There’s a lot of comments on the proposed bar exam reforms. Some say that a major overhaul of the entire system is needed. Some, on the other hand, say that the bar exams is acceptable as it is, and no reforms are needed. Perhaps the opinion of the Political Law examiner for the 2007 bar exams, Dean Raul Pangalangan, would carry more weight. Here’s a portion of what Dean Pangalangan said in his PDI column:
We must take the same path taken in the United States: multiple-choice questions and machine-corrected exams. This was already proposed by former Supreme Court Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, but it will entail a radical redesign of the process. Multiple-choice questions are best vetted through a panel of examiners and testing professionals — so there goes the solitary examiner and this whole system of cloak-and-dagger secrecy.
In response, it has been argued that essay questions are needed to judge the candidate’s facility with language and ability to analyze and to explain. Then, I argue, let’s retain a 20 percent essay portion for the exam, but mainly to test expressive abilities. In other words, let’s not overburden the whole process when all we want to target is a specific ability.
During my student days in U.P., our remedial law professor, now Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, gave us one exam consisting entirely of multiple-choice questions. We thought that a multiple-choice exam would be easy. We were wrong, dead wrong, and it was an experience that made many of us wish for more easy-type questions.
In closing, allow me to congratulate the new Dean of my alma mater, Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
Loading ...- 2010 Bar Exams: Bar Questions, Discussions and Results
- 2011 Bar Exams: Discussions, Bar Questions and Results
- As the Dust Settles, Questions on the Bar Exams
- Bar Exams 2009: Last Sunday Rescheduled
Tinkering with internet tools comes with the bonus of better understanding how existing laws apply to the third wave - that of technology, particularly the internet. This is also a great medium to disseminate and discuss ideas across borders, time, color or creed. 
yes, multiple choice exam is quite difficult. some of my professors in law school also gave us that type of test. mahirap…. marami pa nga nabokya….i agree with dean pangalangan… i think sc should start considering a multiple choice type of exam…. masyado na yata ancient ang style ng bar exam natin…..
*nods* I fully agree with our examiner (hmm… finally, i know who gave those questions in Political Law… thanks a lot!
).
Reform in the kind of questions being asked (Oh PLEASE, test the aspiring lawyers’ aptitude in the laws that they will be using once they are already in practice [if ever they wil pass], including the basics in some of the less prominent aspects of the subjects of the BarEx, and not questions on laws that they will not even encounter in their lifetime as a lawyer… it just does not serve the purpose of the BarEx).
Reform in the manner of giving questions like considering non-extensive essay type of questions [but in a way that examinees’ reasoning skills can still be tested... maybe, 80% multiple choice and 20% essay for purposes of checking the examinees' ability to express him/herself] to avoid the very sad reality where even the most brilliant law graduates won’t be able to pass just because their penmanship is bad [hello, as if lawyers are gonna use their own penmanship to make their pleadings, etc.].
Reform must be made, especially with regard to the manner of checking the papers. It is just to da*n subjective. As what have Dean Pangalangan said in his article, “Finally, the low overall passing rate does not mean that the 2007 examinees were inferior. The appreciation of answers, that is to say, how the answers are graded, depends largely on the philosophy and approach of the examiner.” The checking is subject to what the examiner “wants” (maybe the examiner is in love with beautiful penmanship or wants those who can site laws in verbatim, etc.) to see and not simply on the correct answer and reasoning of the examinee.
REFORM THE BAREX! For the sake of future examiners, and for the sake of the aspiring lawyers… And for the sake of improving the credibility of the BarEx… and, ultimately, of the legal profession.
The multiple-choice questions introduced earlier in our school were not responsive of the philosophy behind the reform. It only gives a closed- set of choices which, when taken prima facie, are all correct.
It took away the examiner’s discretion and the examinee’s privilege to be given partial credit to an answer that is partly correct. Maybe they should adopt the California style where a choice has a corresponding point to retain the giving of partial credit.
very difficult indeed.. During my days in UST, the rumored examiner in taxation (2008 Bar Exams) Justice Japar Dimaampao gave us multiple choice type of exams but he would require us also to explain our answer in not more than 3 sentences if i remember it correctly. In that way, it would be easier to check our booklets without however sacrificing the examinees’ ability to express and to argue..
anyway, the questions MUST always be FAIR and REASONABLE whatever the type of exam would be.. and please, mr. examiner never recycle the questions that you asked your students in one of their mid-terms or finals. its very disheartening to hear and see them rejoice because of that.. sense of justice lang po.. =)
yes, that california style is still multiple choice! although there is corresponding point for every chosen answer…
Hi everyone..Multiple choice exams are very very difficult. I know this because CPA exams are designed that way. This type of exam is especially uber difficult in subjects involving theory. Let me give you an example. Sa Audit theory, one question/number consisted of four sentences. Tapos ang choices are: (a) sentence 1 and 2 are correct, (b) sentence 3 and 4 are correct, (c) Sentence 1 and 3 are correct, (d) the first three sentences are correct, all four sentences are correct. Ang rule of thumb lang is walang choice na “none of the above.”
Is it possible to have 16 examiners or more to check the booklets of bar examinees? I believe this bar reform will assure the every bar examinee that his or her booklet will be checked thoroughly.
i read before (don’t know if it was in time magazine)that among all the asian countries, we got the best lawyers here in the phils..that’s probably because our bar exams are very tough..that’s why i am not amenable for the multiple choice type f questions, coz what will happen is a guessing game..(if of course pure multiple choice yan)so swertihan nlang tlaga pg ganun ang nangyari..how can we produce quality lawyers if that will be the case?
here in the phils.ung mga mgtatake ng bar exam talagang ibina-bar ops pa bec. nga sobrang difficult ng exam unlike those board exams na parang pangkaraniwan lang kasi nga multiple choice ang exams..kaya nga iba ang prestige ng 1 lawyer because we know kung gano kahirap ang pinagdaanan before maging lawyers..ang hirap naman kasi dito s pinas, gaya-gaya, eh ano kung multiple choice ang type ng exam s US? dpat ba ganun din tayo? for once nman magkaroon naman tayo ng sarili nating identity..kaya nga essay type yan kc dun nga tinetest if 1 can really become a lawyer, if he can reason out and defend his answer and of course cite the applicable law..
opinion ko lang nman yan, i maybe right or wrong but still am entitled to that…
I’d like to go fifty fifty; fifty percent multiple choice and fifty percent essay. I agree with Jna. why copy when we have our own. We should just modify it and strengthen it. The only problem i see in our bar exams is in the manner of checking not the type of questions per se. If there would be some radical reforms i think it should be in the area of checking the booklets not so much the type of questions.
I’d like to go fifty fifty; fifty percent multiple choice and fifty percent essay. I agree with Jna. why copy when we have our own. We should just modify it and strengthen it. The only problem i see in our bar exams is in the manner of checking not the type of questions per se. If there would be some radical reforms i think it should be in the area of checking the booklets not so much the type of questions.
The haughty and irresponsible statement of Justice Ascuna that the bar exams was checked with an unusually strict correction betrays the fact that there are no uniform standards in checking the bar exams. The checking of the booklets depends on the whims and caprice of the examiner.
There is another issue that needs to be addressed. How can one examiner check some 5,000 plus booklets? If he employs a battery of checkers, it is really unfair for the examinees because each checker would have a different appreciation of the answer. If he checks the booklets all by himself, there is still no uniform standard because he just might be in a different mood the following day. He could be strict one day and lenient on some days.
The examinees are not tested for their knowledge of the law. The examinees are tested if they are lucky enough to pass the whims and caprice of the examiner.
The bar exams should cause apprehension to the general public as well. The injustice engendered by the unfair checking of answers rubs off on the dispensation of justice in our country.
the SC should consider the idea of having at least two (2) examiners per subject to insure fairness, objectivity and transparency. it will also give the examiners enough time to check and counter check the booklets.
in the last bar exams, it was reported that many were disqualified in labor law. my friend who took the bar exams said the questions given in that subject were mainly objective and were mostly copied from the labor law notes/reviewer of atty. chan of arellano law school. except for the first question which most examinees found new, tricky and ridiculous, the rests of the questions, according to him, were easy yet, the examiner disqualified a lot of them. the low passing percentage in that subject, according to him is BASELESS and UNREASONABLE. the defense of strict correction cannot be used to justify an “effortless” preparation of test questions.
with the two examiners set-up, there will a system of checks and balances with the end in view of safeguarding also the interests of the examinees some or many of whom are EQUALLY deserving to pass. thanks to dean pangalangan for speaking the truth which was totally ignored by some members of the 2007 bar examinations committee.
@ warrior re: “The haughty and irresponsible statement of Justice Ascuna that the bar exams was checked with an unusually strict correction…”
It is the word of the SC en banc spoken through Justice Azcuna being the Chairman of the 2007 BarEx.
@ webster re: “(2) examiners per subject to insure fairness, objectivity and transparency. it will also give the examiners enough time to check and counter check the booklets…”
The problem with that setup is, during the so-called checks and balance, who’s word would be the final word? Of course, we cannot imagine a scene where the 2 examiners will be asking each other what they think about the answers of each examinee. Rechecking all that have been checked by the other is also not feasible ‘coz definitely, the first checker would not want to consider that the checking of the other one (during the course of the checks and balance) is superior to his appreciation. This setup will subect the answers of the examinees to double subjectiveness from the two examiners’ appreciation of the answers.
Just a thought.
This proposed reforms seem fresh and timely and I am for it mostly. I reckon that a multiple choice type of questionnaire would determine the specific ability of examiners and would discourage those who merely memorizes the provisions.
The present system is so suitable for those with high memory but low in objective knowledge. Like for example, if one is asked to give elements of a provision, anybody who has good memorization skill would be able to tackle, irregardless of whether or not he or she knows how to apply it in real environment.
thanks alpha-mike for the kind observation.
per newspaper account, there were four children of incumbent sc justices who also took the 2007 barex and all of them passed. judging from messages i happened to read in this website prior to the release of the results, it is possible that the passing percentage was increased to insure the passing of these “LUCKY FELONS”, este fellows, or some or one of them? Reminds me of gustavo ericta in the early 80s. Could this be true madame bar confidant? if not, why the delay in the release after the encoding and why the varying passing percentage from 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 19 and 22%? the examiner in labor law should be sent back to law school and undergo a refresher’s course in legal ethics.