Opinion ID: 1450062
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reread Policy.

Text: Bettine's second argument is that the reread policy employed by the ABA is arbitrary and capricious, and that it is contrary to this court's decision in Application of Obermeyer, 717 P.2d 382 (Alaska 1986). In Obermeyer, this court was faced with a challenge to the ABA's policy of rereading the essays of only those exams which received a score between 139.00 and 139.99. Obermeyer maintained that this cut-off is arbitrary because the statistical variance between 139.00 and 139.99 is only 0.7%, which is considerably smaller than the margin of error permitted by averaging scores assigned by different graders when they differ by only one point. Obermeyer, 717 P.2d at 388. We rejected Obermeyer's claim, stating that the appropriate comparison would be of the variance created by averaging as a function of the total exam score to the variance allowed by the reread policy. Id. We recognized, however, that there may be facial validity in [Obermeyer's] argument. Id. We stated that [i]t certainly seems that the Bar should be willing to allow a reread for at least as large a variance as the margin of error its examiners are allowed in averaging scores. Id. Bettine argues that the ABA has failed to comply with this order, resulting in a situation where the maximum cumulative error is 5.6 times the variance at the combined score level for which the respondent will presently grant a reread. He claims that the ABA should expand its variance for reread from 1 point to 5.5 points, which represents a variance of 3.9%. [1] We do not believe that the ABA abused its discretion in deciding to reread only those exams which come within one point of passing. It is our opinion that the ABA could eliminate its reread policy without abusing its discretion in administering the bar exam. To the extent that our statements in Obermeyer indicate otherwise, we disavow those statements. AFFIRMED.