The 2012 bar exam: a storm, a wood chipper and (maybe) a rat
Power was off for 45 minutes, raising the possibility of a partial do-over
Updated: 12:08 p.m.
Here’s one question bar prep didn’t address: When the power goes out during the afternoon session and you’re in the middle of completing an essay on your laptop, what is the appropriate response?
Answer: Keep calm and sweat. Also, be prepared for a possible repeat of part of the test.
Seeing the lights go out, watching your computer battery drain and hearing the AC sputter to a stop on a 90-plus-degree day while surrounded by hundreds of emotionally fragile would-be fellow attorneys doesn’t exactly bolster concentration. But that’s what hopeful North Carolina lawyers faced earlier this week when storm winds led to the loss of electricity at the bar exam site, the massive Jim Graham Building at the State Fairgrounds. Fred Parker, executive director of the North Carolina Board of Law Examiners, which administers the exam, said the outage lasted for about 45 minutes, and those minutes were allotted to the test takers when the power returned.
“Nobody lost time,” he said.
But some test-takers had more time than others. People whose laptop batteries lasted through the outage — as well as those sitting in sections of the building where the emergency lights came on and those writing by hand — could have continued working on their essays. But people with laptops which needed to be plugged in were idle.
James Van Camp, chairman of the N.C. Board of Law Examiners, said the situation raises a fairness issue. The question is what to do for test-takers who had less time than others, he said.
“We’re going to have to come up with a solution to make sure that there’s absolute fairness in the process,” Van Camp said.
He addressed the test group on Wednesday morning, when the second day of the exam started, to tell them the board is considering its options.
“I promised the folks that we would not have them take the whole exam again,” Van Camp said. “I got cheers for that.”
But there’s a possibility the board would require them to retake the portion of the test administered on Tuesday afternoon.
“That’s obviously an option,” Van Camp said
The board will hold a special meeting on Friday, Aug. 3 to decide.
Parker, who has been board’s executive director for 39 years, said the exam site moved to the fairgrounds from downtown several years ago. A record number of test takers (1,217) sat for this year’s bar, and Parker estimates that about 80 percent of them used laptops to answer essay questions.
The bad mojo spilled into the exam’s second day, when the loud, mechanical whir of lumber being crunched on a property near the fairgrounds permeated part of the building. And there was one unconfirmed Twitter report of a rodent being spotted inside.
Loading ...![[Print]](http://nclawyersweekly.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://nclawyersweekly.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/email_2.png)
![[RSS Feed]](http://nclawyersweekly.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/rssfeed.png)
![[Facebook]](http://nclawyersweekly.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://nclawyersweekly.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/twitter.png)
July 26th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
There’s nothing “fair” about making the examinees retake the Tuesday afternoon portion of the test, nor is there anything fair about weighting the test differently so that the Tuesday afternoon session doesn’t count as much. What if an examinee knew the Tuesday afternoon material better than other material on the exam? What if they don’t know the questions as well given on a potential re-administration of the exam? Regardless, how could it possibly be fair to force them to retake a portion again now that they’ve completed the test?
The most fair thing to have done would have been to force all examinees to close their laptops and stop handwriting until the power came back on. This wouldn’t have been completely fair, because you still could have read through the questions and planned out your answers, but it would have been the most fair approach to this problem. The real problem is that the Board of Law Examiners was completely unprepared and had no contingency plan whatsoever, so they did nothing, and those examinees who could, continued testing. Don’t punish the examinees for this – this is completely on the Board of Law Examiners.
July 26th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
There is no way it’s fair to make anyone retake a potion of the test. All our brains are already fried.
I agree that the most fair thing to have done would have been to make us all stop working (or at least close our laptops, but they did the best they could considering the strange situation. I think they need to grade as they would have and let the chips fall as they may. This, in my opinion, was a great test of how potential lawyers improvise in tough situations and make the best of it.
On a side note, there definitely was a rat. Two of my friends saw it and it ran across one of their shoes.
July 26th, 2012 at 3:12 pm
What “examinee2012″ said.
Also, thank you for ruining my husband’s and my trip to Curacao, leaving this Saturday and returning next Friday, August 3. I will now go on that trip not knowing whether or not I am actually done with the bar exam.
July 26th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
I had a conversation the day before knowing that thunderstorms were forecast and said “I wonder what will happen if the power goes out?” Don’t tell me this wasn’t foreseeable. They should’ve had a plan. This is ridiculous.
July 26th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
I remember as soon as the power went out the first time, I looked up, and hardly anyone around me had moved. Completely unfazed. That’s how determined we were to continue working. Some people were still typing, others, like myself, dimmed our computer screens to save battery life and started handwriting notes, praying that the power would come back on. It was far from ideal, but the hope was to just get through it the best we could so that we wouldn’t ever have to take it again. And now this… is absolutely absurd.
Not only would it be incredibly unfair to make the examinees retake a portion of the exam, but it would be a logistical nightmare. What about people who are moving? Traveling? Starting a new job? Or, in the more likely scenario, relying on this bar exam being over so that they can actually get a new job? It’s ridiculous to think that this can be made “fair” simply by re-administering a portion of the test. A crazy storm knocked out the power. It happens. The BLE can’t possibly control every possible variable of this exam. We all did the best we could, now just let us move on with our lives. Please.
July 26th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Having the candidates retake the exam is absurd. What about the people who flew in just to take the exam? Tell them sorry but the poor planning of the board requires them to spend more time and money coming back again? How is that fair exactly? And another thing, didn’t the candidates have to pay a fee to use their laptops on the exam? I wonder what that money went towards? Certainly not a back up plan…
July 26th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Absolute equity is illusory both during and after the test.
The Board has several –– mostly poor –– options. First, it could drop the two lowest essay scores from the afternoon session. If this is done, they must not simply consider the last two or three questions on the exam because many test-takers purposefully tackled the essays out of order. This option has the down-side of rewarding students who were not phased by the conditions. But it certainly catches the students who were affected by the outage. If overbreadth was ever justified, it is here.
Second, the Board could exclude the afternoon essay section (30%) of the overall score. This isn’t great, though our state’s exam includes 12 state-specific essays to Georgia’s four. A lighter essay count may not be the end of the world.
Third, the Board could choose to weight the essays differently. As anyone who has taken the test knows, not all questions are worth equal points. The Board would simply exercise their normal authority to decide how many points any given answer will be worth.
Finally, and probably most likely, the Board could adopt a soft criteria. Many students submitted their answers and left before the lights came back on and additional time was announced. Fortunately, the exam software keeps tabs on how long it remained open.
Though a number of students may have been frazzled, it should be remembered that these are future lawyers. They braved the SAT, LSAT, and three years of law exams. In total, nearly an hour of extra time was given, and one can bet that the vast majority of students kept wracking their brains throughout the dark hour.
No participant failed to complete and submit and answer to every question. And it is likely that no participant has requested a re-examination.
July 26th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
I agree with all the comments above. I would also like to make clear to everyone that the power went out TWICE. The first time it was for five minutes, and we were told we would have five extra minutes at the end. Then, about fifteen to twenty minutes later, it went out again….this time for forty-five minutes. And after twenty minutes of darkness, we were told, “Stay calm, you will PROBABLY get extra time at the end of the test.” Okay, well, I PROBABLY paid a ton of money to take this test, and I PROBABLY spent hours making sure my application was up to your standards (you know, because we should act like professionals), and I PROBABLY studied for ninety days. Not only should they have had set procedures for an emergency, but it is inexcusable that AFTER THE FIRST TIME THE POWER WENT OUT, there was absolutely no plan in place in case it happened again. When we were told that we would have five extra minutes, it should have been followed with “and if the power goes out again, everyone place your tests face down and turn your chairs away from your desk.” Problem solved. This should have been thought about way before the day of the test. Paid all that money and jump through all the hoops just to sit in the dark, in a warehouse, with rats, getting splinters from the crappy table, listening to a wood chipper. What a joke. I’m embarrassed for them. Take it again? Sure! Wanna poke me in the eye when you hand out the exam.
July 26th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
I agree with what everyone has said up until this point. There is no way that making us retake a portion of the exam will make up for any \unfairness\ that was caused by a power outage. Yes, the power went out. Yes, it was loud. And, yes, it was dark. HOWEVER – just as people have said before me — EVERYONE around me was unfazed. Completely unfazed. We kept working, the proctors kept proctoring, and we were given the time \lost\ during the 45 minutes.
The point is, people have planned SO much on the contingency that they find out whether or not they passed the exam in September. We took the situation as it came, and we performed the best as we could.
To the BLE: You want to make this situation fair? You already did by giving us the extra time. Plus, Mr. Van Camp lead us to believe that we wouldn’t have to retake ANY portion of the test – that’s what lead to the round of applause… Just chalk this up as an unforeseen circumstance and MOVE ON.
July 26th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
I sat in the veeeery back of the livestock barn, at the last table facing my table mate and the middle of a 20 foot tall metal corrugated door. The rain/hail combo on the door the first day was bad enough, but the wood chopper the next day was deafening, even with earplugs in. It was so loud, it was making the door vibrate, which you could feel at our tables. We asked a proctor to go outside and figure it out, but he came back and said there was nothing to do about it. How is it possible that the Bar paid to use this facility and allowed a WOOD CHIPPER to operate outside for an entire three hours of the exam?! The entire two days was so much more miserable than it needed to be.
July 26th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
In response to raleigh’s option of excluding the two lowest essays from the afternoon. . . . would that be fair, or should it be the two lowest period. If someone had four perfect 10s, and two 9s in the afternoon, because they just happened to know the subject matter better, would it make sense to drop the two 9s, if they had four 7s and two 5s in the morning? Doesn’t seem like that would be fair to anyone, and could be very unfair to some. Terrible idea.
July 26th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
The idea of an afternoon retest is as stupid as anthrax being released by a tornado from a carefully constructed and guarded facility in a midwest city. At any rate, at least this gives them a new PR question for February.
July 26th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Are you kidding? No generators set up? These are people not livestock. Many of these law students had to travel and pay for a room, food and exam. Did the Board of Law Examiners fulfill their duties? Is this something North Carolina can feel proud about? I now understand my student’s frustration especially after all these years and expense spent for their law education and Bar exam studies.
It was interesting to see the other comments and also learn that Georgia only requires 4 state-specific essays.
July 26th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
It’s just ridiculous that the Board of Law Examiners was unprepared for the contingency of a power outage, especially when the Triangle had several days of strong storms before the test was administered. And, the fact that 80% of 1,200 students were registered to use laptops should have prompted a contingency plan even in the absence of stormy weather. This is the Board’s fault through-and-through, and the students should not be punished for that. What’s more is that Wednesday morning we were led to believe that we wouldn’t have to retake the test at all, not that there was a possibility of retaking the afternoon portion.
July 26th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Giving everyone 45 extra minutes was certainly not fair. Some handwriters couldn’t see in the dark and most computer users were able to keep working. Giving the cpu users 45 extra minutes was also very unfair to the other computer users who were actually able to finish in 3 hours. Quite a few finished during the blackout and left before the extra time was announced. Some people near me had some major problems as their computers shut down after their batteries died. I was rushed to review my material before mine died and I unfortunately finished just before the lights came back on and the extra time was announced, but it was too late for me. It was bad enough not having generators on hand for a foreseeable event such as a blackout. The Board owed it to all of us to ensure a fair administration of the test and giving everyone 45 extra minutes was not fair at all. As others have said, after the first blackout they should have told everyone to put everything down when the 2nd blackout occurred. That would have been the only fair thing to do.
July 26th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
They should score the exams as normal, scale the scores. Then add a post scaled point(s) to everyone’s score. That way, more people will pass, but no one will fail because of the power. -And yes- I’m extremely biased to make this argument
July 26th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Why is it taking the examiners a whole week to meet? We are putting our lives on hold while they can’t drop theirs to meet any sooner on this issue.
When and where are they going to hold a rescheduled exam? Will they schedule it on someone’s wedding day who specifically planned the wedding for after the bar?
California had an earthquake one year during the bar. Did it not occur to the examiners that there are thunderstorms in NC in late July?
July 26th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
The Doomsday Preppers on NatGeo sure know where to get generators. One tends to believe an organization charging examinees a base of $400 (repeaters), $700 (1st time examinees), and $1,500 (licensed elsewhere) would be able to spring for a rented Caterpillar XQ1250 (1250kW/480V) generator to shepherd our poor souls through the storm. I’m pretty sure I saw at least two such machines at construction sites on the drive to Raleigh. You know, NC recenty gave CAT $9mm+ in tax incentives for the Sanford facility. Maybe they could have lent one to the NCBLE?
It was so musty and miserable in that barn during the outage that I was reminded of a jailhouse–much less our not being allowed to get up from our seats and use the restroom.
I am fairly certain the examinees just want to know whether they passed based on their efforts on Tuesday and Wednesday. I can’t over-emphasize that people’s FUTURES are on hold due to the fluidness of this situation. My wife and I want to have a baby and I am not comfortable moving forward with planning our family until I’ve received my results.
I sincerely hope the Board is not toying with retesting us, in whole or in part, after the Chairman told us they wouln’t. At minimum, it’d cost me an additional $500 to travel, eat, and stay in Raleigh. That’s before I even begin to assess OPPORTUNITY COSTS such as missing or declining work and having to forbear other plans while studying again. The Board’s opportunity for true fairness in this matter lapsed during that first 7 minute outage.
July 26th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Let’s think about what will happen if they even SUGGEST that we retake Tuesday afternoon… Consider how many people have planned their careers based on getting results back in September… Think about all of the people who – even if they wanted to – might not be able to come to a re-test day… Too many unknown variables to make any sort of plan fair – just consider the chips as they fell, NBLE. I beg of you. WE beg of you!!!!
July 26th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Also please consider that some of us had stronger essays in the afternoon in spite of the outage. Canceling those scores or giving them less weight could seriously disadvantage us. Grade the exams. Give the people who failed the option to retake 6 essays.
July 26th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
The best option is simply to do nothing and grade the exams as-is.
Any decision to require a re-examination in any form will undoubtedly trigger the filing of lawsuits, namely because any taker that has accepted employment contingent upon passing the exam will likely lose said employment due to the delay in time that any re-examination would require.
Although an imperfect remedy, a remedy was provided for the power outage in the form of additional time given to all applicants. Any inequity that this remedy created in favor of laptop users relative to handwriters is minimal, and doesn’t come close to rivaling the inequity and impracticability of re-examination in any form.
The bar examiners seriously dropped the ball in this situation, and every effort needs to be made to ensure that the applicants do not suffer as a result of the board’s unpreparedness and inability to perform its sole function. The State Supreme Court should also intervene to ensure that the board is held to the standards required of the role over which it has been entrusted so that this debacle never happens again.
Undoubtedly, the board will cast the events surrounding this bar exam as unforeseeable events that could not have been prevented. Make no mistake, this position is a lie. There is no question that the board breached responsibilities owed to the applicants in numerous respects, and it should not be permitted to suggest otherwise.
Finally, and most importantly, Van Camp’s quote within this article that he “promised the folks that we would not have them take the whole exam again,” is not an accurate expression of the oral statement he made before the bar applicants. Van Camp never qualified the word “exam” with the word “whole” when his oral statement was made. His oral statement instead conveyed that the applicants would not be required to take the exam again at all, and he in no way qualified that statement with any language suggesting the potential for a portion of the exam to be retaken. Van Camp’s statement within the lawyer’s weekly article is incredibly troubling, because it suggests that after making his oral statement to the applicants, he realized that his guarantee may not be honored, and changed the language of his statement when he made it to the press. Again, make no mistake, this article contains a seriously misleading and material inaccuracy regarding Van Camp’s statement to the applicants, and should be further investigated by the staff of lawyer’s weekly, the local media, and the state bar.
July 26th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
It is time for the State Bar to take a serious look at the Board of Law Examiners and their leadership. This week’s events and the Board’s inefficient handling of them were not only completely unacceptable, but sadly, not out of the ordinary.
I heard many examinees joke/wonder about the possibility of a power outage Tuesday morning, and yet Fred Parker, with his 39 years of experience, and the Board appeared completely caught off guard. The proctors were not on the same page, as they were giving inconsistent instructions to their sections. Some briefly told their sections to stop writing, while others told their section that they would “probably” get more time. While the storm that caused the power outage was beyond the Board’s control, making sure the proctors are on the same page was not. This was not limited to the storm either, as at least one proctor told their section to take their computers out of the test building during lunch. These inefficiencies are simply inexcusable.
The rodent(s) (whether a mouse, a rat, or some combination of the two) running around the test building was sadly too true. It is unreasonable to subject examinees to these conditions during a professional licensing exam and could pose health risks as well. However, these conditions were sadly not unusual. In February, the handwriters were in the Dorton Arena and had birds fighting overhead during the exam.
Lawyers Weekly would do the public a great service by taking a close look at the grading of recent exams as well, including the sample answers to recent exams released by the Board, which received a score of 10. Last July’s civil procedure question tested the setting aside of an entry of default, and yet the released sample answers, chosen by its grader and approved by Fred Parker, discussed default judgments instead. One of the released answers even stated that a defendant had 60 days to answer a complaint, despite no extension of time being mentioned in the question, and completely failed to discuss good cause. If the graders do not understand simple civil procedure concepts, how can they protect the public by making sure the examinees are minimally competent?
Let’s also keep in mind that this week’s mishaps follow on the heels of the Board sneaking by a four point increase in the passing score, only two weeks before the February 2012 exam. There was never any formal announcement by the Board, instead they simply updated their website and put the new score on the examinees’ admission tickets, while not indicating it had increased. At this point it will surprise no one that even though they took the time to update the score on the web page, they completely failed to update that same exact page with the new location of the February exam, which had moved from the Exhibition Center to the Kerr Scott Building.
I appreciate the difficult position the Board now finds themselves in, as any course of action at this point is likely to adversely affect someone. However, this difficult position is of their own doing. The fairest thing to do would be to grade the exams normally and notify those that did not pass that they may opt to retake a new six essay exam to replace the scores Tuesday afternoon’s essays. Regardless, the State Bar needs to hold the NC Board of Law Examiners and their leadership fully responsible for their consistently poor execution of the NC Bar Exam.
July 26th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
I agree with comment 8 above as well as the others. The only “fair” thing to do was ask all applicants to stop working until the power came back on. The Examiners chose not to do that so at that point the only thing to do was give everyone additional time, which they did. Therefore, at this point the only fair thing to do is grade the exam as is. How many people were actually prejudiced by the time issue? When I left the exam just before the 15 minute warning, the majority of test takers had already left. How fair is it to ask all applicants to retake a portion of the exam for possible time constraints that had little actual impact. Everyone received the minimum amount of time for that portion of the exam. Therefore, it should be graded as is.
I could not hear any portion of the announcement (due to a terrible sound system) but was reassured by a proctor that no one would be asked to retake ANY portion of the exam again. I am very frustrated to find out today that this option is under consideration. I hope that the Examiners plan to notify all the applicants of their decision in a timely manner rather than leaving us to search the web for information regarding their decision.
All together, the bar applicants spent over 1.2 million dollars (depending on how many were licensed elsewhere and paid an additional fee), and deserved better than the poor test administration they received. A terrible sound system, poor temperature regulation and inadequate restroom facilities were among the problems. Additionally, applicants were asked to arrive at 7:15 but the doors remained locked until 7:45. I hope that the Examiners use this as a learning experience but regardless they need to remember that 1,217 lives hang in the balance pending the outcome of the exam. Personally, my job is on the line and I know I am not alone.
July 26th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
The Board’s lack of a contingency plan in the event of a power outage and their failure to take proper action when it occurred (by stopping the exam until the power came back) is completely unacceptable. A power outage was foreseeable and the Board is responsible for any resulting “unfairness” of the testing conditions, not the applicants. The Board is the one that should deal with their mistakes, not us. The suggestion that we should be responsible for the Board’s ineptitude is infuriating.
There are several options available apart from re-administering the afternoon essay session for all applicants. The Board could allow only those applicants who want to re-take the afternoon exam to do so. Every other exam should then be graded equally. Second, the afternoon essay could be completely disregarded and the weighting for the morning session could be increased. Finally, the Board could increase the percentage weight of the MBE scores. There were no issues with fairness the second day and by increases how much the MBE is worth is a way of evening the playing field for all applicants. Any of these options alone or in combination would at least address the fairness issues without the need retesting all the applicants.
One final note: the Board should also issue an APOLOGY first and foremost. I know it may seem like a foreign concept to an organization so saturated with self importance, but it is appropriate to apologize when your mistakes adversely impact others (in this case 1,200 people). Publishing a flippant remark suggesting all applicants may have to retake the afternoon portion of the essay exam is exactly what you should not do. Especially after you already told the applicants they would not have to retake the exam. Such an announcement should only be communicated once an official decision has been reached. Why create more stress for the applicants than necessary?
July 26th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
He ran across my feet!! There was no maybe about it…and yes, i did flip out just a bit LOL
July 26th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Either I’m the so-called “unconfirmed” Tweet on the rat (https://twitter.com/MrsScribe/status/228162309179195393), or this is your culprit (https://twitter.com/kwthomp/status/228339893212950529). Yes, there was a rat. And YES, there will be a class-action lawsuit 1,200+ strong if the Bar Examiners screw these poor candidates!
July 26th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
I agree with comment 8 above as well as the others. The only “fair” thing to do was ask all applicants to stop working until the power came back on. The Examiners chose not to do that so at that point the only thing to do was give everyone additional time, which they did. Therefore, at this point the only fair thing to do is grade the exam as is. How many people were actually prejudiced by the time issue? When I left the exam just before the 15 minute warning, the majority of test takers had already left. How fair is it to ask all applicants to retake a portion of the exam for possible time constraints that had little actual impact. Everyone received the minimum amount of time for that portion of the exam. Therefore, it should be graded as is.
I could not hear any portion of the announcement (due to a terrible sound system) but was reassured by a proctor that no one would be asked to retake ANY portion of the exam again. I am very frustrated to find out today that this option is under consideration. I hope that the Examiners plan to notify all the applicants of their decision in a timely manner rather than leaving us to search the web for information regarding their decision.
All together, the bar applicants spent over 1.2 million dollars (depending on how many were licensed elsewhere and paid an additional fee), and deserved better than the poor test administration they received. A terrible sound system, poor temperature regulation and inadequate restroom facilities were among the problems. Additionally, applicants were asked to arrive at 7:15 but the doors remained locked until 7:45. I hope that the Examiners use this as a learning experience but regardless they need to remember that 1,217 lives hang in the balance pending the outcome of the exam. Personally, my job is on the line and I know I am not alone.
July 26th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Pretty sure I heard we weren’t retaking it in his speech, but the audio in there was so terrible who could tell.
Not counting the afternoon section would be ridiculous, at least in part because that was the easier half (or at least I knew more of the subject material). I was completing these questions in far under 30 minutes and was out of there before the end of our normal 3 hours.
Was I the only one who waited after both power outages for them to tell us to close our test booklets and laptops until the power came back on? Seems they just shrugged their shoulders both times and everyone kept typing/writing. I’ll be pretty frustrated if I have to retake this section (or not get half the essays graded) because we were stuck in a giant metal barn without any form of basic contingency plan in case a problem arose.
Only sort of related, but there was the rat, the wood chipper, the constant train horn, the terrible bathrooms, but did anyone else keep finding new paint particles from the ceiling every few hours?
July 26th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
I agree with you all wholeheartedly. I think it’s great that we’re talking about it and able to articulate several excellent reasons why we should not have to take the afternoon portion of the exam again.
I am only commenting to suggest that we each send an email, a letter, or a phone call to the Board of Law Examiners directly so there is no way they could not at least be aware of all these concerns. Who knows if they’ll read this chain of comments? Let’s let them know directly!
July 26th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
No retake, drop the lowest 2 scores and let’s move on…I was there, my laptop died immediately as the power went out the first time then IT found the part of my essays that weren’t lost and had to reboot. I then procced to type again and boom the power goes out and it took 30 minutes for them to find me a writing packet. I then finish writing the last 2 essays. Now the rest of the typers around me weren’t fazed and continued typing throughout the power outage and also through the time extension. Now give a law student twice the amount of time to concont an answer and somehow, someway they will garner enough junk points to beat my handwritten essay accomplished in near complete darkness. As far as the comment that no one lost time, that is not correct and any extension given those of us who did not type during the outage was severely impacted by the mind numbing actions or inaction of the proctors….redo? I think not.
July 26th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Does this qualify as negligent infliction of emotional distress?
I can’t believe that the Board is even thinking of making us retake the afternoon portion. The power outage was less shocking than how poorly overall the test was administered. For example, the NCBLE decided to utilize a single pair of loudspeakers in the middle of a room the size of a football field to make announcements and give directions. I would say that none of the 100+ test-takers in my section could hear what was going on. We studied for months, really years, for two days in July, while it appeared the Board spent about two days thinking about how to administer the test. It was a sad display of the slight regard that the Board apparently has for future colleagues. They could have simply made us wait out the power outage if they were worried about fairness, but instead WE WERE PROVIDED NO GUIDANCE AT ALL. The notice of the extra time was announced after the lights came back on. DID NO ONE EVER THINK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE EVENT OF A POWER OUTAGE?!
If the Board decides to re-administer the test, then it needs to provide significant reimbursements to students who will have to travel back to Raleigh, secure hotel rooms, miss work, etc.
Plus, is it fair that students who have jobs starting in August will now be expected to divide our time between preparing for a second test, while others will be able to devote full days to continue studying? If there were problems on both days, then is it fair to simply retest the essays? Shouldn’t the students disturbed during the MBE be entitled to a retest?
THE ONLY FAIR THING TO DO–if anything change is to be done at all–is to lower the passing score by x number of points to account for the incompetency in the administration of this test. After which, the Board (or perhaps the state) needs to seriously revisit its plans for future tests, starting with who will be in charge.
PS–There are some great comments on here from fellow test takers, but NCBar12′s comment about next year’s PR question was priceless.
July 26th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
The most fair solution is to lower the passing score by a couple of points. It’s across the board, and equitable.
I cannot imagine the logistical nightmare of requiring applicants to retake the exam. There are likely a number of people who would not be able to make it to a re-test day. This is why the bar exam dates are planned so far in advance. And how could they even factor in how most people study for this exam? Many people spend the two months prior in complete study mode. How do they even begin to account for that in choosing a rescheduling date?
Additionally, the lack of communication from the examiners is mind-boggling.
Just lower the pass score!
July 26th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
The NCBLE should just punt this to the NC Supreme Court, it is going to end up there anyway. Inevitably, there will be someone who failed because of the afternoon session. Not being a lawyer, they will look to someone who did pass, and file a suit against the NCBLE. And it probably isn’t a bad thing at that.
Everybody was trying to cope with a bad situation, maybe some mistakes were made, but in the end it will probably work out fairly.
July 26th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Everyone took the same test under the same conditions. It was the multistate section, so losing your place isn’t really an issue. They all got the same extra time. To go back and retake even portions of the exam WILL cause disparities. Don’t make a bad situation worse by trying to ix it. It is as air as it is going to get just as it is.
July 26th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
I know a lot has been said for the people who had laptops, but it should also be stated that the writers had a difficult situation. Unlike the people with laptops, writers had no light to see the questions. I myself had my face about an inch from the page trying to see what was written. There were writers who were older our seated further in the building who could not see the page at all so they had to stop while others kept working. This was a timed exam and while giving extra time was a small help, to compare an essay written in 30 minutes to one written in an hour is not right. Writers do not have the option of deleting and rewriting as we were only given three pages a question. It’s true the obvious thing to have done would have been to have everyone stop working till the power came back on… hind sight being what it is, they can only move forward. We were told Wednesday that we would not have to re take ANY part of the exam. To that a viable option is completely ridiculous. NCBLE, please just curve the essays to account for the mishap and have a plan for next year.
July 26th, 2012 at 11:32 pm
If the issue is \fairness,\ we all know what the fair or equitable answer is – no retake. Without reiterating comments above, we all know that there is no \fairness\ in requiring us to take this again. The power outage should simply be taken into account with regard to scoring. The inequities of a retake are equal to or beyond those of letting this go. It happened and we all kept going. Moreover, we were in fact told that we would not have to retake any portion of this test. If that was not the case, then that statement should not have been made. Finally, this was not the fault of anyone taking this test or anyone administering this test. We all know this. The issue is how do we deal with it. We all know that the answer is not to retake the test.
July 26th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Jean: In their defense, there actually were generators. After the lights went out the first time the backup generators came on and lit up a few emergency lights in the very back of quadrant 4 (where I was sitting). But when the lights went out the second time, it knocked out the generators as well.
For the record, I fully agree that the only way to make it “fair” is to retest us. I also fully agree that that is an absolutely absurd and impractical suggestion. I’m kind of oddly excited to figure out what they’re going to do.
Also, I’m glad to finally know what that noise was on Wednesday – at first I thought it was more thunder.
July 27th, 2012 at 12:27 am
It wasn’t a rat, it was a cute, tiny little field mouse. He scurried right under my table. It was a welcome sight and made me feel a little better about the day.
July 27th, 2012 at 1:37 am
Who takes the bar with a battery containing less than an hour of juice?
July 27th, 2012 at 7:41 am
I am so tired of hearing how terrible it was for the laptop users. I was handwriting the exam and when the power went out, first for 7 minutes, and then for 45 minutes, I had to sit in darkness and could not do anything while the laptop users kept typing away. The light from their computers allowed them to read the questions and continue to outline on their scratch paper. And they’d had their laptops plugged in all day; I’m sure the majority of them had plenty of battery. When they told us we would have extra time, that was helpful but still not fair, considering the laptop users (for the most part) were able to work for the entire blackout, while all the handwriters sitting closer to the center of the building could do absolutely no work on our essays. Test takers sitting near the edges of the building may have had enough light from the skylights to read the questions or continue to write, but most of us had to sit in complete darkness and could not do a damn thing during the 52 minutes when the power was out.
July 27th, 2012 at 8:52 am
I was one of the sad saps whose computer konked out after ten minutes of lack of power. Silly me, I didn’t even consider the possibility that there wouldn’t be back-up power!
Anyway, I think I am probably among the most disadvantaged here regarding the fairness of the exam, and I will be sending an email to the NCBLE to beg and plead them not to consider a retest for my sake and the sake of others in my situation.
The unfairness of the whole process is mitigated by the way the exam is scored. If you get 350 points, you’re in. Even for folks whose computers died, we had LOTS of time to mine for points in those afternoon essays. The unfairness is that I wasn’t as advantaged as others were because I couldn’t go back to the computer-written essays to mine for points. If I failed to get the requisite amount of points, it is clearly my fault for not knowing the information.
July 27th, 2012 at 9:53 am
There’s no way an optional or mandatory retake of th PM essays could be similar to the conditions on Tuesday. Could one prepare for that event by studying those 6 subjects or by simply excluding the 6 tested in the AM session? How would the applicants stamina be strained to account for the stress of the morning session and the time consuming and laborious check-in process? Impossible. Score it as is and let us move forward with out lives the
July 27th, 2012 at 10:44 am
Requiring a retest is the least fair and the most cowardly approach the Board of Law Examiners could take. This time, let the chips fall where they may. Next time, be better prepared. For those who don’t pass based on their scores from the Tuesday afternoon session, let them take the exam again in February at the expense of the Board of Law Examiners.
July 27th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
It is what it is. It is impossible now to make the actual conditions fair. I can only think of 2 possible ways to fix: 1) lower the passing score a bit and just allow a higher passing percentage than they had originally wanted. It won’t hurt anyone too much. Jobs are already hard to come by….2) everyone who passed passes, everyone who didn’t gets to retake 2nd set of essays with the same subjects but different questions and if any extra points would’ve have allowed them to pass, they then pass. If they still can’t pass, do it in february. There’s nothing else to do that won’t hurt someone I’d say.
July 27th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
When I took the California Bar back in 1978, we were told that even if we were typing (times change) that we should be prepared to write in case the power went out. What, in anything, are people who are “typing” told to do in the even tthat their electronic devise stops functioning? If they were given instructions, those instructions should serve as guidelines as to what theoutcome should be. If they were given no such instructions, obviosuly the bar examiners need to re0write the rules. Back when I took the exam in California in 1978, electricity failed in one room. Some of the test takers went crazy and tried to unplug the typewriters of those who still had power. Rumor had it that one person tried to commit suicide, but I think that was untrue. In my opinion, while unfortunate, the test takers should have been prepared for these contingencies. No retest but perhaps a bit of understanding.
July 27th, 2012 at 6:26 pm
I share the general sentiment that the Board’s absolute failure to plan for and react to such a basic contingency as a power failure is fairly shocking. I don’t see how anyone can dispute that the obviously correct course of action would have been to order everyone to stop working immediately. The extension of time created an unfair situation that will be very difficult to remedy. I think the only option that includes retesting should be that candidates failing the exam by less than 150 points (i.e. six essays) should be permitted to retake the test free of charge. That, too, is a very imperfect remedy for a severely bungled administration, and I don’t know if it’s a legally viable one.
I have also wondered how deeply the failure of administration goes. For example, the Examiners provided power outlets for all laptops. This was achieved by dropping electrical cords from the ceiling, and then running unsecured extension cords along the floor. There were several areas of the facility where there was no clear path to the exit. Do the Examiners have a survival plan in the event of a fire or other emergency requiring evacuation? Are proctors trained for that? If the Bar examiners haven’t even thought about planning for things as elementary as a power failure, have they devoted any thought to the safety of examinees?
July 27th, 2012 at 11:16 pm
The board is corrupt. The grading is bias and backwards — i.e. Feb 2012 had a 46% pass rate. What the freak? They say, we have to fix the numbers because the practice will get over saturated and the emergence of Charlotte School of law and other for profit schools. I’m happy this happen. Finally, it will shed light on the MESS the board has been getting away with in failing law students with strong essays.
In terms of solutions — the only thing they can do that makes sense is drop the lowest score and grade the afternoon session more leniently. Anything else will cause too many logistical issues.
July 30th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
I agree with most of the comments above. I suggest that any person who fails can either retake 6 essays throwing out their lowest 6 out of 12 essays or they should have the option to take the Feb. 2013 exam for FREE. Whatever fits that persons schedule.
August 1st, 2012 at 2:12 pm
RECENT PRESS RECENT ON THE EXAM:
August 1, 2012 – Press Release
All 12 essay questions will be graded. The exam will then be scored two ways:
1. All applicants’ scores for the MBE and all 12 essay questions will be scaled in the manner used to generate scores in prior years.
2. All applicants’ scores for the MBE and the 6 questions for the morning session will be scaled in the manner used to generate scores in prior years.
All applicants who receive a passing score under either method will have passed the Bar Exam.