Statistics on the 2014 Bar Examinations
(Part 7)
by Thads Bentulan
thadsbentulan@gmail.com
Mastery
by unfair advantage
By knowing all his
questions, as a professor, in political law, or criminal law, as the case may
be, you are already assured of “mastering” in advance that particular topic.
Since an examiner is going to prepare 50 questions, how many of his favorite
“trick problems” as a law professor, do you think will be part of that 50?
Maybe 20 problems out of 50? Remember, there is no way, that particulare
professor will only give a basic problem. He will always give a “tricky”
problem, one that looks so obvious on its face but is actually an “exception to
the exception” problem.
That focus on those so
called favorite topics alone and mastering them in advance is an unfair advantage
of his former alma mater and frat members.
What about the
provincial candidates who didn’t have him as professor? These unfortunate
candidates will have just to pray for luck in having the “mastery” of any
questions that will come out in the bar.
Considering that in
Civil Law alone, an examiner could ask any of 5,000 possible questions, how
could you expect the candidate to be an expert on those 5,000 topics? And
that’s for Civil Law alone!
Thus, any advantage
of knowing the favorite topics of the examiner is already an unfair advantage
with extreme consequences. And that’s just one of the “not-so-obvious” reasons.
There are so many but we will not discuss them here.
Distribution
of topics
Maybe the Philippine
Association of Law Schools (PALS) should be given a chance to suggest the
distribution of topics, this could be
percentage-wise, to avoid too much concentration on certain topics and neglect
of other topics. For example, avoid overconcentration on the topics of
obligations and contracts in Civil Law. However, there is a real problem here.
How can you allocated topics with only 10, 15 or 20 questions?
Whimsical
questions
The Chair of the Bar
Committee should not select whimsical questions which serve the purpose of
ego-tripping on the part of the examiners rather than to test the fundamental
knowledge of the candidates; to avoid memory and enumeration type of questions;
and, for example, avoid using names susceptible of confusion such as “Humpty”
and “Dumpty.” These names might be cute but their similarity tends to create
confusion than to avoid confusion.
Level
of Expertise
Here are the two
most important issues when it comes to formulating the bar problems. First,
there must be a realistic time allotment for questions and to allow for
analysis time. Maybe the examiner himself should write down in his own
handwriting the correct answers to his own questions and time himself. Then add
an extra time for analysis and composition of thoughts for an examinee.
And the most
important issue of all, in the entire bar process: What level of expertise is
being sought in a candidate to hurdle the bar exams?
The knowledge of a
first year law practitioner? Or the knowledge accumulated over 20 years of
experience by an expert practitioner or professor? In the case of the 2014, the
problems were of the latter type.
