Here we'll be looking at statistical figures and how hard it really is.
Now as many of us know, the CLP is marred for its infamous reputation of high failure rates. But how high is high? The LPQB website has published some figures, and the graph below provides an idea:
As above, it appears that while failure rates often exceeds passing rates, it is only around a difference of approximately 5-10%, and exceptionally in 2011, the passing rate was higher. Counting things simple roughly half the total amount of candidates would pass and another half would fail.
Of course whether this can yet be considered a high passing rate, is dependent on perspective. The Star newspaper earlier this year published an article with a big title, CLP Exam Pass Rate Plunges, which I perceive as another 'scare article' which unintentionally rises the stress and tension of CLP candidates. It claims the passing rate from the inception of the CLP examinations was 94.79% in 1984, a figure put in comparison with the passing rate of the 2012 results asof the graph above. Obviously putting a 94% figure next to a 40% figure, that is a very large shift of passing rates. It further adds, the passing rate started to fall below 50% from the exams in 1994.
The shift and change of the passing rate can be due to several factors. Amongst various perceptions, the general sentiment seems to boil down to unfairness of the CLP examinations. But is that really the case? Let's explore what exactly is unfair about this whole 'CLP ordeal'. On my part, it's my personal opinion that certain things about the CLP are truly unfair, and change is recommended. Others I find exaggerated, typical rantings from losers of the great battlefield of CLP:
What I Really Find Unfair on the CLP
I'd say, the fact that loads of local graduates are graduating with law degrees every year are exempted from the CLP, which far outnumber the total candidates sitting for the CLP exams. Does it mean local graduates are better than candidates with foreign law degrees and so are privileged by bypassing the CLP exams? From stories I've heard in class, apparently the quality of law students from certain local universities were that bad, that professors actually had a hard time even having to pass a certain amount of students to fulfill the minimum pass-rate quota. But I give my friend merely the benefit of the doubt on this, given that I did not verify such info.
Some in support of the CLP claim, the rationale behind the CLP exams was that, foreign degree holders aren't familiar with Malaysian law. Fine, acceptable. Then why the heck is it, that those who passed the UK Bar are exempted from CLP? Do they have any knowledge of Malaysian Law? Nay they don't! Why the heck is it that candidates like me whom already have the NZ Bar still need to do CLP? (Not that I'm complaining, since I actually salute CLP for boosting my knowledge on Malaysian law, though the apparent unfairness is still there!) Here's the other irony, those whom have done a Bachelors of Jurisprudence(BoJ) as opposed to a Bachelors of Law from prescribed universities like UM and UKM still need to sit for the CLP examinations. Note: those who did a BoJ actually studied Malaysian law!
In furtherance, there is a lack of transparency in the marking scheme of the CLP. No model answers are provided by the LPQB, apart from a list of relevant cases. If you fail, you might not know why you failed, as your written answers will not be returned to you, and there is little to no room of appeal. Yes you can call the LPQB to ask them to do a check, and they'll reply you swiftly with brief responces like, your answers were not adequate, or you failed to identify the issues in the question (testimony of a friend of mine). I would believe, these are legitimate responces, if only a candidate could be shown his written answers and pointed as to the error of his ways. There had been attempts in the past for judicial review over decisions by the LPQB which all failed. A candidate was even barred from the CLP examination for a few years by the LPQB for challenging his CLP results in court.
What May be Exaggerated or Plain Ranting
The following can be considered unfair too, however because of the difficulty of verification, I decided to put such under the category of 'rumours' or pure exaggeration. One such rumour was a quota on how many may pass or fail. The method of doing so was to pass all those who had clear passes, e.g. the second class upper and lowers, whereas amongst the batch of third classes, a ballot of a selected amount of candidates will be chosen, as well as a ballot for conditional passes. The rest would dread another year of misery. My friend (who failed 4 times) told me she received this info from a 'reliable source'.
Next, we've got situations where examiners who consist of various legal personal, e.g. judges and senior lawyers in fact pass the bulk of exam transcripts to be marked by their assistants, which will subsequently affect the quality of marking. Again this was told by another friend of mine (who had failed 5-6 times), and claims again to have 'reliable sources'.
Above and beyond that, we've also got stories where examiners gave 'zero' marks to candidates with horrible handwriting, or who simply marked such transcripts for the same reasons, and yet in other cases, friends who so called answered questions of the exam with similar answers to each other, but received very different results. I find the latter difficult to ascertain, given that no one knows for certain exactly what one wrote in the exam, and the aftermath of the exam can be full of bluffs from candidates who may wish cover the embarrassments of their failures.
My Opinion
Given that I've started this topic on issues of statistics and passing rates, I find the only relevant unfairness which affects the passing rate is the methodology of grading a candidate. Hence whilst there be unequal treatment as between local and foreign graduates, that does not affect the grades of a CLP candidate. Given that the stories of quotas and unfair marking are hearsay and difficult to ascertain, I find they are at best, good stories to hear, but not to be believed until proven.
What then is affecting the passing rate? For that, we need to understand the background on the inception of the CLP. First off, the CLP rather than to hinder entry into the legal profession, was intended to salvage losers from UK who didn't get a 'good-enough' degree to qualify for the UK Bar, hence the CLP was an added feature to enable these graduates to at least qualify for the Malaysian Bar. From what I was told, the first batch was a small class, around 20-40 candidates, whereas the CLP courses of those times were taught in UM. The effect of a very small group of candidates would likely be more attention given by the lecturers, and a more determined group who wanted to ensure they passed the CLP. In addition, there would be more consistency in marking, given that the same examiner probably marked the papers of all candidates. Furthermore, given the purpose of CLP of that day, it was also no wonder why the passing rates were so high.
But throughout the years as the legal profession grew, so did the numbers of CLP candidates. Now rather than just a small group of candidates who've just completed their UK law degrees in UK itself, we've got a whole bunch of other 'half-cooks' that graduated with various external degrees from 'shophouse' colleges, those with BoJ's that are just as bad and with a poor comprehension of English, and then there's people like uhh..me. As of present, there's an average of about 800-1000 candidates per main sitting, this is superimposed to the original 20-40. There will be consequences. The vast variety of academic legal background from candidates will affect the consistency of quality. It also requires more examiners, adding to the human error in the sentiments of marking. More candidates also meant less personal attention from lecturers and tutors (would tell you more about the condition of Brickfields Asia College, the institute I attended for CLP courses, in another post), notwithstanding lectures would be more generic in assisting students towards understanding Malaysian law, compared to a small batch with similar backgrounds. In addition, more candidates increases the probability of failures. There is also a paradigm shift towards the purpose of CLP, where it now seems to be a restriction of entry to the profession rather than to assist candidates to attain the Malaysian Bar.
So there you go, my opinion on the drop of passing rates. Is the CLP exams harder than it was before? I doubt so. I've scheme through questions from various years, where I find the difficulty and challenge to be reasonably consistent throughout the years, although there can be unfair questions at times. Yet in the light of unfair questions, this boils down to tactics, by being able to avoid such questions when the option is available, and to pick decent questions to answer.
More to come on the difficulty of CLP in the coming post!
References:
1.) http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/01/13/CLP-exam-pass-rate-plunges.aspx
2.) http://www.limkitsiang.com/archive/2001/dec01/lks1322.htm
3.) http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/letters_others/mark_clp_exam_in_a_fair_just_reasonable_and_equitable_manner.html
4.) http://www.lpqb.org.my/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=253&Itemid=103
Note: not all references may tally with my opinions, but there are many commentaries that I do not agree on, simply because of the lack of proof. I'm not here to defend the CLP system, but I'm trying to be fair and to base things on facts and evidence alone, where much are rhetorical and emotional, hence dismissed.
