Bar Examinees Feel Left in the Dark. This Twitter Account Is Shining a Light on the Test
The author of the anonymous @BarExamTracker discusses why the Twitter account has hit a nerve with test takers and how they accurately predict exam cancellations.
July 21, 2020 at 03:04 PM
7 minute read
Want to know which jurisdictions have canceled their planned bar exams? How about the jurisdictions requiring test takers to sign COVID-19 liability waivers? What safety protocols are jurisdictions implementing at testing sites?
The most comprehensive source of information on what's happening nationally with the bar exam is at @BarExamTracker—an anonymously authored Twitter account that offers detailed information on how the exam is playing out in individual jurisdictions as well highly accurate predictions about changes to the test and cancellations. The account debuted in June and now boasts more than 4,000 followers. It has quickly become a go-to repository of information for law graduates who are lobbying for emergency diploma privileges and other changes, and an outlet for examinees who feel left in the dark by bar examiners and courts. The account gained credibility earlier this month when it accurately predicted that officials in Tennessee would cancel the planned in-person July exam a day ahead of the official announcement. Since then, @BarExamTracker has predicted a number of other cancellations, including Georgia, California and New York.
Law.com caught up with the author behind @BarExamTracker to find out more about how they gather information and how the project has evolved in recent weeks. They spoke on condition of anonymity, but they are a May law school graduate who is slated to take the bar exam this cycle. Their answers have been edited for length.
How did you get started on the bar tracker project? I started it just to help people track what was going on with the bar. Usually the bar application process is pretty straightforward—it doesn't change a lot year to year. But because of the pandemic, bar examiners were still working out the changes, and they weren't necessarily communicating that to applicants. A lot of times they will update their websites, but they won't email applicants. I thought it would be useful to just keep people posted. I didn't think of it as: "I'll get tips." I just thought, "I'll check North Dakota's website and send out an update."
How has the project changed from what you initially envisioned? For starters, it has become a more-than-full-time job. I'm trying to back off on that. It's just a ton of work. The second way it has changed is I think it has struck a nerve with people. There was a real need for this information. People were messaging me saying, "We haven't heard from our bar examiners in two months, since the beginning of May. And you are the first person we have heard from about our bar exam who has given us any information." That's horrifying and part of why it has struck a nerve. I feel very motivated to help and keep pushing because of that. I didn't really think this would be such a huge part of my life.
Part of the appeal is that the account has a fair bit of insider information. Where is it coming from? I get dozens and dozens of emails a day from people, about everything from articles to new posts on websites, to things they heard from professors, attorneys, and people they know at the board of law examiners. I get lots of information. Most of the people who message me are test takers, but a lot of times their sources are not. Often they will send me screen shots that I cannot share.
Your exam predictions have mostly come to fruition. What elements do you consider when putting out a prediction on when a test will be canceled or moved online? There are lots of things I can't share, but sometimes it's helpful to know those things in terms of making a prediction. There is an order of the things I look at that are predictive. The best predictors are the views of law school deans. Those are really important. Venue problems are really important, if it's an in-person exam. Tennessee and Texas didn't cancel because of pressure. They cancelled because they could not hold their exams.
COVID-19 restrictions are a good predictor. Protocols and waivers are sometimes helpful to look at. Politicians are influential, but they don't always come out. Board of law examiners tend to not be that helpful. What courts or bar examiners say is almost meaningless. I think it was the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners that told someone 20 minutes before they announced the cancellation that it was still on. That has happened in multiple states.
How do you think jurisdictions should handle attorney licensure this year? The case for diploma privilege gets stronger the more things change. When you cancel an exam two weeks beforehand and everyone had already made plans based on having a July bar exam, the case for diploma privilege is very strong even if there are lots of reasons against it. It would be different if a jurisdiction had spent their time since March creating an online bar backup plan, but it turned out they hadn't. I don't want to say it's too late at this point, but there has to be a more timely plan than pushing our bar exam because they didn't come up with a backup plan. We all knew in March—and everyone tried to tell them—that these in-person exams are not happening. It's very frustrating to find out that they didn't plan for a backup.
Which jurisdiction do you think has been the worst offender, in terms of their handling of the exam? New York. New York knew in May that it couldn't hold this exam. New York reopened registration in June without venues confirmed, even for the first round of registrations.. What New York did by shutting out the vast majority of applicants in May and telling them to go take [Uniform Bar Exams] in other jurisdictions swamped other jurisdictions. It really hurt those other jurisdictions and led to a lot of other jurisdictions having to go online or having all these logistical issues. New York, to me, is the worst offender because of that. It's not only that they have handled it poorly themselves, but they really have made other jurisdictions' lives harder too. That's really disappointing.
What's it like to be a test taker facing all this uncertainty over the bar exam? I'm fortunate enough that I have a job that will accommodate this. It is frustrating, but not devastating to my personal prospects. I feel like a lot of my role is lifting up the voices of applicants for whom this is devastating—who are losing jobs, who are losing the ability to pay their rent, who are looking for jobs but now don't have a [Uniform Bar Exam] score to transfer. Or they have to sit out a cycle of the bar exam because they are high risk. I think that's why this account has resonated. People are very frustrated.
A lot of people have found solidarity with each other. I get a lot of messages thanking me, which I didn't expect. People feel very powerless right now. My Twitter is the product of everyone who follows me. This is people taking back control.
Do you think these planned online October bar exams will actually happen? I don't have enough information to make that prediction. I think I'll know more after the July exams happen. Depending on how the July exams go, I think there will be more jurisdictions potentially reconsidering diploma privilege or partial diploma privilege because it will reduce the load on an online exam.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
4 minute read'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute read'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readLaw Firms Are Turning to Online Training Platforms as Apprenticeship Model Falters
Trending Stories
- 1Mediators for the Southern District of New York Honored at Eighth Annual James Duane Awards
- 2The Lawyers Picked by Trump for Key Roles in His Second Term
- 3Pa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
- 4Depo-Provera MDL Could Be Headed to California
- 5Judge Holds New York City in Contempt Over Conditions at City Jails
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250