The 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 real-exam 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 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.