LAST week’s announcement of the 2017 Bar Examination results produced the usual mixture of elation from the bar passers and sadness from those who did not make it. We congratulate the passers and commiserate with those who failed.
Seemingly random variations have a big impact on the chances of a candidate passing or failing.
In 2016, out of 6,344 candidates, there were 3,747 passers. This meant 59.06 percent passed. In contrast, out of 6,748 candidates who took the 2017 examination, only 1,724 passed (25.55 percent).
When we have around 7,000 candidates, it is not possible, statistically, for the overall standard to fluctuate by very much. This means that there were those who passed in 2016 who would have failed in 2017. Of greater current relevance is that there were those who failed in 2017 who would have passed in 2016.
It is not reasonable to have only 25.55 percent passing this year when there were 59.06 percent who passed last year.
***
Bar examinees attended the University of Santo Tomas over the four Sundays in the mouth of November.
For each Sunday, there were two examinations. Thus, there were eight examinations altogether. Political and International Law, Labor Law and Social Legislation, Civil Law, Taxation Law, Mercantile Law, Criminal Law, Remedial Law, and Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises.
Lex Schemata provides some valuable statistical data.
Passers need an average of at least 75 percent to be successful. The median mark for the eight examinations varied considerably. [The median is the mark where 50 percent of the candidates score less than or equal to the median and 50 percent more than or equal to the median]. The median mark varied substantially between the eight subjects. The most ‘difficult’ subject was Criminal Law where the median mark was only 62.85 percent. This corresponded to only 17.67 percent of candidates obtaining the pass mark of 75 percent.
Civil Law was the only subject where more than 50 percent of examinees obtained a passing grade.
In order to pass the Bar Examination, it is necessary to have an overall average of 75 percent which means, in practice, that successful candidates are not likely to be much below 70 percent in any of the eight subjects.
Further analysis of the data suggests that there were several hundred candidates who scored an overall average of between 75 and 76 percent (the fortunate ones) and also several hundred candidates who scored between 74 and 75 percent (the unlucky ones).
I hope that those who did not pass this time will try again. It seems to be a good idea for students to make more effort on those subjects where the median score is low. These subjects are Criminal Law (62.85 percent), Political and International Law (65.14 percent), Labor Law and Social Legislation (66.10 percent), Mercantile Law (68.10 percent), and Taxation Law (68.45 percent).
These low marks make the performance of bar top-notcher Bacolodnon Mark John Simondo, who had an average of 91.05 percent to be all the more remarkable.
A feature of the Bar Examination is the vast amount of knowledge that students need to have in order to pass. This contrasts markedly with our overall education system in which examinations usually cover only a small amount of knowledge acquired over a short period of time. We reward short-term learning as opposed to long-term understanding.
I would like to see the culture of the Bar Examinations where real understanding is tested be emulated in our school and university examinations. At present, most of these examinations test only short-term rote learning, not whether the student really understands the subject being tested.
Our education system has become too long and too mediocre.
It is time to review K-12 which, to many, is an expensive waste of time./PN
