Good news first: the woman who collapsed during the New York bar exam at Hofstra University survived. This positive outcome is crucial, but it does not mitigate the serious concerns raised about the administration of the exam.

When we initially reported on the incident, the Board of Law Examiners was unreachable, taking a post-exam week off. They later issued a statement prioritizing the affected candidate’s medical emergency. However, this claim has been met with skepticism and frustration by exam takers and the public alike.

Witness accounts paint a disturbing picture. Examinees noted a significant delay in response from the proctors after the woman collapsed. Despite the urgent situation, there was an apparent hesitation to halt the exam. The proctors' reluctance to act promptly and their decision not to stop the test have been heavily criticized. This has raised questions about the priorities and competence of those in charge.

An examinee shared their firsthand experience on LinkedIn, describing how the situation unfolded with the young woman collapsing due to what appeared to be a severe cardiac issue. Despite the gravity of the situation, proctors instructed candidates to continue with their exams and were slow to seek medical assistance. It took substantial urging from the students before the proctors called for help. Medical personnel only arrived minutes later, and life-saving measures were performed next to students who were still writing their exams.

The Board later suggested that the tests were collected and candidates dismissed for lunch shortly after the incident, attempting to downplay the disruption. This statement has been criticized as an attempt to cover up the mishandling of the event. It reflects a concerning disconnect between the examiners' account and the reality experienced by the test-takers.

The incident has sparked a broader debate about the integrity of the bar exam process. The reluctance to prioritize the wellbeing of a test-taker over the continuation of the exam speaks volumes about the entrenched attitudes within the institution responsible for administering the bar exam.

In conclusion, while the affected exam taker fortunately survived, this incident has exposed significant flaws in the administration of the bar exam. The event not only questions the logistical preparedness of the Board but also casts doubt on their ethical priorities. The legitimacy of the bar exam remains compromised, and calls for reform and a reevaluation of priorities have intensified in its aftermath.