Statistics on the 2014 Bar (Part 15)

Statistics on the 2014 Bar Examinations

(Part 15)

by

Thads Bentulan

The resolutioners

We call Bracket K to Bracket L (grade 73.00 to 74.99) as the “Resolutioners.” They passed the bar by a special resolutio of the Supreme Court. These examinees are proud to belong to the top 18.82% of those who took the 2014 bar. What a performance.

Bracket K [74.00 to 74.99]

The next score bracket is from 74.00 to 74.99. Only 205 persons obtained scores within this bracket. Cumulatively, only 889 persons obtained a score of 74.00 and above. The persons in this bracket failed the bar because the original passing grade is 75.00. However, the Supreme Court ordered the passing grade to be lowered to 73.00, thereby allowing the 205 persons in this bracket to pass. These 889 comprise the Top 14.86%.

Bracket L [73.00 to 73.99]

The next score bracket is from 73.00 to 73.99. Only 237 persons obtained scores within this bracket. Cumulatively, only 1,126 persons obtained a score of 73.00 and above. The persons in this bracket also failed the bar because the original passing grade is 75.00. However, the Supreme Court ordered the passing grade to be lowered to 73.00, thereby allowing the 237 persons in this bracket to pass.

By lowering the passing grade from 75.00 to 73.00, the Supreme Court allowed a total of 205 + 237 = 442 failing persons to pass the 2014 Bar or an increase of 65% over the original number of successful examinees. These 1,126 persons comprise the Top 18.82%, quite an outstanding performance in any board or exam with around 6,000 examinees.

(End of Part 15)

- to be continued - 

Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4     Part 5     Part 6     Part 7     Part 8 

Part 9     Part 10     Part 11     Part 12     Part 13     Part 14     Part 15     Part 16

Part 17

Statistics on the 2014 Bar (Part 14)

Statistics on the 2014 Bar Examinations

(Part 14)

by

Thads Bentulan

thadsbentulan@gmail.com

The Century Flyers

The grade brackets F to H (grade 77.00 to 79.99) are called the “Century Flyers”  because they are likely in the top 100.

Bracket F [79.00 to 79.99]

The next score bracket is from 79.00 to 79.99. Only 69 persons obtained scores within this bracket. These persons occupy the 67^th to 85^th places. Cumulatively, only 183 persons obtained a score of 79.00 and above. These 183 comprise the Top 3.06%. Remember our example at the outset? This is where that person lands.

Bracket G [78.00 to 78.99]

The next score bracket is from 78.00 to 78.99. Only 99 persons obtained scores within this bracket. These persons occupy the 86^th to 106^th places. Cumulatively, only 282 persons obtained a score of 78.00 and above. These 99 persons comprise the Top 4.71%.

Bracket H [77.00 to 77.99]

The next score bracket is from 77.00 to 77.99. Only 112 persons obtained scores within this bracket. These persons occupy the 107^th to 126^th places. Cumulatively, only 394 persons obtained a score of 77.00 and above. These 394 comprise the Top 6.58%.

The Elite Hurdlers

Bracket I to Bracket J (grade 75.00 to 76.99) are the “Elite Hurdlers”  because they obtained 75.00  and above. Don’t forget that 75.00 is the original passing grade, and thus this group belong to the original elite who passed without the adjustment. They belong to the top 11.43%.

Bracket I [76.00 to 76.99]

The next score bracket is from 76.00 to 76.99. Only 140 persons obtained scores within this bracket. These persons occupy the 107^th to 126^th places. Cumulatively, only 534 persons obtained a score of 76.00 and above. These 534 comprise the Top 8.92%.

Bracket J [75.00 to 75.99]

The next score bracket is from 75.00 to 75.99. Only 150 persons obtained scores within this bracket. Cumulatively, only 684 persons obtained a score of 75.00 and above. These 684 comprise the Top 11.43% of the 5,984 who took the 2014 Bar Exams. Note that 75.00 is the original cut-off for passing the bar. Without any special adjustment as ordered by the Supreme Court, only 684 persons actually, originally, passed the 2014 Bar.

Furthermore, bear in mind that there were about 25 essay questions in the 2014 Bar as against only 10 to 15 essay questions in the previous bar exams.

(End of Part 14)

- to be continued-

Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4     Part 5     Part 6     Part 7     Part 8 

Part 9     Part 10     Part 11     Part 12     Part 13     Part 14     Part 15     Part 16

Part 17

Statistics on the 2014 Bar (Part 13)

Statistics on the 2014 Bar Examinations 

(Part 13)

by

Thads Bentulan

thadsbentulan@gmail.com

The Almosters

Let us move on to the discuss each bracket until we reach down to the adjusted passing grade of 73.00. By “adjusted,” we mean the “lowered passing grade,” according to a resolution of the Supreme Court. The original passing grade, without any adjustment, is 75.00.

For the sake of categorizing, for the grade brackets which we conveniently label as from Bracket B to Bracket E (grade 80.00 to 83.94), we shall use the term “Almosters.”  People in these brackets almost topped the bar exams.

Bracket B [83.00 to 83.94]

The next score bracket is from 83.00 to 83.94. Only 10 persons obtained scores within this bracket. These persons occupy the 11^th to 19^th places. The gap between the 10^th placer and the 19^th placer is 95 pips. The gap between the 1^st placer and the 19^th placer is 250 pips. Cumulatively, only 23 persons obtained a score of 83.00 and above. These top 23 persons, comprise the Top 0.38% of the 5,984 examinees. They almost topped the bar.

Bracket C [82.00 to 82.99]

The next score bracket is from 82.00 to 82.99. Only 19 persons obtained scores within this bracket. These persons occupy the 20^th to 32^nd places. The gap between the 10^th placer and the 32^nd placer is 195 pips. The gap between the 1^st placer and the 32^nd placer is 350 pips. Cumulatively, only 42 persons obtained a score of 82.00 and above. These 42 persons Top 0.70%. Again, they almost topped the bar.

Bracket D [81.00 to 81.99]

The next score bracket is from 81.00 to 81.99. Only 30 persons obtained scores within this bracket. These persons occupy the 33^rd to 50^th places. Cumulatively, only 72 persons obtained a score of 81.00 and above. These 72 comprise the Top 1.2%. An extremely impressive performance, almost topnotchers.

Bracket E [80.00 to 80.99]

The next score bracket is from 80.00 to 80.99. Only 42 persons obtained scores within this bracket. These persons occupy the 51^st to 66^th places. Cumulatively, only 114 persons  obtained a score of 80.00 and above. These 114 comprise the Top 1.91%. Almost topnotchers.

(End of Part 13)

- to be continued -

Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4     Part 5     Part 6     Part 7     Part 8 

Part 9     Part 10     Part 11     Part 12     Part 13     Part 14     Part 15     Part 16

Part 17

Statistics on the 2014 Bar (Part 12)

Statistics on the 2014 Bar Examinations 

(Part 12)

by

Thads Bentulan

thadsbentulan@gmail.com

Topnotchers

Let us analyze the performance of the successful 2104 bar examinees by grade brackets. We are not touching the histogram of those who failed. But this analysis should demonstrate to the Supreme Court what it could do and publicly report to the general public because they have all the data.

Let us start with the topnotchers, the Top 10 placers. Let’s refer to this group as Bracket A.

The 1^st placer obtained the highest weighted average grade of 85.50. Only one person obtained this score.

The lone 2^nd highest grade is 85.45. This person is 5 pips behind the 1^st placer.

The lone 3^rd highest grade is 84.60. This person is a very far 85 pips behind the 2^nd placer; this gap is the highest among the gaps among the top 10 placers. As we shall see later, the next highest gap is 20 pips, between the 8^th and the 9^th placer.

The 4^th highest score is 84.55. Three persons obtained this score; these persons are only 5 pips behind the 3^rd placer.

The lone 5^th highest score is 84.50. This person is 5 pips behind the 4^th placer.

The lone 6^th highest grade is 84.45. This person is 5 pips behind the 5^th placer.

The lone 7^th highest score is 84.35. This person is 10 pips behind the 6^th placer.

The 8^th highest grade is 84.20. Two persons obtained this score. These persons are 15 pips behind the 7^th placer.

The lone 9^th score is 84.00. This person is 20 pips behind the 8^th placer.

The lone 10^th highest grade 83.95. This person is 5 pips behind the 9^th placer. Cumulatively, only 13 persons, including the 1st Placer, obtained a score of 83.95 and above.

By the way, the difference between the 1^st placer and the 10^th placer is 155 pips. That’s wide gap.

The 13 persons occupying the Top 10 places are the Top 0.22% of the 5,984.

So far, we have discussed the 13 persons who landed in the Top 10 notches.

(End of Part 12)

- to be continued -

Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4     Part 5     Part 6     Part 7     Part 8 

Part 9     Part 10     Part 11     Part 12     Part 13     Part 14     Part 15     Part 16

Part 17

Statistics on the 2014 Bar (Part 11)

Statistics on the 2014 Bar Examinations

(Part 11)

by

Thads Bentulan

thadsbentulan@gmail.com

Statistics of the 2014 Bar

Finally, let us discuss some statistics of the 2014 bar. What is the importance of these data? This histogram shows exactly how difficult the exam is, as shown by the group’s performance, and how the examinees’ scores are distributed. For example, it show us that only 114 people of the 5,984 (1.91%) obtained a score of 80 and above. Can you imagine that? Did you pass the 2014 bar? Use these data to gauge your ranking.

Pip

First, let me introduce the concept of a pip. Simply put, a “pip” is the term given to the smallest increment of the grade, which in the case of the Supreme Court’s system, is equivalent to a 0.01 increment. You may visualize a pip as a stair-step. There is nothing lesser than a pip because like the stair-step, it is the smallest gap between grades. In other usage, a pip could be 100 or 0.50; a pip isn’t a fixed number, it merely refers to the minimum jump from one step to another.

Since the Supreme Court fixes the grade to the second decimal place, each grade movement or increment is by a quantum of 0.01. For example, if a person’s grade is 79.00, while the passing grade is 73.00, then that person is 600 pips above the passing grade. Wow! That’s 600 steps higher than the minimum required by the Supreme Court. That’s a great extra performance. He could have donated that 600 pips to 600 people who got only 72.99, being only 1 pip away from the passing grade. The small single increment of 0.01 grade points can actually make or break a legal career.

Another example, if the 1^st placer has a grade of 85.50 while the 10^th placer has a grade of 83.95, then the gap between them is 1.55 in grade points, which is actually 155 x 0.01. Remember that the smallest increment is 0.01. Therefore, in terms of pips, the gap between them is 155 pips because there are 155 counts of 0.01 increments between the 1^st placer and the 10^th placer.

(End of Part 11)

- to be continued- 

Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4     Part 5     Part 6     Part 7     Part 8 

Part 9     Part 10     Part 11     Part 12     Part 13     Part 14     Part 15     Part 16

Part 17

Statistics on the 2014 Bar (Part 10)

Statistics on the 2014 Bar Examinations

(Part 10)

by

Thads Bentulan

thadsbentulan@gmail.com

Possible solution

The MCQ format in the 2011 bar could be analyzed and refined. If the Americans trust the MCQ why not the Supreme Court?

In the case of pure essays, I have a complex but more equitable idea: One examiner who prepares the questions, and an additional two who will help in checking, for each subject. Each of the three (who would not know each other) will grade each notebook separately and their respective scores will be averaged. This is complex,  but given the amount of sacrifice made by the examinee and his family, the current method simply is likely to cause injustice. Complex but equitable.

Ultimate fact

Let’s not lose sight of this ultimate fact: The examinee suspended his career and life for half a year to prepare for the bar, sacrificing families and relationships, digging into law books the entire day and night, and spending a huge amount of money, and writing feverishly for eight hours for four Sundays. The least the entire Supreme Court could do is to make certain, each and every answer is graded individually, not by one sweeping glance at the notebook and writing a score that says 50.00 overall. Fair is fair.

Greatest thing

The greatest thing about the 2014 bar is that practically all the questions in all the subjects were very reasonable and very challenging, and probably the best set of questions devised in the last decade. The problems were deeply thought of, that one bar lecturer commented that the problems were  challenging, and that he was hardly able to finish answering in time when he attempted doing it himself. And he is a bar lecturer, an expert of more than 20 years. There were no outlandish or weird or nonsensical questions such as “What is outer-space? Who or which can exercise jurisdiction over astronauts while in outer space?”

For the 2014 bar, it was an exam written by experts to be answered by experts.

(End of Part 10)

- to be continued - 

Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4     Part 5     Part 6     Part 7     Part 8 

Part 9     Part 10     Part 11     Part 12     Part 13     Part 14     Part 15     Part 16

Part 17

Statistics on the 2014 Bar (Part 9)

Statistics on the 2014 Bar 

(Part 9)

by

Thads Bentulan

thadsbentulan@gmail.com

Confusing answers

Another possible source of injustice, is the answer itself. The U.P. Law Center often gives three different answers to a single question, either because the question is vague, or there is no established correct answer. Will the examiner favor an answer different from his?

Scoring issues

Of the all the possible injustices done to the examinees by entire bar process, nothing stands out so egregiously as the process of scoring.

First off, does the examiner really have time to correct each and every answer to each question, totaling 30 questions, of each of the 6,000 examinees? Or does he just skim through it? Even law professors have trouble checking the answers to 5 questions of 40 students.  

Usually, each problem is worth 4 points. Does the examiner write down a score for each and every problem? Such as “3 points out of 4?” How generous is the examiner? For example, even if your answer is correct in a given problem, will the examiner credit you with a “4 points out of 4” which is 100% for that problem, or merely “3/4” which only just a passing grade of 75%?

So, it’s either you get 100% (4/4) or 75% (3/4)! No wonder only 5% get the grade of 75. A grade of 75 means that the examinee is almost perfect, getting 3 points of 4 in each problem.

Thus, if the examiner religiously uses the point system for each problem, there are only five grades in the bar:  4/4 (100%), ¾ (75%), 2/4 (50%), ¼ (25%), and 0/4 (0%). Although, it is the doubtful that this scoring system is used, given the short time to check 6,000  notebooks. But if this point system is not used, what’s the point of assigning points to a problem?

With this illustration, can you see why getting a grade of 79 is almost like getting a perfect 4/4 in most of the problems and getting ¾ in others. No wonder a grade of 79 belongs to the top 3% in the 2014 bar. Ah, you’re still wondering why we choose an odd grade of 79 as an example in the beginning of this article?

So, who’s to say, that even with a perfect answer, the examiner will still refuse to give you 4 out of 4, but only a 3 of 4? This minor stroke has an huge deleterious effect. Your grade is either 75% barely passing or 100% topnotcher.

Anyway, I could write more about this issue, and if given a chance to share my ideas with the Supreme Court; I would gladly do so.

(End of Part 9)

- to be continued-

Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4     Part 5     Part 6     Part 7     Part 8 

Part 9     Part 10     Part 11     Part 12     Part 13     Part 14     Part 15     Part 16

Part 17

Statistics on the 2014 Bar (Part 8)

Statistics on the 2014 Bar Examinations

(Part 8)

by 

Thads Bentulan

thadsbentulan@gmail.com

Despot

The Examiner is the absolute despot in the manner of appreciating the examinee’s answer; he can pass or fail a candidate at his whim, or he can downgrade a perfect answer, at his caprice.

And the worst scenario of all, he can execute all these without being accountable for, nor being subject to, judicial review. The Examiner is more powerful than the Supreme Court! He is above and beyond certiorari.

Full time vs. Part time

How can a practicing lawyer or senior government official, as an examiner, give justice to an examinee’s notebook by checking 30 essay answers per notebook and correcting 50 notebooks every day without fail for 16 weeks? A retired judge maybe, but for a working official? The examiner is most likely to take shortcuts in checking, and that’s the first sign of possible injustice.

While the poor candidate resigned from his job and spends almost P300,000 just to review and prepare for the bar for half a year, the exhausted examiner simply skims through his booklet and gives a round of grade for 50 for his entire notebook, without individually look at each answer. A grade of 50? How can an examinee recover from that?

Correction

I have gathered these from various sources. The correction is a cloak and dagger operation. Within 10 days after the exams, the Bar Confidant will deliver to the examiner, personally, at a secret place (not in the Supreme Court premises) and time, 250 answer booklets in a sealed and locked canvass bag. The balance of the 5,000 or so answer books are kept in a vault in the Supreme Court. One key is given to the examiner and one key is given to the Bar Confidant. Thus, the answer books are safe.

The examiner is given one week to correct 250 notebooks. That’s about 50 per day, or 25 in the morning and 25 in the afternoon. It’s a very boring, tiring job. Each week, the examiner will hand over 250 checked notebooks and get 250 more to check. For 10 weeks, that 2,500 and 20 weeks for 5,000 answer books.

Can you imagine checking 25 answer books every morning and 25 every afternoon for 20 weeks? That’s close to 5 months of non-stop checking of 50 booklets per day. And don’t forget each answer book as 30 questions and answers.

Is this sustainable for a working lawyer or judge? Hardly; even for a retired judge with nothing to do. Thus, this weakness alone tends to dispense injustice to an examinee’s answers.

(End of Part 8)

to be continued

Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4     Part 5     Part 6     Part 7     Part 8 

Part 9     Part 10     Part 11     Part 12     Part 13     Part 14     Part 15     Part 16

Part 17

Statistics on the 2014 Bar (Part 7)

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.

(End of Part 7)
(to be continued)

Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4     Part 5     Part 6     Part 7     Part 8 

Part 9     Part 10     Part 11     Part 12     Part 13     Part 14     Part 15     Part 16

Part 17

Statistics on the 2014 Bar (Part 6)

Statistics on the 2014 Bar Examinations

(Part 6)

by Thads Bentulan

thadsbentulan@gmail.com

Why luck is a huge factor in essay type

After each bar exam, if you survey examinees to comment on the bar questions. Among their responses would be: “Of the topics covered in the Bar Review, only 10% came out.”

This reveals their frustration about over-preparation yet only 10% came out. Is this comment valid?

My opinion? Their sentiments are reasonable but they got the percentage wrong.

The topics that come out is less than 10%, more likely, less than 1% of what the Bar Review covers. Yes, only 1% come out.

Look at Civil Law alone. There were 30 questions in the 2014 bar, but it is very possible to have about 5,000 questions on the ten law school subjects (yes, ten) under the umbrella of Civil Law. That’s 30/5,000 =0.6% only.

And of that 0.6%, you are required to have “20-year expert level” of mastery not merely “fresh graduate” level. Finding a needle in a haystack is utterly easier than passing the bar!

That’s why leakages, and knowing the “favorite questions” of Bar Examiners are extremely unfair advantages that could spell victory or disaster to entire legal careers. You have to be lucky that the topics in the 30 questions are the ones that you have “mastered.”

Please note that I have the used the word “mastered.” If you have not mastered the topics in each of the 30 questions, say goodbye to your lawyerly dreams. Why? Each of those questions are written by experts and can be answered only by experts.

The bar questions over the years are questions which do not ask for your “foundation of basics” but for your “mastery of the exceptions” and the “exceptions to the exceptions.”

There is no way that a “bare knowledge of basics” will get you over the bar. No way. You have to be an expert to get 75% in the bar. Even law professors would have difficulty getting that 75%.

Thus, the candidate has to be lucky to answer, (perfectly!), 23 out 30 questions (75%). Perfectly! Who can get perfect answers? Will the examiners give perfect scores for each question?

Unfairness of Manila-based Examiners

It would be safe to say 100% of the examiners are based in the NCR. Once their identities are revealed, advertently or inadvertently, either by the examiner himself to his frat or alma mater contacts, or revealed by his or her spouse or relatives, there is the obvious temptation to yield to pressure.

And then there is the “not-so-obvious reason” of unfair advantage due to “inheritance exams.”

By inheritance exams, I mean this. Once you know Examiner’s identity, you will spend all your bar ops team’s efforts in digging up copies of his old exams as a professor over the last 20 years. Each professor has his own favorite angle and this will show in his exams.

(End of Part 6) 
To Be Continued

Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4     Part 5     Part 6     Part 7     Part 8 

Part 9     Part 10     Part 11     Part 12     Part 13     Part 14     Part 15     Part 16

Part 17

Statistics on the 2014 Bar (Part 5)

Statistics on the 2014 Bar Examinations

(Part 5)

by Thads Bentulan

thadsbentulan@gmail.com

The Examiners

The Chair of the Bar Committee, which is rotated each year, rightfully keeps the examiners anonymous due the immense pressure from examinees and their fraternities to obtain any form of advantage such as leakages. But when a lecturer suddenly goes on official leave the year before, he is immediately suspected as the next year’s examiner.

A bar examiner may be tempted to construct questions that are meant to impress the candidates with his supposed expertise rather than test the latter’s knowledge of the law. Some questions have questionable logic or questionable validity as a metric of the candidate’s knowledge. However, since discretion is given to the examiner, it is almost impossible to assail the appropriateness of such a bar question.

The examinee is afraid that the bar examinations will not test him on what he knows; he is afraid that the examiner will test him on what he does not know.

Based on information from various sources, each examiner is supposed to give 50 questions personally to the Chairman of the Bar Committee (who is a sitting Justice) at least 45 days before the exams. The questions are preferably in the handwriting of the examiner. By the time he has prepared 20 questions, he will have run out of questions to ask. And this probably tempts him to ask outlandish questions.

Of the 50, the Chairman will select 20 questions or, the latter may reject all questions and make his own.

Weakest Link

Remember I said that I will share my discovery of the weakest link in the entire bar exam operational cycle that remains unrectified to this day, and may be have caused tremendous injustice to the examinees?

The Supreme Court spends millions to protect the integrity and streamline the bar examination process, and over the years they have developed an impressive template. Yet, ironically, in my opinion, they have not given attention to the weakest link of the entire process: the correction of the examinees’ answers.

This is not the place to fully discuss each factor that makes the correction phase as the weakest link but I will just summarize some ideas.

(End of Part 5)
To  Be Continued

Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4     Part 5     Part 6     Part 7     Part 8 

Part 9     Part 10     Part 11     Part 12     Part 13     Part 14     Part 15     Part 16

Part 17

Statistics on the 2014 Bar (Part 4)

Statistics on the 2014 Bar Examinations

(Part 4)

by Thads Bentulan

thadsbentulan@gmail.com

How algebra distorted the 2014 bar

Let’s proceed to another topic. The Philippine bar is probably the hardest in the world, but the 2014 bar is the probably the hardest in Philippine bar history, and you can blame it on algebra. Far-fetched? Let me explain.

The Supreme Court decreed that the 2014 bar should consist of 80% essay and 20% multiple choice questions (MCQ). And this is where the tyranny of algebra lies. How so?

Usually, there are only 10 bar problems per subjects (with sub-problems). Maintaining the 20:80 ratio would mean only 2 MCQ and 8 essay type. Only 2 MCQs in a bar exam is so insignificant it would be ridiculous to have any MCQ at all. Progressively, the ridiculous pattern continues: For 15 problems, 3 MCQs, 12 essays; for 20 problems, 4 MCQs, 16 essays; for 26 problems, 5 MCQs, 21 essays, for 30 problems, 6 MCQs, 24 essays.

Thus, as you can see, including only 3 or 4 MCQs would be ridiculous, so the Bar Committee has no choice but to include 5 or 6 MCQs. But at what expense? To maintain the algebraic ratio, the essay problems had to be 24 or 21 problems in the morning and in the afternoon. Can you imagine all that thinking, composing, and writing? From the usual 10 to 15 essays, it became 30! And that’s for the morning session only. Even a single additional problem can already wreak havoc in your thinking and writing process. That’s murder! That’s how algebra caused the 2014 bar to be up to 150% longer, and therefore, physically and mentally excruciating.

Suggestion adopted?

Remember, at the outset, I said that one of my suggestions was adopted for the 2015 bar? In early 2015, I wrote to the Supreme Court that there is a lesson to be learned: “Do not fix the percent of MCQ. Better don’t include MCQ because the MCQ in the 2014 Bar hardly matters (total of 5%-6% for 5 to 6 questions?)

Or, if MCQ is part of the exams, don’t advertise it because their presence hardly make a dent anyway.

The negative impact is that the public will think the bar has been watered down in difficulty having gone MCQ. This is very misleading. In fact, the opposite happened.”

The Supreme Court, coincidentally, removed the MCQs in the 2015 bar. Want another coincidence? In 2007, the Supreme Court amended Rule 65 Sec. 8, but that’s another story.

(End of Part 4) 

Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4     Part 5     Part 6     Part 7     Part 8 

Part 9     Part 10     Part 11     Part 12     Part 13     Part 14     Part 15     Part 16

Part 17