California state lawmakers are calling for an audit of the state’s February bar exam that was plagued with technical issues, concerns over AI-generated questions, and now, one of the highest pass rates of any spring exam since 1965.The State Bar of California released the results of February’s bar exam, which saw 55.9% of applicants pass the General Bar Examination (GBX) compared to 34% in February of 2024. It’s an impressive jump that comes on the heels of arguably one of the most controversial licensing exams in recent history. The State Bar of California moved away from its traditional test, opting for a cost-saving hybrid exam. The company Kaplan was contracted to write a portion of the exam, and Meazure Learning was contracted to deliver and proctor it. After complaints from test takers, the State Bar of California lowered the required score to pass the bar exam, offered those who failed it 2 years’ provisional licenses, and an option to retake the $1,000 exam for free in July.”So, I failed the exam. I’m disappointed because I feel like I wasn’t given a fair shot,” said Stephen Zendejas.Stephen was one of a handful of test takers invited to the state senate judiciary committee meeting to provide testimony on what the exam was like.He attended with his older sister Tiffany Zendejas. The siblings were first-generation law students, both failing their first attempts, as many do on what’s considered the hardest bar exam in the country.Tiffany passed one of the previous exams and is now a public defender, while her brother prepares to look for options out of state and away from family.”It makes me feel really sad… in order for him to achieve his dreams, he has to relocate,” said Tiffany Zendejas.After a bar exam he describes as chaotic, Stephen doesn’t want to retake the California Bar or use a provisional license until he can take the bar again. When asked if the results would be different without the issues he reported, his response was “we’ll never know and that’s what’s so disheartening.””Several questions seemed oddly worded during the exam. I tried not to pay too much attention, but some were very absurd,” said Stephen as he testified before the judiciary committee.He’s referring to complaints of grammar issues on top of problems such as a broken copy and paste function that was promised for test takers but never worked for him. “There are typos, there are grammatical errors, there were questions that didn’t make sense. How did that happen?” said Sen. Tom Umberg as he questioned the leadership of the State Bar of California.The State Bar of California, for the first time, created a hybrid test, allowing applicants to sit for the bar virtually. The argument from leadership was that it gives test takers more flexibility. Offering a fully remote option with virtual proctors, and smaller in-person testing sites spread throughout the state instead of California’s major cities.The move was also a cost-saving measure to help reduce the structural deficit of the admissions fund that was projected to be insolvent by 2026, according to the State Bar of California.For decades, the 200-question multiple-choice portion of the exam, known as the “MBE,” was licensed through the National Conference of Bar Examiners, which prohibits the exam from being delivered in a remote setting. So, the State Bar of California contracted Meazure Learning.After February’s exam, the State Bar of California filed a lawsuit against Meazure for claims of “fraudulent inducement,” “false promise,” “negligent misrepresentation,” and “breach of contract,” among other allegations.The lawsuit reveals numerous examples of failed attempts to administer mock versions of the exam leading up to the February bar.The lawsuit also cites examples of test takers unable to enter the exam, submit responses, or use certain basic functions.Senator Tom Umberg has now introduced Senate Bill 47, a measure that would authorize the California State Auditor to conduct an audit on the February Bar Exam.The California Supreme Court also ruled that July’s Bar Exam needs to return to its original format, with the MQE questions and methods used over the last 40 years.To see the full breakdown of the California Bar results with adjustments, click here.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
California state lawmakers are calling for an audit of the state’s February bar exam that was plagued with technical issues, concerns over AI-generated questions, and now, one of the highest pass rates of any spring exam since 1965.
The State Bar of California released the results of February’s bar exam, which saw 55.9% of applicants pass the General Bar Examination (GBX) compared to 34% in February of 2024. It’s an impressive jump that comes on the heels of arguably one of the most controversial licensing exams in recent history.
The State Bar of California moved away from its traditional test, opting for a cost-saving hybrid exam. The company Kaplan was contracted to write a portion of the exam, and Meazure Learning was contracted to deliver and proctor it.
After complaints from test takers, the State Bar of California lowered the required score to pass the bar exam, offered those who failed it 2 years’ provisional licenses, and an option to retake the $1,000 exam for free in July.
“So, I failed the exam. I’m disappointed because I feel like I wasn’t given a fair shot,” said Stephen Zendejas.
Stephen was one of a handful of test takers invited to the state senate judiciary committee meeting to provide testimony on what the exam was like.
He attended with his older sister Tiffany Zendejas. The siblings were first-generation law students, both failing their first attempts, as many do on what’s considered the hardest bar exam in the country.
Tiffany passed one of the previous exams and is now a public defender, while her brother prepares to look for options out of state and away from family.
“It makes me feel really sad… in order for him to achieve his dreams, he has to relocate,” said Tiffany Zendejas.
After a bar exam he describes as chaotic, Stephen doesn’t want to retake the California Bar or use a provisional license until he can take the bar again. When asked if the results would be different without the issues he reported, his response was “we’ll never know and that’s what’s so disheartening.”
“Several questions seemed oddly worded during the exam. I tried not to pay too much attention, but some were very absurd,” said Stephen as he testified before the judiciary committee.
He’s referring to complaints of grammar issues on top of problems such as a broken copy and paste function that was promised for test takers but never worked for him.
“There are typos, there are grammatical errors, there were questions that didn’t make sense. How did that happen?” said Sen. Tom Umberg as he questioned the leadership of the State Bar of California.
The State Bar of California, for the first time, created a hybrid test, allowing applicants to sit for the bar virtually.
The argument from leadership was that it gives test takers more flexibility. Offering a fully remote option with virtual proctors, and smaller in-person testing sites spread throughout the state instead of California’s major cities.
The move was also a cost-saving measure to help reduce the structural deficit of the admissions fund that was projected to be insolvent by 2026, according to the State Bar of California.
For decades, the 200-question multiple-choice portion of the exam, known as the “MBE,” was licensed through the National Conference of Bar Examiners, which prohibits the exam from being delivered in a remote setting. So, the State Bar of California contracted Meazure Learning.
After February’s exam, the State Bar of California filed a lawsuit against Meazure for claims of “fraudulent inducement,” “false promise,” “negligent misrepresentation,” and “breach of contract,” among other allegations.
The lawsuit reveals numerous examples of failed attempts to administer mock versions of the exam leading up to the February bar.
The lawsuit also cites examples of test takers unable to enter the exam, submit responses, or use certain basic functions.
Senator Tom Umberg has now introduced Senate Bill 47, a measure that would authorize the California State Auditor to conduct an audit on the February Bar Exam.
The California Supreme Court also ruled that July’s Bar Exam needs to return to its original format, with the MQE questions and methods used over the last 40 years.
To see the full breakdown of the California Bar results with adjustments, click here.
See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
Leave a Reply