The bar-takers speak: No do-over of the exam

When it comes to taking the bar exam – or even just part of it — once is enough, thanks.

So say respondents to our online poll regarding how the North Carolina Board of Law Examiners should address a power outage during Tuesday afternoon’s exam. Drained laptop batteries and darkness stopped some test-takers while others kept working. Administrators allotted make-up time, but the end result was that some examinees had more time for the section than others.

James Van Camp, chairman of the N.C. Board of Law Examiners, said Thursday that a re-do of that section is among the options the board will consider to ensure fairness to all applicants.

If the comments on the NC Lawyers Weekly website are any indication, that possibility was unwelcome for many who left the Jim Graham Building at the State Fairgrounds on Wednesday afternoon with a reasonable belief that they had cleared the last hurdle between them and a law license.

Of the more than 1,000 votes cast in an online poll, only about 10 percent went to “Require every tester to retake the Tuesday afternoon section.” The most popular of the options suggested was “Have graders factor the circumstances into their essay evaluations,” with 40 percent of the vote. “Let the test results stand as-is” and “Give examinees an option of a retest of the Thursday afternoon section” were equally popular, getting 26 and 25 percent of the votes respectively.

Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, said that law exam boards in other jurisdictions have employed the optional retest when faced with other calamities in the past.

“There is no shortage of disasters, large and small, that occur during licensing examinations,” She said. Heat systems have failed in cold climates. Earthquakes have shaken exam sites in California. Test-takers have suffered medical emergencies during the test.

She commended the North Carolina board for its careful consideration of the problem. Van Camp said the board is scheduled to hold an emergency meeting on the issue on Friday, Aug. 3. Lawyers Weekly could not connect with him Friday for a comment.

“What the bar examiners try to do is come up with a rationale that supports consumer interests in not licensing people who are unqualified, while considering the interests of candidates who want to be evaluated fairly, but in all cases, would like to pass,” Moeser said.

She added that assurances of prudent decision-making may be cold comfort for testers.

“If you are the person who just put your body and soul into the bar examination, the last thing you want is to wait and hear what will happen next,” Moeser said. “I think a high quality decision is more important than a quick decision in a case like this.”

By Amber Nimocks
Published: July 27, 2012
Time posted: 3:54 pm
Tags: Bar Exam

POST A COMMENT

5 Responses to “The bar-takers speak: No do-over of the exam”

furious Says:
July 27th, 2012 at 8:45 pm

There is NO excuse for the lack of preparation and planning in the event of a power outage, or any other large scale emergency for that matter. If there had been a fire alarm combined with a power outage? That place would have been a death trap. It was pitch dark and there were computer power cords and extension cords running all over the floor. Shame on the Board for not anticipating any interruption. Furthermore, it doesn’t take half an ounce of sensibility to direct applicants to cease typing and writing during a major interruption such as this. That should be basic and should have been stated. Instead of telling us how to fill in a dot and write our number on the paper, they should have said “in the event of an interruption, put your pencil down or take your hands off your lap top”. Common sense people. The applicants should not be punished for the lack of planning by this board.

2012 Test Taker Says:
July 30th, 2012 at 9:07 am

How about simply lowering the acceptable passing score? If it is not fair that some students received “extra” time in July 2012, is it fair that this year’s test takers are held to the same standard test takers in past years? A uniform passing score of 350 makes sense when students are tested in uniform conditions. However, every student taking this year’s Bar faced extraordinary conditions. Instead of punishing students who were simply doing as they were told under less than ideal conditions, how about rewarding us all for finishing.

When California had a similar interruption a couple of years ago, it gave all test takers an automatic 50 points toward their overall score.

I am curious about one thing. If the NCBLE makes a retake optional, is it going to test on the same subjects? The afternoon exam, which was when the power outage occurred, included such essay main stays as Con Law, Crim, and Wills. Would the examiners repeat these same subjects, and, if so, would that be fair to those who will not or cannot retake the exam? It seems like a huge advantage to know, or have a heck of a chance, that the same afternoon subjects will be tested.

Disgruntled Bar Applicant Says:
July 30th, 2012 at 1:19 pm

All comments posted thus far are extremely poignant and point to a number of issues ripe for discussion by the NC Board of Law Examiners. Just to add insult to injury during the entire joke of an examination session we all went through on that fateful Tuesday, many proctors gave incorrect instructions during the examination as well, causing a number of applicants to follow incorrect procedures. Almost all of these examinees were detrimentally affected by these misguided instructions, causing them to forfeit their back ups of the test. Those applicants, had Softest malfunctioned in sending in their exams, will essentially forfeit their exam because the proctors were not properly informed by the Board. If we, as applicants, are to be held to such high standards, shouldn’t the Board that is supposed to be evaluating us be held to an even higher standard? I, for one, am extremely disappointed in the entire process and hope that the Board thinks long and hard about this upcoming decision. Let’s not forget…all applicants attended law school and are more than capable of representing themselves if necessary.

Disgruntled Bar Applicant Says:
July 30th, 2012 at 1:21 pm

And one more comment. Who pays for a hotel and food and the missed work time if we are required to re-take? I certainly doubt the Board will…

Taker2012 Says:
July 30th, 2012 at 1:23 pm

People that took more time finishing the exam most likely just flushed it out with a bunch of junk, anyway, which isn’t rewarded when scoring. As a laptop user, I finished before the extra time began, but I would have no qualms about the examiners grading the handwriters a bit more leniently. It’s an unspoken fact in jurisdictions like SC that it happens that way, because only a small percentage of takers are allowed laptops, determined by a lottery. However, it wouldn’t really be fair in this situation because a significant number of handwriters were under emergency lighting, unlike computer users who had to hold their prompts up in the dim light of a computer operating on power restrictions. So there is no “fair” answer to this situation, and the Board should be prepared for a barrage of appeals and complaints, regardless of their decision. It is certainly unfair to offer an “optional” retake when people travelled from far and wide to make it to the first round, and would be unable to return because of cost and time restrictions. Is the Board going to offer a stipend because of THEIR lack of planning? As an aside, the Board should waive any reapplication fees for those that fail and that were affected by this.

Most Important Opinions

Tort/Negligence – STCA – Schools & School Boards – Bus/Van Collision – Right of Way – Bus Driver’s Lookout (access required)

Bartlett v. Wayne County Board of Education Plaintiffs contend that the majority of eyewitnesses in this case testified that the responding officer’s diagram depicting the accident scene was accurate, that the diagram demonstrates plaintiffs’ “van had to have been almost directly in front of the bus at the time [the bus driver] started her turn,” and that this evidence conclusively established that the bus driver failed to yield the right-of-way to plaintiffs’ van.

Taxation – State Income — U.S. Treasury Bonds – Market Discount Income – First Impression — Interest (access required)

Fidelity Bank v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Even though the N.C. Revenue Act uses the Internal Revenue Code to determine state net income, and even though the Code treats “market discount income” on U.S. Treasury bonds as interest for purposes of the Code, under the N.C. Revenue Act market discount income on U.S. Treasury bonds is treated as income rather than interest.

Contract – Forum Selection Clause – Arbitration – Labor & Employment (access required)

Apex Tool Group, LLC v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Neither plaintiff nor the individual defendants are Texas residents; nevertheless, each of the individual defendants’ employment agreements includes an unambiguous and mandatory forum selection clause, which says any lawsuit involving the agreement must be brought in Harris County, Texas. The employment agreements were entered into by plaintiff’s predecessor and the individual defendants, who apparently did not live in Texas when they entered into the contracts and thus apparently anticipated interstate travel in the event of a trial.