Leadership

“Accountability is a bedrock principle for any leader,” Wilson said in a statement. “At the end of the day, I am responsible for everything that occurs within the organization. Despite our best intentions, the experiences of applicants for the February Bar Exam simply were unacceptable, and I fully recognize the frustration and stress this experience caused. While there are no words to assuage those emotions, I do sincerely apologize.”

Delay in Exam Results

The news of Wilson‘s departure came on the day that thousands of February test takers were scheduled to get their exam results. However, the results appear to have been delayed after the state bar was late filing a petition with the California Supreme Court on scoring adjustments for the exam that also responded to the court’s questions about how and why it used AI to develop multiple-choice questions.

Call for Reversion to Traditional Exam Format

Since the debacle, Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), chair of the state Senate Judiciary Committee, and many legal experts have called on the state bar to ditch the new questions and revert to the traditional test format in July — at least until new questions and methods are adequately tested. On April 25, deans at more than a dozen California’s American Bar Assn.-accredited law schools wrote to Patricia Guerrero, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, expressing “serious concerns about the exam’s fairness and validity.”

Future of the State Bar Exam

Wilson signaled that California should push ahead with its own bar exam. “As the fourth largest economy in the world, it is only right that California develops its own bar exam, and that ultimately that exam reflect the innovation, excellence, equity, and accessibility principles that are central to who we are as Californians,” she said in a statement. “We will not get there by turning backward.”

Financial and Leadership Challenges

Wilson faced additional scrutiny for her income — she earned an annual 2023 salary of $362,067, plus $59,968 in bonuses — at a time when the state bar is struggling financially. “Stagnating revenue and increasing personnel costs,” California’s state auditor said in a recent report, “have led its general fund to a deficit in four of the last five years.”

Conclusion

The California Supreme Court’s decision to lower the passing score and revert to the traditional exam format for July is a direct response to the issues faced by the February exam. The departure of Leah T. Wilson as the executive director of the State Bar of California marks a significant change in leadership, following widespread criticism of her handling of the exam debacle. As the state bar moves forward, it will be crucial to address the financial and operational challenges while ensuring the fairness, validity, and reliability of the bar exam.

FAQs

• Q: What changes did the California Supreme Court order for the July bar exam?
  • A: The court ordered the state bar to revert to the traditional test format, ditching the new multiple-choice questions developed with artificial intelligence.
• Q: Why was the passing score for the February exam lowered?
  • A: The passing score was lowered due to the issues encountered during the February exam, including technical glitches and concerns over the use of artificial intelligence in developing questions.
• Q: Who is stepping down as the executive director of the State Bar of California?
  • A: Leah T. Wilson, who has been under pressure to resign following the exam debacle, will step down in July.
• Q: What are the future plans for the state bar exam?
  • A: Despite the current reversion to the traditional format, there are plans to continue developing California’s own bar exam that reflects the state’s principles of innovation, excellence, equity, and accessibility.