Enough with the Spin: The State Bar’s “98% Completion” Defense is a Bait-and-Switch
Let’s not mince words: the State Bar’s attempt to hide behind a statistic claiming “98% of test takers completed the exam” is nothing more than a calculated effort to minimize and dismiss the very real disruptions so many applicants faced. They’re boiling the entire fiasco down to “did you submit something or not?”—when that’s nowhere close to the real issue.
The truth is that countless people lost precious time—some in fifteen-minute increments, others in half-hour stretches—thanks to technical failures, proctoring glitches, or sudden lockouts. Sure, maybe they managed to push the “submit” button at the end, but that doesn’t mean they were afforded a fair opportunity to actually finish their work. Yet the Bar continues to insist on a stat that suggests nearly everyone had a smooth, complete exam experience, essentially leaving applicants who endured stress, confusion, and truncated writing time in the dark.
The real story is about how we were forced to complete our answers, not whether a server log recorded that we clicked the final button. Some typed frantically in a panic, others had partial essays automatically submitted when time ran out. And the Bar still counts it all as “completion.” It’s an obvious and insulting tactic to brush off the major challenges that overshadowed the entire exam process.
Dismissing the severity of these disruptions by focusing on a superficial 98% figure is not just misleading—it’s disrespectful to everyone who sank time, money, and emotional capital into trying to perform at their best under exam conditions they were promised would be fair and consistent. By spotlighting only those who had total shutdowns or zero access to the platform, the Bar implies that partial or hobbled experiences don’t matter. Meanwhile, the majority who lost time in smaller increments—yet still submitted something—are left without acknowledgment or redress.
This fiasco highlights a bigger problem: the State Bar prioritizing image over integrity. They’re trying to salvage their reputation by touting incomplete data instead of confronting the real failures head-on. If they truly wanted to understand the exam experience, they’d take every lost minute seriously—because for anyone who’s actually taken a high-stakes test, every minute counts.
None of us are fooled.
We see exactly what’s happening here, and it’s a clear attempt to undercut legitimate grievances before they ever reach the light of day. People poured months (if not years) of preparation into this exam, and the best the State Bar can do is shrug and say, “Hey, 98% of you technically submitted something, so what’s the big deal?” That kind of dishonesty is precisely what’s fueling the widespread frustration and anger.
We’re not buying it. When your system fails—even partially—it’s on you, the testing authority, to own that failure and address all the affected applicants, not just the absolute worst-off. By refusing to do so, and by cherry-picking a misleading metric to paint over the cracks, the Bar is telegraphing that the lost time and shattered focus of thousands of people simply doesn’t matter enough for a real solution.
If they think this fiasco will fade quietly under the shield of “98%,” they’re sorely mistaken. The damage is done—and the more the Bar tries to spin the narrative, the more glaring the disconnect becomes.
SEND THIS TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT TO MAKE THEM AWARE OF THE BAIT AND SWITCH!!