The NextGen UBE: From Materials to Management: How Digital Delivery Changes the Work of Bar Administration

This article originally appeared in The Bar Examiner print edition, Fall 2026 (Vol. 95, No. 3), pp. 35–40. By Kara Smith, PhDFor generations of bar exam administrators, exam day has involved a distinctly physical kind of responsibility. Boxes arrive. Secure materials must be counted, protected, distributed, collected, reconciled, packed, and returned. Proctors track time manually throughout the exam. Every room operates within a carefully choreographed process designed to protect the integrity of a high-stakes licensure examination.

The NextGen Uniform Bar Examination (UBE)’s first administration changed much of that work. The examination moved onto candidates’ laptops. Administrators and proctors used digital tools to launch sessions, monitor candidate status, and manage the administration. All but eight print booklets disappeared. In their place came new workflows, new considerations, new roles, and new ways of monitoring an exam site.

Overall, the transition to a fully digital assessment was a welcome change. Of course, introducing new technology also brought important lessons. NCBE continues to empathize with the examinees impacted by the cancellation in Washington and delays in Maryland and Missouri. Those experiences, along with the successful Washington makeup administration in September, reinforced the importance of learning as much as we could from the jurisdiction staff who supported the administration.

Following the inaugural administration in July, NCBE asked jurisdiction staff who had served as site leads, room leads, and proctors to tell us about the experience. ­Thirty-two responded.1 Their input provides an early look at something that deserves attention as the bar exam continues its digital transition: The work of examination administration is changing alongside the examination itself. Early feedback regarding that shift is encouraging.

Many survey respondents brought substantial experience to the table. Among site and room leads who reported their experience, more than two-thirds had supported at least 6 previous bar exam administrations, and nearly half had supported 11 or more. They knew the rhythms, responsibilities, and demands of traditional bar administration.

Among experienced leads who had participated in at least six administrations and could compare the two exam models, 13 of 16 (81%) said the NextGen UBE was somewhat better or much better to administer.

Broader survey results tell a similar story. Three-quarters of respondents rated their overall experience excellent or very good, and 92% rated it good or better. Nearly nine in ten said they felt prepared for their role. Ninety-five percent of responding site and room leads said they understood their exam-day responsibilities, and every respondent to the relevant question said they knew who to contact when questions or issues arose.

Those results are particularly notable for a first operational administration built around new technology, new workflows, and new roles. They suggest that administrators did more than adapt to the new model. Many already saw advantages in it, starting with fewer physical materials to manage: “Less papers and quicker process,” one respondent wrote; “not having to pass out and collect papers was great!” said another.

A longtime administrator described “less moving parts / critical booklets and scantron sheets to track.” Another pointed to fewer boxes, a reduced need for preparation before the examination, and less work immediately afterward—leading to an efficient exam day. One respondent captured the sentiment more colorfully: “I loved not having a zillion books to tote around!”

Those comments describe an immediate benefit of digital delivery and a larger transformation. NextGen exam-day preparation and work increasingly centers on managing an examination in progress: understanding where candidates are in the process, monitoring rooms and sessions, coordinating people and technology, recognizing exceptions, communicating across roles, and making decisions based on real-time information.

Different Views of the Exam

That shift in management work becomes especially visible in what survey respondents valued about NCBE’s Exam Day Portal. Site and room leads described the ability to see where candidates were in the exam process as particularly useful. They could determine whether a candidate was waiting to begin, actively testing, taking a ­stop-the-clock break, or finished. One room lead valued the “ability to monitor all applicants in real time and investigate any unusual situations.” Another liked “being able to monitor Applicants’ status and progress during the exam.”

Survey results show how quickly administrators became comfortable with that new visibility. Ninety-five percent of responding portal users agreed that it was intuitive, and 89% said examinee status information was easy to understand. Ninety-five percent were at least somewhat confident using portal information to make exam-day decisions, including nearly three-quarters who were very or extremely confident.

Other operational functions received similarly strong assessments. Eighty-four percent agreed that matching physical room counts with system counts was easy, and the same percentage were confident that the system launched sessions with the correct examinees assigned.

For a first operational administration, those findings matter and will support strengthening future administrations. Administrators used new information to understand what was happening across the administration and make decisions in real time.

That kind of visibility changes administrators’ relationship to the examination. Physical custody historically provided one form of control: administrators knew where secure materials were, who had them, when they were distributed, and whether they had been returned. Digital delivery creates another form of control through actionable operational awareness.

Administrators’ suggestions for future enhancements reveal how quickly their thinking had moved beyond simply learning a new system. Leads want information organized around the decisions they make. Proctors need room-specific views, whereas site leads require broader ones. Accommodation administrators need to monitor several private rooms at once. Leads also require seat information when it is relevant and clearer ways to monitor examinees operating on different testing schedules.

Each of these features has been added to the Exam Day Portal backlog and will be prioritized in collaboration with administrators and NCBE’s volunteer Exam Products and Services Committee.

Those requests offer a useful design principle for digital bar administration: to give each person the information needed to understand what is happening and make the next decision.

“Show Me What the Candidate Sees”

One of the clearest lessons came from consistent survey feedback by proctors: wanting to understand the candidate’s experience of the system. “Not knowing what the user experience is,” one room lead wrote when asked where preparation could have been stronger. Another wanted “a better understanding of what the applicants see on their computers and how to get to the proper login page.” A respondent who served in both leadership and proctoring roles put their request simply: “Show us what the test takers would see on that day, how they would use the computer and what they would do.”

Operational readiness means every team member understands their roles and how those roles connect.

A room proctor described working with candidates who were unfamiliar with the software and realizing that the proctor had not seen enough of the candidate-facing process to guide them confidently. The proctor recommended allowing those in the role to complete a sample candidate login themselves before exam day. A digital exam administration creates multiple views of the same event. Candidates, room proctors, room and site leads, technical staff, and NCBE staff have distinct interfaces, information, and responsibilities. Successful administration depends on connecting those perspectives.

A proctor does not need to perform a site lead’s job, and a site lead does not need to become a technical specialist. Each person benefits from understanding how their role connects to the candidate journey and to the work happening around them. That is a different kind of operational knowledge that creates shared team-wide situational awareness.

It also gives the candidate experience a practical place in administrator preparation. Understanding what candidates see, what they are being asked to do, and where they may need assistance helps administrators and proctors support the examination from the candidate’s side of the screen and their own.

From Training to Readiness

The first operational NextGen administration also provides evidence that a great deal of the preparation prior to exam day was helpful.

Ninety-five percent of respondents who used the Exam Day Portal described their prior training as helpful. Across roles, 87% of respondents said they felt very or somewhat prepared for the administration, and no respondent described themselves as unprepared.

Respondents identified a range of resources that contributed to their preparation: manuals, webinars, videos, screenshots, written instructions, jurisdiction-specific meetings, and NCBE staff knowledge. Several specifically praised the ability to revisit recorded training or refer to screenshots later. Eighty-five percent of those responding also agreed that they received timely technical support when needed.

Those results give us a strong foundation but also point toward the next evolution in preparation: doing the work before exam day.

Respondents valued hands-on opportunities to test workflows. Some wanted earlier or greater access to practice environments. A proctor specifically cited the opportunity to log into the system and practice steps in advance. Another respondent credited participation in the July 2026 beta administration as especially valuable.

Leads also wanted to practice “unusual situations” or “Worst Case Scenarios” that depart from the expected workflows. Other responses focused on knowing what to do when technology behaves unexpectedly, candidates operate on different timelines, or the administration requires an exception to the normal process.

Those observations raise an important question not just for leads, proctors, and jurisdictions managing the bar exam process but for every organization supporting a digital ­high-stakes examination.

What Does It Mean to Be Ready?

Knowledge remains essential. Administrators need policies, procedures, schedules, requirements, manuals, and training prior to exam day. A prepared team understands when and how to apply that knowledge during a bar examination.

Operational readiness adds another dimension. Operational readiness means every team member understands their roles and how those roles connect. They can recognize what is happening around them, use available information, respond to common exceptions, and know when and where to escalate something they cannot resolve themselves. For example, during the July exam, administrators demonstrated that they clearly understood the escalation process when support was needed. The team chats were used for cross-site support and the escalation channel was used when NCBE leadership support was needed. This helped reach solutions quickly and closely to the issue.

The first NextGen UBE administration suggests that administrators entered July with a strong base of knowledge and preparation. Their experience now gives us the opportunity to build the next layer of readiness.

Connecting Perspectives Across the Team

One respondent described another factor that contributed to a successful administration: “Having different individuals responsible for certain tasks and not trying to do everything myself.” That administrator described staff members with distinct responsibilities for delivering instructions, monitoring the room, and providing technical assistance.

The comment captures another feature of digital administration. It increasingly operates as a team of differentiated roles involving site leads, room leads, room proctors, technical proctors, venue technology staff, jurisdiction administrators, and NCBE support staff. Each sees different parts of the administration and brings different expertise. Clear responsibilities and handoffs allow those roles to work together.

Survey results suggest that those role structures largely worked. Eighty-six percent agreed that the testing environment supported them in performing their responsibilities effectively.

Together, perspectives from site and room leads, proctors, accommodation administrators, and many others create a fuller picture of an administration.

Site and room leads tended to see the larger operation: staffing, monitoring, information flow, coordination, and decision-making. Proctors saw the administration much closer to the candidate: questions candidates asked, steps that caused uncertainty, and practical application of procedures within a room. The survey itself reinforced the value of hearing from each of those perspectives.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents also worked within the additional complexity of accommodated testing, supporting examinees using extended time, ­stop-the-clock breaks, separate rooms, ­speech-to-text, ­text-to-speech, and other accommodations.

Together, perspectives from site and room leads, proctors, accommodation administrators, and many others create a fuller picture of an administration. They also remind us that the expertise required to administer a bar examination lives across the team. The site lead may recognize a pattern across rooms that an individual proctor cannot see. Technical staff may understand the cause of a behavior that others can only observe as an outcome. Readiness builds when those perspectives connect.

Learning From One Another

The survey also revealed another source of readiness: other administrators.

“The training sessions and monthly administrator meetings were instrumental in helping me feel prepared for exam day,” one respondent wrote. “Learning how other jurisdictions addressed challenges and managed different situations gave me greater confidence in administering the exam effectively.”

Another administrator described the value of hearing people from other jurisdictions ask “the questions I had, and questions I hadn’t thought of yet.”

Others specifically identified jurisdiction meetings, working-group discussions, and direct conversations with NCBE staff as some of the most useful parts of their preparation. Fellow administrators’ support may become increasingly important as the NextGen UBE expands to more jurisdictions.

Before July 2026, every jurisdiction preparing for the new exam faced the same limitation: no jurisdiction had yet held an operational administration. NCBE could draw from extensive development work, research administrations, beta testing, simulations, training, and experience with other testing programs. Jurisdictions brought decades of expertise administering bar examinations. Everyone still had to anticipate how those pieces would connect during the first operational NextGen UBE. July created a new source of knowledge: people who have done the work.

July 2026 administrators and proctors now know what preparation was most useful. They learned which questions are the most important to ask and better understand how roles function in practice. They learned which information helped them make decisions and what they would explain differently to someone doing the job for the first time.

Turning Experience Into Readiness

NCBE is carrying those lessons into future preparation. Beginning with the July 2027 cycle, jurisdiction readiness work will follow a more progressive model across the administration year. Administrators will work through major operational domains as the relevant decision points arise: timelines, delivery systems, staffing and roles, accommodations, venue and technology readiness, site capacity, NCBE systems, candidate readiness, test-day logistics, and communication and escalation.

The approach builds on the preparation that 2026 administrators found valuable while adding more opportunities for application. Jurisdictions will explore realistic workflows, examine their operating plans, practice critical functions, identify unresolved questions, and address readiness needs before exam day. The model is designed to move beyond information delivery toward demonstrated operational readiness.

Jurisdictions that administered the NextGen UBE in 2026 can examine what they learned and what they would carry forward. Meanwhile, jurisdictions preparing for their first administration can work through the decisions and questions arising in their specific environments. Combined sessions will create opportunities for experienced and first-time NextGen administrators to collaborate and learn, with NCBE facilitating the exchange and incorporating those lessons into guidance and support.

This approach reflects one of the clearest messages from the first administration. People become ready through a combination of knowledge, practice, perspective, and connection.

The first administration also gives NCBE something equally important: evidence about where the model is already working well. Future readiness efforts can preserve those strengths while concentrating additional practice and support where administrators find it most valuable.

Ever-Evolving Work

Bar administration has always required extraordinary coordination, judgment, and attention to detail. Digital delivery brings those skills into a new operating environment. It places greater emphasis on situational awareness, connected roles, candidate visibility, information flow, experiential preparation, and the ability to respond to exceptions. Administrators of the first NextGen UBE help us better understand that environment.

Their experience also gives NCBE and future NextGen jurisdictions the opportunity to learn from people who went first. Every administration will add to our collective knowledge. Every jurisdiction will bring its unique expertise and experience. The goal is to capture those lessons, share them, preserve what works, and use what we learn to strengthen the next administration. We now have operational experience; we must convert that experience into continued readiness.

Contact us to request a pdf file of the original article as it appeared in the print edition.