If
you’re
planning
to
take
the
upcoming
California
bar
exam,
congratulations!
You’re
part
of
a
grand
tradition
of
applicants
thrown
into
chaos
by
that
state’s
unique
blend
of
poor
planning,
bureaucratic
dithering,
and
a
near-mystical
ability
to
make
a
bad
situation
worse.
On
that
last
count,
remember
that
the
upcoming,
outside
administered
test
is
the
product
of
the
California
bar
exam
hemorrhaging
money
like
a
midlevel
associate
buying
rounds
at
a
summer
event.
With
this
crackerjack
budgeting,
the
bar
examiners
managed
—
surprisingly
but
somehow
also
predictably
—
to
drive
the
program
bankrupt.
Rather
than
immediately
seek
a
solution,
they
waited
until
close
to
the
last
minute,
only
to
have
state
bar
authorities
and
the
California
Supreme
Court
dither
long
enough
that
it
crossed
well
beyond
the
last
minute
to
produce
the
chaotic
mess
we’re
in
now.
In
a
vacuum,
the
decision
to
transition
to
a
test
produced
by
Kaplan
and
then
administered
by
Meazure
Learning
is
sound.
Kaplan
has
a
solid
track
record
in
bar
exam
prep
and
that
includes
writing
sample
questions
that
reliably
reflect
exam
success.
And
most
if
not
all
of
the
California
bar
exam’s
problems
could
be
traced
to
its
relationship
with
previous
bar
exam
author,
the
National
Conference
of
Bar
Examiners
—
a
non-profit
with
roughly $151
MILLION
in
net
assets.
Not
only
did
the
NCBE
charge
big
fees,
but
it
imposed
rules
upon
state
exams
that
stifled
remote
testing
locations
in
favor
of
massive
venues,
which
in
California
resulted
in
huge
rental
charges.
And
yet,
we
do
not
live
in
a
vacuum.
A
transition
of
this
magnitude
needed
a
year
(or
two)
lead
time.
Instead,
it
got
about
five
months.
Tipsters
report
remote
applicants
unable
to
successfully
take
mock
exams
and
left
with
no
sense
that
a
real
one
will
even
work.
Not
that
things
worked
much
better
for
the
in-person
examinees.
The
in-person
exam
portal
wasn’t
even
functioning
when
it
was
supposed
to
open.
Even
when
the
online
system
works,
there
are
accommodation
concerns,
as
users
can’t
adjust
font
sizes
for
the
essay
box.
So
far,
reports
suggest
the
California
bar
is
mostly
rejecting
those
requesting
paper
copies
of
the
exam
for
accommodation
reasons.
But
we
might
be
getting
ahead
of
ourselves…
one
applicant
wrote
ATL,
“we
don’t
yet
know
where
we
are
taking
the
exam.”
Why
worry
about
the
in-person
exam
portal
when
applicants
don’t
even
know
WHERE
they’re
taking
the
in-person
test?
A
Reddit
post
goes
further,
claiming
that
Meazure
“lied
about
having
several
locations
which
led
people
to
pick
in
person
because
they
thought
it
would
be
close
to
home.”
Another
notes,
“…it’s
entirely
unforeseeable
to
me
that
the
convention
center
is
the
only
option
when
Meazure
Learning
boasts
that
they
have
1000+
testing
locations….”
Getting
out
of
giant
convention
centers
was
one
of
the
primary
selling
points
of
this
plan!
Applicants
are
reporting
that
more
convenient
locations
like
Anaheim
and
Long
Beach
have
disappeared
since
they
first
chose
to
take
the
test
in-person.
Instead,
everyone
in
LA
has
to
go
to
Ontario,
which
is…
not
LA.
I’m
not
even
sure
LA
residents
consider
it
in
the
same
time
zone.
There
are
also
concerns
about
Meazure’s
proctoring,
with
complaints
that
applicants
were
unable
to
complete
the
exam
in
time
or
had
to
wait
hours
to
take
the
mock
exam
and
some
were
kicked
out
of
the
exam
randomly
with
no
explanation.
Meanwhile,
multiple
applicants
say
help
is
impossible
to
find
with
the
California
officials
directing
everyone
to
Meazure
Learning
and
Meazure
directing
everyone
to
California.
Thousands
of
applicants
took
part
in
a
recent
Q&A
session
with
bar
officials,
hoping
for
clarity.
They
do
not
seem
to
have
gotten
it.
Posts
complain
that
the
admins,
who
presumably
had
one
job
—
explain
how
this
test
will
work
—
couldn’t
even
answer
basic
questions
like
what
applicants
are
allowed
to
bring
to
the
exam.
One
tipster
delivered
an
understatement:
“Does
not
feel
well
thought
thru.”
All
of
this
frustration
is
justified,
but
this
rage
shouldn’t
be
limited
to
this
transition
effort…
it
always
sucks
like
this.
The
new
system
promised
more
flexibility
for
in-person
administration
and
seems
to
have,
so
far,
failed.
But
this
just
puts
them
right
back
where
they
would
be
if
they
hadn’t
made
any
changes
at
all.
And
examinees
would
be
suffering
through
freezing
conditions
because
no
one
figured
out
how
to
properly
heat
a
stadium.
Proctoring
issues?
Remember
when
they
ran
an
online
exam
during
COVID
and
decided
to
arbitrarily
flag
one-third
of
applicants
for
cheating?
The
facial
recognition
software
used
by
the
bar
seemed
to
think
“suspicious
behavior”
meant
being
a
human
person
sitting
for
a
test.
Some
applicants
were
flagged
for
looking
away
from
the
screen,
others
for
being
too
quiet
—
which
is
an
odd
standard
to
apply
when
the
exam
instructions
explicitly
tell
you
not
to
make
noise.
And
what
did
the
bar
do?
Rather
than
investigating
the
false
positives
themselves,
they
threw
the
burden
on
the
applicants
to
“prove”
they
weren’t
cheating.
While
saving
money
was
the
impetus
for
the
bar
examiners
making
the
change,
we
welcomed
the
move
it
because
the
previous
system
was
so
thoroughly
broken.
The
issues
might
have
been
slightly
different,
but
the
impact
on
applicants
was
nonetheless
inhumane.
That
doesn’t
justify
what’s
happening
to
the
current
test-takers
but
when
angry
applicants
post
demands
to
undo
the
transition,
bear
in
mind
that
the
prior
system
wasn’t
great
either.
Instead
of
blasting
the
new
guard
and
implicitly
pining
for
the
past,
the
pressure
needs
to
be
on
the
California
authorities
who
allowed
it
to
get
to
this
point.
Why
was
this
done
in
less
than
half
a
year?
Why
didn’t
state
authorities
or
the
courts
either
think
ahead
or
develop
a
contingency
for
being
late?
Once
this
got
pushed
to
the
wall,
why
wasn’t
there
an
emergency
appropriation
to
let
the
test
continue
running
in
the
red
while
the
transition
got
smoothed
out?
This
whole
mess
could
have
been
avoided
if
the
bar
had
planned
ahead
instead
of
waiting
until
financial
ruin
forced
their
hand.
If
they’d
transitioned
to
new
providers
over
years
instead
of
months,
they
might
have
actually
pulled
this
off.
Frankly,
while
it’s
cold
comfort
to
the
current
applicants,
the
new
providers
still
might
successfully
pull
this
off…
Next
February.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.