As a lawyer and law professor, I’ve often been asked if the Bar exam is difficult. I always say yes not because it really is but due to the fact it is not a reliable barometer of one’s adroitness and competency.

Let me explain.

The Bar exam, to begin with, does not require critical thinking and analyses. Questions are actually objective, usually sourced from jurisprudence or specific provisions of law. This is why in many classroom settings, students are simply asked to memorize provisions and read cases decided by the Court so they can recite the facts, the issues and the decisions rendered. They are hardly asked to explain and synthesize.

I remember once asking a student to explain to me why the decision of the Supreme Court in one case is almost diametrically opposed to that in another despite the fact that both seem to have similar facts. I also asked him how he would resolve both if he were the judge. Said student, obviously perplexed, didn’t know what to do as he wasn’t trained to answer such questions.

To be honest, the Bar exam is not necessarily hard. Most takers though find it tough because of the amount of materials they need to study and memorize and the essay-type exam that calls for minimum writing skills which should only be easy if you’re comfortable with the English language.

However, because the Supreme Court limits passing percentage to not more than 20, the Bar is perceived to be the toughest licensure exam in the country. This explains why there is so much fanfare surrounding it, unwittingly giving some lawyers this delusion of grandeur, believing they are a select few. They look down on those who fail and act entitled as though they are a special breed of scholarly intellectuals. This is why in the rare instance that almost 80 percent made it, the legal community was up in arms, worrying about the influx of the supposed “incompetent” and “unqualified” lawyers in the fold.

There is no basis for this of course. There is nothing special about the profession which is just like any other. Besides, the exam does not really determine who is qualified.

Here are the reasons why.

Firstly, the exam lacks “rubric” or scoring guide that may be used to evaluate answers. Examiners are given the liberty to decide how they should appraise the same. So, they can fail you simply for being grammatically unsound or for being verbose.

Secondly, because there is no clear rubric, human factor intervenes. Examiners’ mood swings, preferences and idiosyncracies will most likely interfere with their assessment.

Thirdly, examiners have no time to fully appreciate the answers as they are saddled with thousands of booklets to check within a limited period of time. In fact, I know of one examiner who allowed his son and employee to grade some of the booklets so he could meet the deadline.

Considering these, it makes sense why a class valedictorian can flunk the exam while a class nobody may even top it.

I am just glad that most examiners are responsible enough to do their best despite the lack of concrete grading instructions and endeavor to be objective. Besides, the Supreme Court has been introducing reforms. In fact, exams now are computerized.

So, if you fail, you can no longer cite bad penmanship as an excuse. The more you fail, the more people think you’re just dumb. Meanwhile, if you make it, they put you on a pedestal, which is a great feeling. Even if you’re stupid, they think you’re smart.