[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-321766-105":59,"doc-detail-321766-en":122},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":115,"head_meta":117,"extra_data":119,"updated_unix":121},105,"en","the-recorder-californias-cut-rate-bar-exam-reprint-commentary","The Recorder Californias cut-rate bar exam reprint - Commentary","","California’s bar examination is analyzed as a regulatory tool whose cost-cutting reforms may be undermining public protection. The commentary highlights financial and governance pressures faced by the State Bar, including fee-bill controversies and veto threats. It traces exam changes such as switching to a two-day format, lowering the cut score, moving parts of the test online during the pandemic, and outsourcing questions—each framed as decisions that dilute the exam’s rigor despite claims of budget savings.",{"@graph":69,"@context":114},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-recorder-californias-cut-rate-bar-exam-reprint-commentary/321766/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-recorder-californias-cut-rate-bar-exam-reprint-commentary/321766.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Aran","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What major changes to the bar exam are discussed?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The text covers shifting from a three-day to a two-day exam, lowering the cut score, conducting the exam online during the pandemic, and abandoning nationally administered questions in favor of privately provided ones to reduce costs.","Answer","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":116,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":118,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":120,"site_id":62},321766,1791884697,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":123},{"doc_id":120,"user_id":124,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":125,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":126,"file_id":127,"file_url":128,"file_type":129,"file_size":130,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":19,"language":131,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":132,"faqs":133,"seo_title":134,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":135,"read_time":52,"preview_page_count":4},137455076865,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","expense?  \nProtecting the public—not thrift—is the bar's primary regulatory purpose, and its focus on cutting corners has arguably diluted the bar exam from the nation's hardest to something that weakens public protection.  \nSeptember 27, 2024 at 01:35 PM  \nCommentary  \nThe California Supreme Court recently rebuffed the State Bar's plan to revise its bar examination, which would have featured a novel set of privately contracted questions and an experimental test that awarded realexam bonus points to volunteers. This is the latest in a long series of dubious changes to California's bar exam, from reducing the number of days to cutting exam locations. Most of these reforms have been justified by cost savings, and conserving taxpayer money seems at first a good call, especially for a cash-strapped state agency. But protecting the public—not  \nthrift—is the bar's primary regulatory purpose, and its focus on cutting corners has arguably diluted the bar exam from the nation's hardest to something that weakens public protection.  \nCalifornia's bar has long suffered from financial woes. Its general fund revenue (or about a quarter of its overall budget) comes mainly from attorney licensing fees. That fee amount is set by statute, which turns out tobe a major vulnerability for the state's least-influential administrative agency. With few friends and no political clout, the bar's fee bill is often apolitical football in Sacramento. The legislature sometimes holds the fee bill  \nhostage as leverage for whatever agenda is in play, as it did when pushing the bar to split off the sections. And governors have threatened to veto fee bills.  \nGov. Pete Wilson (Berkeley Law '62) did so in 1998, declaring that dues were excessive and calling the bar \"bloated, arrogant, oblivious and unresponsive.\" The humbled bar asked its members to voluntarily pay their dues, and the California Supreme Court took the extraordinary step (In re Attorney Discipline System (1998) 19 Cal.4th 582) of ordering all licensed attorneys to write checks for partial payment. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed another fee bill in 2009, charging that \"a lack of internal controls\"allowing a former employee to embezzle nearly $676,000 showed that \"the State Bar cannot continue with business as usual.\"  \nAnd the bar at times is its own worst enemy, stumbling from one public controversy to another. Remember the leak of topics planned for the July 2019 exam? The latest calamity is an offshoot of the Tom Girardi debacle, featuring former executive director Joe Dunn in a scandal involving corruption, bribery, influence-peddling, and misuse of the bar's resources. All this after divesting the regulatory functions from other roles in 2017 was hailed as a long-needed structural reform that would cure every ill.  \nYet here we are, with the bar in another financial crisis. Indeed, money is the bar's core problem—and some mismanagement identified in back-toback audits. But to its credit, the bar has long recognized the headaches its scant funds (and their squandering) cause and it has given thought to  \npossible solutions. Unfortunately, in doing so the bar missed the forest for the trees by trying to minimize costs in ways that jeopardize its core function: public protection. The bar exam is the best example of this.  \nFor many years California's bar exam had several unique features. As the only practical path to practicing law in the state the bar exam was exclusive, in part because California has never established reciprocity with any other professional law licensing systems. It was onerous, because it remained a three-day exam after other states started using a more relaxed two-day exam. And it was proudly both of those things, on the theory that a license to practice law in this state required rigorous validation to protect the public.  \nBut the bar exam is expensive to administer, and it's an obvious choice for cost-cutting initiatives due to the bar's control over how much it charg","cbCaiqm68xiTVdKz","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqm68xiTVdKz","pdf",202684,"English","# Commentary\n## Regulatory purpose and cost-cutting\n## Financial vulnerabilities and governance disputes\n## Exam reforms and their impact","[{\"question\":\"What major changes to the bar exam are discussed?\",\"answer\":\"The text covers shifting from a three-day to a two-day exam, lowering the cut score, conducting the exam online during the pandemic, and abandoning nationally administered questions in favor of privately provided ones to reduce costs.\"}]","The Recorder Californias cut-rate bar exam reprint - Commentary | PDF",1789960189]