From whom would you learn the most valuable lessons: from the bar flunker or from the bar topnotcher?
Epilogue
On February 29, 2012, at about 3 pm, the Supreme Court officially released the results of the November 2011 bar examinations held at the Univerty of Santo Tomas in Manila.
Like I predicted in the very beginning of these Confessions, the topnotcher is some high-flying class valedictorion from some big time law school.
However, unlike I predicted, the 2011 bar topnotcher obtained only a grade of 85.5363% a very far cry from the 95% that I predicted. The 10th placer obtained only 83.72% instead of the 90% I predicted for the 20th (not 10th) placer.
However, unlike I predicted, the 2011 bar topnotcher obtained only a grade of 85.5363% a very far cry from the 95% that I predicted. The 10th placer obtained only 83.72% instead of the 90% I predicted for the 20th (not 10th) placer.
The grade of 85.5363% is the 4th lowest topnotcher grade in the history of the Philippine bar.
Unimpressed
We could slice this grade in different angles, but let me tell you this early: I have a keen sense of magnitude and proportion, and I tell you this result is unimpressive.
Right now, I have a few theories, why this result doesn't jibe. I'll share with your my theories in a short while.
Shocking results
Then there we shocking results that didn't harmonize with me. According to Justice Roberto Abad, the 2011 Bar Committee Chairman, only 34% passed the MCQ, only 15.47% passed the Memorandum Writing, and only 50.78% passed the Legal Opinion Writing.
To recall, MCQ is 60% of the bar, while the WritLA (written legal analysis) is 40% of the bar. The Memorandum is 60% of the WritLA while Legal Opinion is 40% of the WritLA.
Why am I shocked with the statistics from the Supreme Court?
Identical exam
As I have justified in the beginning, these Confessions could be valuable because it is a view from the bottom, yet, a view based on actual, physical, and mental experience of the same bar that we are talking about.
I am not some journalist writing vicariously, nor some TV host asking some brilliant-sounding motherhood questions to the topnotcher.
I suffered the long hours of writing, the mind-swirling legal milieux of 700 problems, and the sheer physical exhaustion of having to read and analyze all of those things under the pressure of fear and weakness.
As a bar flunker, I took the same bar examinations as the bar topnotcher.
And I can tell you, that examination was easy.
105 problems
Yes, you heard me right. The 2011 bar examinations was easy. That's why I was shocked to learn the topnotcher scored only 85.5363% .
Over the average, the topnotcher made 15 mistakes for every 100 legal milieux for the 2011 bar? This is a fair assumption.
You are given 100 principles in 100 questions and you did not know the 15 principles in those 100?
Even in engineering where they do make hard calculus problems, some topnotchers get 90 to 95%.
It's not that the topnotcher missed 15 principles in all of the test. He missed 15 principles per 100.
Since there were 700 legal problems in all of the 8 subjects, then he missed 105 problems in all.
The topnotcher did not know the answer to 105 problems.
Weak batch?
Was this a weak batch, or were the problems really difficult?
Since the passing is 75%, this means that the flunkers failed to analyze 700 x 0.25 = 175 problems or more.
Since the topnotcher had 105 wrong answers, and the flunkers had 175 or more wrong answers, then the topnotcher was closer to the flunking level than to the perfection level. He was 105 notches from the perfect score while only 50 notches from the flunking score.
WritLA
The 2011 bar topnotcher's grade is 85.5363%. As usual, my commentary is based on quantitative analysis.
I tried to estimate the scores of the topnotcher using a spreadsheet. (This is one benefit of the new bar format; the scoring is easy to trace. And if the topnotcher himself is reading this, I would be grateful getting a copy of your bar grade slip for comparison; also to benchmark how good or bad my estimating abilities are.)
With the given weights, I tried several combinations and this is the most representative so far.
The grade I calculated was 85.5300% (which is very very close to the 85.5363% actual score.)
This is the best combination; if I so much as change one raw point in the lowest weighted subject which is ethics, the final bar grade will be thrown off very far from the actual topnotcher's grade.
Grading system
Let's us do some quantitative sleuthing, and if you listened to me earlier, you would have known by now, that I'm good at it.
According to my analysis, if the topnotcher obtained a grade of 85.5300%, then a possible, yet extremely plausible, scenario is that he had a grade of 85.8500% in the MCQ and a WritLA grade of 85.0500%.
Remember MCQ is 60%, while WritLA is 40%. Also remember that WritLA is composed of Memorandum Writing (60%) and Legal Opinion Writing (40%).
So assuming the topnotcher obtained an MCQ of 85.85%, then his WritLA should scores would be 84.75% for the Trial Memorandum, and 85.50% for the Legal Opinion. Again, this is an extremely plausible combination. If you change any of this by a mere one point, we could no longer obtain a bar grade of 85.5300%
So now, I have a question. Why did the topnotcher only get estimated grades of 84.75% for the Memorandum and 85.50% for the Legal Opinion?
Before you answer that remember the criteria for grading.
105 problems
Yes, you heard me right. The 2011 bar examinations was easy. That's why I was shocked to learn the topnotcher scored only 85.5363% .
Over the average, the topnotcher made 15 mistakes for every 100 legal milieux for the 2011 bar? This is a fair assumption.
You are given 100 principles in 100 questions and you did not know the 15 principles in those 100?
Even in engineering where they do make hard calculus problems, some topnotchers get 90 to 95%.
It's not that the topnotcher missed 15 principles in all of the test. He missed 15 principles per 100.
Since there were 700 legal problems in all of the 8 subjects, then he missed 105 problems in all.
The topnotcher did not know the answer to 105 problems.
Weak batch?
Was this a weak batch, or were the problems really difficult?
Since the passing is 75%, this means that the flunkers failed to analyze 700 x 0.25 = 175 problems or more.
Since the topnotcher had 105 wrong answers, and the flunkers had 175 or more wrong answers, then the topnotcher was closer to the flunking level than to the perfection level. He was 105 notches from the perfect score while only 50 notches from the flunking score.
WritLA
The 2011 bar topnotcher's grade is 85.5363%. As usual, my commentary is based on quantitative analysis.
I tried to estimate the scores of the topnotcher using a spreadsheet. (This is one benefit of the new bar format; the scoring is easy to trace. And if the topnotcher himself is reading this, I would be grateful getting a copy of your bar grade slip for comparison; also to benchmark how good or bad my estimating abilities are.)
With the given weights, I tried several combinations and this is the most representative so far.
The grade I calculated was 85.5300% (which is very very close to the 85.5363% actual score.)
This is the best combination; if I so much as change one raw point in the lowest weighted subject which is ethics, the final bar grade will be thrown off very far from the actual topnotcher's grade.
Grading system
Let's us do some quantitative sleuthing, and if you listened to me earlier, you would have known by now, that I'm good at it.
According to my analysis, if the topnotcher obtained a grade of 85.5300%, then a possible, yet extremely plausible, scenario is that he had a grade of 85.8500% in the MCQ and a WritLA grade of 85.0500%.
Remember MCQ is 60%, while WritLA is 40%. Also remember that WritLA is composed of Memorandum Writing (60%) and Legal Opinion Writing (40%).
So assuming the topnotcher obtained an MCQ of 85.85%, then his WritLA should scores would be 84.75% for the Trial Memorandum, and 85.50% for the Legal Opinion. Again, this is an extremely plausible combination. If you change any of this by a mere one point, we could no longer obtain a bar grade of 85.5300%
So now, I have a question. Why did the topnotcher only get estimated grades of 84.75% for the Memorandum and 85.50% for the Legal Opinion?
Before you answer that remember the criteria for grading.
The Supreme Court has the following guidelines regarding the WritLA.
You will not be graded for a technically right or wrong answer but for the quality of your legal advocacy.
Every 10-point deduction in the Memorandum is equivalent to 40 mistakes in Criminal Law, or 27 in Political Law, or 27 mistakes in Mercantile Law, or 27 in Civil Law, 30 in Labor or 30 in Taxation; or this: the equivalent of 40 mistakes out of 50 items in Ethics, meaning you only got 10 questions correct in Ethics!You will not be graded for a technically right or wrong answer but for the quality of your legal advocacy.
The test is intended to measure your skills in:
1) communicating in English - 20%;
2) sorting out the conflicting claims and extracting those facts that are relevant to the issue or issues in the case - 15%;
3) identifying the issue or issues presented - 15%; and
4) constructing your arguments and persuading your reader to your point of view - 50%
And before you answer, here is another thing to recall. Remember I analyzed the disastrous leverage effect of the WritLA earlier?
And before you answer, here is another thing to recall. Remember I analyzed the disastrous leverage effect of the WritLA earlier?
The Great Question
Here is the great question: Why is it the topnotcher only obtained 86% in Memorandum Writing and only 85% in Legal Opinion Writing?
Again, don't tell me it's that hard because I took the same examination. Both problems were easy.
And look at the grading criteria. Did the topnotcher lose 5% in communicating in English?
Or... as I warned you when I analyzed the bifurcated format in December (weeks after the bar), did the examiners whimsically wipe off some points here and there, without realizing that every 5 point deduction in Memorandum is equivalent to wiping out 20 problems in Criminal Law? (to refresh your mind on this leverage analysis, read Part 3 and Part 4)
Was my analysis prescient? Did the octet of examiners make exactly the mistake I predicted they would commit? Did they unwittingly commit injustice to the examinee by not justifying every point deduction?
And are you going to tell the world that only 15% got above a grade of 75 in the Memorandum Writing, a problem where there are no right or wrong answers?
And are you going to tell the world that only 15% got above a grade of 75 in the Memorandum Writing, a problem where there are no right or wrong answers?
Extremely subjective
The 2011 Bar is the most subjective in the history of the Philippine bar.
The criteria given by the Supreme Court are very subjective.
You will not be graded for a technically right or wrong answer but for the quality of your legal advocacy.
The test is intended to measure your skills in:
1) communicating in English - 20%;
2) sorting out the conflicting claims and extracting those facts that are relevant to the issue or issues in the case - 15%;
3) identifying the issue or issues presented - 15%; and
4) constructing your arguments and persuading your reader to your point of view - 50%
What can be more subjective than the above? Even a wrong answer is not a factor for grading. The grading mechanism relies solely on the learned judgment of the examiners.
Therefore, after taking the bar, as to his performance in the written legal analysis the candidate is as helpless as a boat sailor in the open ocean under a dark night sky with no stars to guide him. All he gets is his grade on the Memorandum and the Legal Opinion. Nothing more.
Worse, should the candidate fail the Trial Memorandum or the Legal Opinion or both, he has no way of knowing:
a. why he failed,
b. how he failed,
c. how close he was to passing, if ever
d. how far he was to passing, if ever
e. how the top performers did it
f. and what he could learn from the top performers
This problem is compounded by the fact that the combined weights of the Memorandum and the Legal Opinion (40% of the entire bar exam) are extremely heavy in determining the final bar grade.
Therefore 40% of the entire final bar grade is entirely subjective
Devastating Tsunami
Just to give an example: A 10-point deduction in the morning test, which is Memorandum Writing, is equivalent to wiping out 40 correct answers in Criminal Law MCQ problems. And we know it is not easy to get 40 correct answers in Criminal Law.
The 2011 Bar is the most subjective in the history of the Philippine bar.
The criteria given by the Supreme Court are very subjective.
You will not be graded for a technically right or wrong answer but for the quality of your legal advocacy.
The test is intended to measure your skills in:
1) communicating in English - 20%;
2) sorting out the conflicting claims and extracting those facts that are relevant to the issue or issues in the case - 15%;
3) identifying the issue or issues presented - 15%; and
4) constructing your arguments and persuading your reader to your point of view - 50%
What can be more subjective than the above? Even a wrong answer is not a factor for grading. The grading mechanism relies solely on the learned judgment of the examiners.
Therefore, after taking the bar, as to his performance in the written legal analysis the candidate is as helpless as a boat sailor in the open ocean under a dark night sky with no stars to guide him. All he gets is his grade on the Memorandum and the Legal Opinion. Nothing more.
Worse, should the candidate fail the Trial Memorandum or the Legal Opinion or both, he has no way of knowing:
a. why he failed,
b. how he failed,
c. how close he was to passing, if ever
d. how far he was to passing, if ever
e. how the top performers did it
f. and what he could learn from the top performers
This problem is compounded by the fact that the combined weights of the Memorandum and the Legal Opinion (40% of the entire bar exam) are extremely heavy in determining the final bar grade.
Therefore 40% of the entire final bar grade is entirely subjective
Devastating Tsunami
Just to give an example: A 10-point deduction in the morning test, which is Memorandum Writing, is equivalent to wiping out 40 correct answers in Criminal Law MCQ problems. And we know it is not easy to get 40 correct answers in Criminal Law.
Similarly, a 10-point deduction in the afternoon test, which is Legal Opinion Writing, is equivalent to wiping out 27 correct answers in Criminal Law MCQ.
Thus, for both tests, the example of a 10-point deduction in Memo and a 10-point deduction in Opinion, is equivalent to wiping out 67 (!) out of 100 correct answers in Criminal Law. This is a devastating but totally unexpected tsunami.
Thus, for both tests, the example of a 10-point deduction in Memo and a 10-point deduction in Opinion, is equivalent to wiping out 67 (!) out of 100 correct answers in Criminal Law. This is a devastating but totally unexpected tsunami.
Unintended Damage
Where would the deductions come from? They could come from innocuous and unwitting actions of the examiner who hasn’t realized yet the tremendous unwitting devastation he is capable of.
Will the examiner ever give a “perfect score” of 20 points for “communicating in English?”
For example, what is the difference between getting only 15 points and the perfect score of 20 points in “communicating in English?” Or, what is the difference between getting only 10 points and the perfect score of 15 points in “identifying issues presented?”
How does the examiner justify giving only 15 points to a candidate instead of a perfect score of 20 points? If the examiner does not ever give perfect score of 20, then automatically, the examiner has penalized the candidate with a 5-point deduction.
This 5-point deduction could have made him pass the bar. If the candidate fails the bar because of this automatic deduction, then this might be a case of depriving a person a profession, unwittingly.
As in the case above, for some very subjective reason, the candidate does not get perfect scores and there is already a reduction of 10 points for two criteria namely, “communicating in English” and for in “identifying issues presented”
In the above situation, the candidate already loses 10 points in Trial Memorandum. And this 10-point, deduction is equivalent to wiping out his 40 correct answers in Criminal Law. That’s how devastating the scoring system is the Trial Memo.
Separately, the Legal Opinion has a similar devastating effect. A 10-point deduction in Legal Opinion is equivalent to eliminating out 27 correct answers in Criminal Law MCQ.
In other words, thousands of candidates may have failed because of that subjective 10-point deduction in Trial Memorandum which is equivalent to wiping out 40 correct answers in Criminal Law.
Annihilation of objectivity
Where would the deductions come from? They could come from innocuous and unwitting actions of the examiner who hasn’t realized yet the tremendous unwitting devastation he is capable of.
Will the examiner ever give a “perfect score” of 20 points for “communicating in English?”
For example, what is the difference between getting only 15 points and the perfect score of 20 points in “communicating in English?” Or, what is the difference between getting only 10 points and the perfect score of 15 points in “identifying issues presented?”
How does the examiner justify giving only 15 points to a candidate instead of a perfect score of 20 points? If the examiner does not ever give perfect score of 20, then automatically, the examiner has penalized the candidate with a 5-point deduction.
This 5-point deduction could have made him pass the bar. If the candidate fails the bar because of this automatic deduction, then this might be a case of depriving a person a profession, unwittingly.
As in the case above, for some very subjective reason, the candidate does not get perfect scores and there is already a reduction of 10 points for two criteria namely, “communicating in English” and for in “identifying issues presented”
In the above situation, the candidate already loses 10 points in Trial Memorandum. And this 10-point, deduction is equivalent to wiping out his 40 correct answers in Criminal Law. That’s how devastating the scoring system is the Trial Memo.
Separately, the Legal Opinion has a similar devastating effect. A 10-point deduction in Legal Opinion is equivalent to eliminating out 27 correct answers in Criminal Law MCQ.
In other words, thousands of candidates may have failed because of that subjective 10-point deduction in Trial Memorandum which is equivalent to wiping out 40 correct answers in Criminal Law.
Annihilation of objectivity
With this example of what a 10-point deduction in Memorandum can do, the objectiveness of the MCQ is actually annihilated by the extremely heavy weight of the subjective scoring of the written analysis tests.
In the MCQ, at least the candidate has an exact basis of not getting perfect scores, which is failing to select the wrong answer.
On the other hand, in the Written Legal Analysis tests, the candidate has no basis of not getting the perfect score in Memorandum. He simply gets a non-perfect score without a tangible basis, other than that the examiner did not give him a perfect score in “communicating in English,” which is supposed to be 20%.
In the MCQ, at least the candidate has an exact basis of not getting perfect scores, which is failing to select the wrong answer.
On the other hand, in the Written Legal Analysis tests, the candidate has no basis of not getting the perfect score in Memorandum. He simply gets a non-perfect score without a tangible basis, other than that the examiner did not give him a perfect score in “communicating in English,” which is supposed to be 20%.
barflunker@gmail.com
"Don't worry, my knowledge of the law hasn't decreased just because I flunked the bar."
- Bar Flunker
Table of Contents
Confessions of a Bar Flunker
Part 2 (intentionally not uploaded at this time)
Part 6 (intentionally not uploaded at this time)
Part 7 (intentionally not uploaded at this time)
Part 11 (intentionally not uploaded at this time)
Part 12
Part 13 (Epilogue; written after the official release of the results)
Note: Due to very personal details contained therein, I have withheld some chapters. Please drop by once in while to see if i have finally released the intentionally omitted parts.
Part 13 (Epilogue; written after the official release of the results)
Note: Due to very personal details contained therein, I have withheld some chapters. Please drop by once in while to see if i have finally released the intentionally omitted parts.
Update: Sometime in December 2011 (just one month after the bar and long before the official results were released on Feb 29, 2012), I sent sample chapters of these Confessions to a newspaper of national circulation for possible publication but for several reasons they did not.
No comments:
Post a Comment