Reflections on the 2007 Bar Tarnish
I'm sorry but someone has to say it.
I'm really bothered by the Supreme Court's decision to lower the passing percentage from 75% to 70%. It's like lowering their standards, which runs contrary to spirit of the bar exams reforms being promulgated.
Any bar exams should be free from tarnish or even the hint of such tarnish.
The reason that it was "unusually difficult" and only a few would pass on 75% is too flimsy for me. It is not as if we desperately need more lawyers, your know. Unfortunately, we can't export them. If only 281 would pass on 75% then so be it, I say.
And lowering the passing grade is too much of a compromise and would not fair to those who took previous bar exams and got 74.9% to 70%. One can argue that the this lowered 70% standard precedent should apply to future exams, and even retroactively to be fair to those who should have passed on these lower standards.
Face it. The Bar Exams is difficult in any event and in any case. If you got a difficult bar chairperson or a difficult bar exam it's just tough luck. And the chairman said in previous interviews, "The Bar examinations are not difficult, it depends on the examinees. If he prepared well and studied well, and prayed hard, then he will make it."
And why lower it to 70%, which I think is too low? Why not only 74% or even 73%? On the extreme, why not 60% or even 50%, which is the minimum grade required in any bar subject? Why not just grade on a curve? Or why not scrap this "unusually difficult" exams altogether, or at least not make it count as far as to "five-strike" rule is concerned?
I'm sure there are some other ways of addressing this "unusually difficult" bar exams other than dropping the standards too low.
Personally, because of this, I will be wary of hiring someone from this year. At the very least, I would demand that an applicant show his/her results and I would only hire one who "really" passed the 2007 Bar Exams, one who passed at 75%. I may not even hire someone from this year altogether and get one from an untarnished year, just to be sure.
You may have another opinion on the matter. But this is mine. And so is my hiring policy, because I'm the one who would have to look for the money to pay for his/her salary.
(If you really must know, and just to shut down an ad hominem argument, I passed my bar exams at way above 75% on my first attempt. I'm not a topnotcher, but I've eaten a lot of them for breakfast.)
I'm really bothered by the Supreme Court's decision to lower the passing percentage from 75% to 70%. It's like lowering their standards, which runs contrary to spirit of the bar exams reforms being promulgated.
Any bar exams should be free from tarnish or even the hint of such tarnish.
The reason that it was "unusually difficult" and only a few would pass on 75% is too flimsy for me. It is not as if we desperately need more lawyers, your know. Unfortunately, we can't export them. If only 281 would pass on 75% then so be it, I say.
And lowering the passing grade is too much of a compromise and would not fair to those who took previous bar exams and got 74.9% to 70%. One can argue that the this lowered 70% standard precedent should apply to future exams, and even retroactively to be fair to those who should have passed on these lower standards.
Face it. The Bar Exams is difficult in any event and in any case. If you got a difficult bar chairperson or a difficult bar exam it's just tough luck. And the chairman said in previous interviews, "The Bar examinations are not difficult, it depends on the examinees. If he prepared well and studied well, and prayed hard, then he will make it."
And why lower it to 70%, which I think is too low? Why not only 74% or even 73%? On the extreme, why not 60% or even 50%, which is the minimum grade required in any bar subject? Why not just grade on a curve? Or why not scrap this "unusually difficult" exams altogether, or at least not make it count as far as to "five-strike" rule is concerned?
I'm sure there are some other ways of addressing this "unusually difficult" bar exams other than dropping the standards too low.
Personally, because of this, I will be wary of hiring someone from this year. At the very least, I would demand that an applicant show his/her results and I would only hire one who "really" passed the 2007 Bar Exams, one who passed at 75%. I may not even hire someone from this year altogether and get one from an untarnished year, just to be sure.
You may have another opinion on the matter. But this is mine. And so is my hiring policy, because I'm the one who would have to look for the money to pay for his/her salary.
(If you really must know, and just to shut down an ad hominem argument, I passed my bar exams at way above 75% on my first attempt. I'm not a topnotcher, but I've eaten a lot of them for breakfast.)
transcription by Punzi @ 8:19 PM
<< Home