I don’t know if I’m doing good or bad by stoking the flame on this issue, but I’ll say my 2 cents worth on this matter anyways.

I admit, it’s an issue I have nothing to do with, nor have the credibility required for my opinion to even matter. Still, I’m commenting because I can relate to the underlying objective sentiment that apparently has been lost due to personal interpretation of the parties involved. And believe me when I say it’s a similar sentiment that could be applied to ANY situation where “qualifications” is concerned.

Before anything else, I’m not sure if Punzi would want me to give him more negative exposure than he’s already gained, so this post will not have any links whatsoever save for this initial link to the his blog post which compelled me to write; and hopefully show my support to him.

The Issue

The short of it is that apparently the in the ’07 law bar exams, there were only 5%, or 281 students that really should’ve made the cut. ¹ Meaning that given the traditional standards, only 5% passed. Period. As such, those in authority deemed it fit to lower the average needed to accommodate more students to pass.

Now if I’m not mistaken, this is basically the concept of “curving” being applied (or something very similar to it).

The Curve

Just so we’re all on the same page let me give a quick layman’s explanation of what to “curve” is (at least to me): Basically if a “standard” has been proven to be too difficult from what was initially expected – resulting in a substandard rate of passing – those in authority have the option to “adjust/relax” the said standard to “equalize” the performances of students involved – to give the majority a better chance of passing.

Now that sounds fair right? However, it is important to point out these words from that statement:

…has been proven to be too difficult from what was initially expected.

Let me try an analogy: Say you were a mathematics teacher… and you’ve been teaching math in school x for 20 years now. You’ve got your whole routine down, and had no problems with the system you created and used for 20 years. Suddenly, this year all your students fail. What the hell happened?

Remember, absolutely nothing has changed in those 20 years of teaching. You didn’t make your class any more interesting or boring. You didn’t make it more difficult nor easier. It’s exactly the same now as it was back then.

Now usually there are only two reasons that can justify the need to curve:

1. The material taught must’ve been too difficult for a particular level.
2. The method of teaching was ineffective.

Anything else and it’s the simple fact that the class didn’t have the chops. Well, we could consider sabotage; but that can be rectified with a re-examination.

Going Back to the Issue

The question that should really be answered is if there was a change in the quality of education that would justify the application of the curve. If not, which is what Punzi seems to be suggesting, then I have to say that he’s right. Again, I’m not a lawyer, I’m just stating things the way my simple mind can see them.

Assuming nothing has changed in the quality of education, it’s logical to assume that the thing that has changed is the quality of the students. Why should a curve be applied when the only thing that was proven is the fact that the students in question weren’t as smart as the ones before them?

Punzi also quoted someone who said:

Blogger/lawyer chooses to write off an entire batch without knowing the ENTIRE BATCH of bar passers; s/he chooses to dismiss them without the benefit of having seen some or most of them in class or in court; s/he chooses to stigmatize the batch for something they had absolutely no hand in–the lowering of the average.

Again, I’m not certain how it is in the world of law school, but Punzi already stated there was system already in place to address all those issues (e.g. the system should not know the students, etc.). Basically whoever he quoted was already arguing a non-issue. But you know lawyers, they could argue anything – even if they just pull it out of their asses (present company excluded hehehe).

I on the other hand, as a simple man who’s reading all of this. noticed this:

…s/he chooses to stigmatize the batch for something they had absolutely no hand in–the lowering of the average.”

Now, that whole for something they had absolutely no hand in bit; I think is a lame excuse. Because they do admit that the average has been lowered. Ergo admitting that there will be students that passed that normally shouldn’t have (about 95%) What he’s basically saying is that it’s not their fault that the system accepted them when instead they should’ve failed. Is that it? I just want to be sure of that assertion before I give my opinion on it.

Yes, it isn’t their fault, but is the quotee seriously suggesting that that just because it wasn’t their fault, that suddenly their “lack of chops” was excused – and that they should pass?

Imagine a class, with 5% normal people, and 95% retarded (as in with learning disabilities) – and 5% pass the course (duh!) Suddenly, they applied a curve so that a whole chunk of the retards suddenly get included in the passing grade. And then I come along and call out the simple fact that really only 5% deserve to pass because the rest are (quite literally) retarded. Now as politically incorrect as that is, do you honestly think that the premise of the callout was faulty? Of course not!

Acceptable Adjustments

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in curving or any similar concept especially with subjects that shouldn’t hinder your transcript in getting a job – but this only applies to the typical college scenario where you don’t have a choice in the subjects you take.

I’m a graduate of Ateneo. It’s a Jesuit school where I think you automatically have a minor degree in Philosophy because of the ridiculous amount of units we had to take. I want a career in IT, so naturally courses like CS, MIS, ComTech (possibly ME) would be best for my career path. Given the nature of Ateneo we’re required to take up Theology and Philosophy, and a bunch of other subjects.

I certainly begs the question right? Why the hell would I need any grade in Physical Education, Philosophy, Religion, Art, etc. to affect my future in IT? But again, it’s regular college, we simply have to go through that, so if a curve was applied in Theology, even if those two earlier “reasons” I gave weren’t present, I’d say it would be fine. I would simply interpret it as the professor being kind enough to realize that her/his subject shouldn’t be the thing that would hinder up my grade and my chances of landing a job in IT.

To Compromise or not to Compromise

But this is Law School for Chrissake! Just like Med school or any specialized school, the fact that it’s specialized already says that all the subjects/material is specific (or at least will have a use) for the career you want to pursue. Unless the two reasons I specified above are met, there is no reason why anyone should cut you some slack once you enter such schools

And again, it’s Law School; These are the people that will literally be instrumental in the fates of other people who are unfortunate enough to need their services. I for one wouldn’t want a substandard lawyer representing me… especially one who just “happened to pass” because of a fucking curve… regardless if it was his/her fault or not.

I apologize if the retard analogy is quite extreme, I’m sure that everyone in Law School, by virtue of it being Law School, is probably more intelligent than I am. However, I hope you see the point I’m trying to make. The point being:

There apparently was a standard set in stone, and supposedly, only 5% made that standard.

Why should standards be lowered? Because 95% of the student body spent all that money on tuition only to find out that 281 of them get to reap the benefits? If the curve is truly justified, then what should be changed are the teachers and administration – because they apparently haven’t been teaching good enough to actually make their students learn something.

Otherwise, just accept the fact that only 5% worked hard enough to get those marks.

So yeah, I can’t help but empathize with Punzi’s concern that the whole quality of Philippine law might be in jeopardy if they allow this trend to continue.

And personally, the people I feel sorry for isn’t the 5% who truly passed; even if they come from a batch which had lower standards, ultimately they know they’ve got the chops, and will prove it in practice anyways. And Punzi et all need not be concerned as well since they passed fair and square. If anything, at least they know that they could eat most of those graduates of ’07 alive – should they encounter them in court 😉

The people who I do feel sorry for however is those who failed before them; the close-but-no-cigar students of ’06 and earlier. How bad it must feel for them to know that they probably could’ve been lawyers had they waited and included themselves in the batch of ’07.