You
know
what’s
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
—
after
all,
how
much
worse
could
it
get?
—
the
Cal
Bar
examiners
appear
poised
to
answer
that
question
by
slamming
the
brakes
on
its
new
hybrid
test
format
and
going
back
to
an
in-person-only
exam.
I’m
starting
to
understand
how
this
institution
went
broke
in
the
first
place.
To
rewind…
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
—
for
fees
that
SOMEHOW
result
in
the
non-profit
amassing
$175
million
in
total
assets
—
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.
Despite
this
revelation,
the
powers-that-be
dragged
their
feet,
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.
THIS
WAS
A
GOOD
IDEA!
But
the
licensing
authority
approached
the
test
with
the
same
slow,
careful
planning
of
Elon
Musk’s
DOGE
team
and
barreled
into
February
with
mere
months
of
planning
for
the
most
significant
revamp
of
the
test
in
years.
It
went…
poorly.
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
bad
that
the
bar
examiners
had
to
resort
to
handing
out
full
refunds
like
they’re
running
a
failed
theme
park.
Then
they
announced
that
they’d
let
folks
take
the
July
exam
free
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.
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.
In
a
memo
dated
tomorrow
—
time
is
relative
—
the
state’s
licensing
authorities
propose
junking
Meazure
Learning
and
returning
to
in-person
testing
in
July.
It
doesn’t
really
matter
whether
Meazure
failed
because
it
wasn’t
up
to
the
task
or
the
rushed
timeframe
rendered
success
impossible.
In
either
case,
someone
should
have
been
able
to
raise
a
hand
months
ago
and
say,
“Uh,
hey
guys,
this
is
probably
going
to
explode.”
So,
sure,
the
impulse
to
cut
ties
with
Meazure
is
understandable.
BUT
THEN
WHAT?!?!?
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.
You
can’t
get
a
wedding
hall
in
California
on
four
months’
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.
Higher
costs
for
the
examiners.
Higher
costs
for
the
applicants.
And
remember:
The
estimated
cost
of
in-person
administration
of
the
July
Bar
Exam
is
$4.8—$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.
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.
Look,
I’m
not
on
the
inside,
so
I
can’t
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
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.
The
old
model
was
a
financial
disaster
and
the
new
model
was
an
operational
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.
Spoiler:
We
noticed.
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.
Ya
think?!?
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.