Dean, University of St. La Salle College of Law; Fulbright Institute Fellow; Swiss IFF Scholar; Bar Reviewer on International Law & Bar Exam Techniques; Hobbyist Photography; Software Developer/Programmer; etc.
----00โฐ00---
It has been suggested that Bar examiners might expedite checking by sorting answers based on whether they begin with a "๐๐๐ฌ" or a "๐๐จ," using one as the correct answer.
As one who has been checking law school exams for 25 years, I can state with conviction that such sortingโusing "๐๐๐ฌ," "๐๐จ," or other keywordsโis never advisable, and no Bar examiner would engage in this practice.
While such a suggestion might seem efficient, it is problematic for several reasons:
๐๐จ๐ญ๐ก "๐๐๐ฌ" ๐๐ง๐ "๐๐จ" ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ: Bar exam questions can have multiple correct answers, depending on the analysis and legal reasoning that follows the initial "Yes" or "No."
Take this Bar exam question for example:
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐:
A judge issued a search warrant for firearms in John's house. The officers discovered illegal drugs during the search. Can the drugs be used as evidence against John? Explain.
๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฐ๐๐ซ ๐:
๐๐๐, the drugs may be used as evidence against John.
The "plain view" doctrine allows law enforcement officers to seize evidence without a warrant if such evidence is in plain view during a lawful search. If the officers were lawfully in John's home to execute a search warrant for firearms, they could seize the illegal drugs in plain view as evidence.
๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฐ๐๐ซ ๐:
๐๐, the drugs cannot be used as evidence against John unless they were seized in plain view.
The drugs were not included in the original search warrant, which specified only firearms. Unless they fall under the "plain view" doctrine or another exception to the warrant requirement, the drugs may be excluded as evidence for being obtained in violation of John's constitutional rights.
*** *** ***
The sample answers above illustrate that one examinee could correctly say "Yes" while citing the "plain view" doctrine, whereas another could correctly say "No" by arguing that the evidence was outside the scope of the search warrant.
The aim of the Bar exam is to assess an examinee's ability to engage with complex legal issues, not merely to recall facts or legal principles. Sorting compromises the evaluation of these critical skills and could result in dismissing answers from examinees who have valid but differing interpretations, thereby disadvantaging them in an already stringent examination process.
Sorting, or even the mere suggestion of it, undermines the integrity and complexity of what the Bar exam aims to evaluate. I am confident that no Bar examiner would engage in such a practice, and the Supreme Court would never permit it.
See the original post here:
Comentรกrios