{"id":109695,"date":"2025-03-04T14:39:28","date_gmt":"2025-03-04T22:39:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/03\/04\/california-bar-exam-fiasco-considers-adding-even-more-chaos\/"},"modified":"2025-03-04T14:39:28","modified_gmt":"2025-03-04T22:39:28","slug":"california-bar-exam-fiasco-considers-adding-even-more-chaos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/03\/04\/california-bar-exam-fiasco-considers-adding-even-more-chaos\/","title":{"rendered":"California Bar Exam Fiasco Considers Adding Even More Chaos!"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

You know what\u2019s worse than the disastrous rollout of a hastily thrown together bar exam overhaul? Rolling out a hastily thrown together bar exam retreat. <\/p>\n

Just when you thought the California bar exam disaster had reached its logical conclusion \u2014 after all, how much worse could it get? \u2014 the Cal Bar examiners appear poised to answer that question by slamming the brakes on its new hybrid test format and going back<\/em> to an in-person-only exam. <\/p>\n

I\u2019m starting to understand how this institution went broke in the first place.<\/p>\n

To rewind\u2026 the California bar examiners recognized, woefully late, that the crushing costs of the testing procedure had driven the institution into the red. The National Conference of Bar Examiners historically provides testing materials \u2014 for fees that SOMEHOW result in the non-profit amassing $175 million in total assets<\/a> \u2014 and sets conditions for in-person testing that forced the state to rent out massive, costly venues and force applicants to drag themselves across the state and book costly hotel rooms. <\/p>\n

Despite this revelation, the powers-that-be dragged their feet<\/a>, determined to keep throwing money down the drain to maintain the status quo hazing ritual. But eventually logic prevailed and California set out to find an alternative test that could support remote examinations, either from home or from multiple, smaller venues distributed throughout the state. Kaplan stepped up to write questions and Meazure Learning agreed to administer the test. The new plan could save the bar examiners upwards of $4.2 million per year.<\/p>\n

THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA!<\/p>\n

But the licensing authority approached the test with the same slow, careful planning of Elon Musk\u2019s DOGE team and barreled into February with mere months of planning for the most significant revamp of the test in years. It went\u2026 poorly<\/a>.<\/p>\n

From login failures to system crashes, from proctors who might as well have been on mute to outright lost exams, the February administration was so<\/em> bad that the bar examiners had to resort to handing out full refunds<\/a> like they\u2019re running a failed theme park. Then they announced that they\u2019d let folks take the July exam free<\/a> if they failed this debacle. By the time the lawsuits and refunds and freebies get taken into account, the costs might be right back where they started.<\/p>\n

And now, in an impressive display of missing the point, they seem poised to decide that the best way to move forward is to move backward.<\/em><\/p>\n

In a memo dated tomorrow<\/a> \u2014 time is relative \u2014 the state\u2019s licensing authorities propose junking Meazure Learning and returning to in-person testing in July. It doesn\u2019t really matter whether Meazure failed because it wasn\u2019t up to the task or the rushed timeframe rendered success impossible. In either case, someone<\/em> should have been able to raise a hand months ago and say, \u201cUh, hey guys, this is probably going to explode.\u201d So, sure, the impulse to cut ties with Meazure is understandable. <\/p>\n

BUT THEN WHAT?!?!?<\/p>\n

\n

At its February 21 meeting, the Board of Trustees received an update describing several of the challenges leading up to the administration of the February 2025 Bar Exam. The Board heard significant public comment expressing concern about the functionality of the Meazure Learning platform, as well as the problems with scheduling and miscommunications. The Board was going to be asked to approve additional funding for the contract with Meazure Learning for the July administration. However, as a result of the events that occurred in the administration of the February Bar Exam, still underway as of the writing of this staff report, staff cannot recommend going forward with Meazure Learning. Staff are instead recommending returning to the in-person administration method used prior to February 2025. The Board should be aware that the dates of the July exam have made securing sites challenging in the past, and the late date at which we would be beginning that process now will create additional challenges. There may be fewer locations for applicants to select from, resulting in higher costs for applicants who may have to travel further from their local community to take the exam.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

You can\u2019t get a wedding hall in California on four months\u2019 notice let alone MULTIPLE STADIUMS AND CONFERENCE HALLS. And no one wants to accuse anyone of price gouging, but every venue they approach is gonna treat this like they own the goose that laid the golden egg. Or the chicken that laid ANY eggs in 2025, as the case may be.<\/p>\n

Higher costs for the examiners. Higher costs for the applicants. And remember:<\/p>\n

\n

The estimated cost of in-person administration of the July Bar Exam is $4.8\u2014$5 million. Actual costs may be higher as we are anticipating increased numbers of test takers due to the offer to waive July exam costs for many applicants. The full year fiscal impact of the transition back to in-person testing will be compounded by the expanded refund policies put into place with respect to the February 2025 exam.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

They have to do all this with more people sitting for free. Of course one way to save on those costs might be to adopt some sort of workable alternative pathways to licensure ranging from limited diploma privilege to apprenticeship to multiple smaller, but doctrinally limited certification tests to avoid the bloated semiannual bar exam process. <\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Look, I\u2019m not on the inside, so I can\u2019t say for sure if Meazure even could get it together for July, but given the situation, could we maybe just consider that Meazure with four more months of preparation might<\/em> be better than trying to force this all back in-person on a breakneck timeframe? The Cal Bar Exam is in this mess because it made a radical decision with minimal lead time. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.<\/p>\n

The old model was a financial<\/em> disaster and the new model was an operational<\/em> disaster, but instead of using this moment to slow down and carefully approach the future of the entire bar licensing process, California is just dumping more money into the same broken system and hoping no one notices.<\/p>\n

Spoiler: We noticed.<\/p>\n

\n

While staff believes that the 2025 Admissions Fund budget can absorb all related costs, sustainability planning for 2026 and beyond must begin in the near term.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ya think?!?<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post California Bar Exam Fiasco Considers Adding Even More Chaos!<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

You know what\u2019s worse than the disastrous rollout of a hastily thrown together bar exam overhaul? Rolling out a hastily thrown together bar exam retreat. <\/p>\n

Just when you thought the California bar exam disaster had reached its logical conclusion \u2014 after all, how much worse could it get? \u2014 the Cal Bar examiners appear poised to answer that question by slamming the brakes on its new hybrid test format and going back<\/em> to an in-person-only exam. <\/p>\n

I\u2019m starting to understand how this institution went broke in the first place.<\/p>\n

To rewind\u2026 the California bar examiners recognized, woefully late, that the crushing costs of the testing procedure had driven the institution into the red. The National Conference of Bar Examiners historically provides testing materials \u2014 for fees that SOMEHOW result in the non-profit amassing $175 million in total assets<\/a> \u2014 and sets conditions for in-person testing that forced the state to rent out massive, costly venues and force applicants to drag themselves across the state and book costly hotel rooms. <\/p>\n

Despite this revelation, the powers-that-be dragged their feet<\/a>, determined to keep throwing money down the drain to maintain the status quo hazing ritual. But eventually logic prevailed and California set out to find an alternative test that could support remote examinations, either from home or from multiple, smaller venues distributed throughout the state. Kaplan stepped up to write questions and Meazure Learning agreed to administer the test. The new plan could save the bar examiners upwards of $4.2 million per year.<\/p>\n

THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA!<\/p>\n

But the licensing authority approached the test with the same slow, careful planning of Elon Musk\u2019s DOGE team and barreled into February with mere months of planning for the most significant revamp of the test in years. It went\u2026 poorly<\/a>.<\/p>\n

From login failures to system crashes, from proctors who might as well have been on mute to outright lost exams, the February administration was so<\/em> bad that the bar examiners had to resort to handing out full refunds<\/a> like they\u2019re running a failed theme park. Then they announced that they\u2019d let folks take the July exam free<\/a> if they failed this debacle. By the time the lawsuits and refunds and freebies get taken into account, the costs might be right back where they started.<\/p>\n

And now, in an impressive display of missing the point, they seem poised to decide that the best way to move forward is to move backward.<\/em><\/p>\n

In a memo dated tomorrow<\/a> \u2014 time is relative \u2014 the state\u2019s licensing authorities propose junking Meazure Learning and returning to in-person testing in July. It doesn\u2019t really matter whether Meazure failed because it wasn\u2019t up to the task or the rushed timeframe rendered success impossible. In either case, someone<\/em> should have been able to raise a hand months ago and say, \u201cUh, hey guys, this is probably going to explode.\u201d So, sure, the impulse to cut ties with Meazure is understandable. <\/p>\n

BUT THEN WHAT?!?!?<\/p>\n

\n

At its February 21 meeting, the Board of Trustees received an update describing several of the challenges leading up to the administration of the February 2025 Bar Exam. The Board heard significant public comment expressing concern about the functionality of the Meazure Learning platform, as well as the problems with scheduling and miscommunications. The Board was going to be asked to approve additional funding for the contract with Meazure Learning for the July administration. However, as a result of the events that occurred in the administration of the February Bar Exam, still underway as of the writing of this staff report, staff cannot recommend going forward with Meazure Learning. Staff are instead recommending returning to the in-person administration method used prior to February 2025. The Board should be aware that the dates of the July exam have made securing sites challenging in the past, and the late date at which we would be beginning that process now will create additional challenges. There may be fewer locations for applicants to select from, resulting in higher costs for applicants who may have to travel further from their local community to take the exam.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

You can\u2019t get a wedding hall in California on four months\u2019 notice let alone MULTIPLE STADIUMS AND CONFERENCE HALLS. And no one wants to accuse anyone of price gouging, but every venue they approach is gonna treat this like they own the goose that laid the golden egg. Or the chicken that laid ANY eggs in 2025, as the case may be.<\/p>\n

Higher costs for the examiners. Higher costs for the applicants. And remember:<\/p>\n

\n

The estimated cost of in-person administration of the July Bar Exam is $4.8\u2014$5 million. Actual costs may be higher as we are anticipating increased numbers of test takers due to the offer to waive July exam costs for many applicants. The full year fiscal impact of the transition back to in-person testing will be compounded by the expanded refund policies put into place with respect to the February 2025 exam.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

They have to do all this with more people sitting for free. Of course one way to save on those costs might be to adopt some sort of workable alternative pathways to licensure ranging from limited diploma privilege to apprenticeship to multiple smaller, but doctrinally limited certification tests to avoid the bloated semiannual bar exam process. <\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Look, I\u2019m not on the inside, so I can\u2019t say for sure if Meazure even could get it together for July, but given the situation, could we maybe just consider that Meazure with four more months of preparation might<\/em> be better than trying to force this all back in-person on a breakneck timeframe? The Cal Bar Exam is in this mess because it made a radical decision with minimal lead time. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.<\/p>\n

The old model was a financial<\/em> disaster and the new model was an operational<\/em> disaster, but instead of using this moment to slow down and carefully approach the future of the entire bar licensing process, California is just dumping more money into the same broken system and hoping no one notices.<\/p>\n

Spoiler: We noticed.<\/p>\n

\n

While staff believes that the 2025 Admissions Fund budget can absorb all related costs, sustainability planning for 2026 and beyond must begin in the near term.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ya think?!?<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

You know what\u2019s worse than the disastrous rollout of a hastily thrown together bar exam overhaul? Rolling out a hastily thrown together bar exam retreat. Just when you thought the California bar exam disaster had reached its logical conclusion \u2014 after all, how much worse could it get? \u2014 the Cal Bar examiners appear poised […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":109677,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109695","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Headshot-300x200-mCEOOq.jpeg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109695","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109695"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109695\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/109677"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109695"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109695"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109695"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}