On Atty. Punzi's Reflections on the 2007 Bar Exams

Atty. Punzi got one thing right-- his reflections on the 2007 Bar Exams did stir a hornet's nest, especially among those who passed the 2007 Bar Exams. He eventually pulled down his post (without retracting his statements, mind you), but thanks to Google's cache you can read it here. Basically, he is complaining about the Supreme Court's decision to lower the passing grade from 75% to 70%, saying the standards were set too low and that this move tarnished the Bar Exams. "And lowering the passing grade is too much of a compromise and would not fair to those who took previous bar exams and got 74.9% to 70%," he adds.

Atty. Punzi's argument suffers a fatal flaw: he implicitly assumes that the information contained in the 75% passing grade is comparable across years, as if the Bar Exam questions given in one year are comparable in difficulty with those of another. They aren't. The Bar Exams are not like the Medical Boards or the US Bar Exams where there is a bank of objective questions and examinees' answers are checked by computers. The Bar Exams are all essay questions, checked by examiners who have to wade through 5,000+ booklets in varying states of mood and comfort.

Given the highly subjective nature of the Bar Exams-- from the questions all the way to the checking-- the insistence on keeping 75% as an objective gauge of competence just does not make sense. This is like insisting that all runners finish 400 metres in one minute or less regardless of terrain (uphill, downhill, level). One cannot insist on keeping the bar of competence constant when the terrain keeps on changing year after year. One cannot treat Bar Exam results as an objective test of competence when the yardstick is so subjective. Simply put, someone getting 75% in 2006 cannot be judged to be smarter or more competent than someone getting 70% in 2007 because their exams are in no way comparable.

So, from a purely academic and exam design perspective, the Supreme Court had all the right reasons to adjust the passing grade, basically correcting the grade for changes in the terrain (i.e., "unusually difficult" exams, key word being unusual). I think this is why no one is beating the drums against the Court's decision-- most people understand the reasons for it.

Whether 70% is too high or too low is a matter of opinion, just like all other Supreme Court decisions, but is nevertheless binding and valid. Speculating on the reasons they did it is pure folly since these can never be substantiated. It is useless to say that the same rule should be applied retroactively since no two Bar Exams are comparable. In the end, the true test is the job market's response. So far, my new laywer friends have not been having any trouble getting jobs or promotions; in fact, offers have been pouring left and right.

---

Let's keep comments objective and academic. As Atty. Punzi would surely agree, ad hominem arguments serve no purpose in these discussions.