[Social
Forum]
The Judicial Examination VS Law School
Social
Desk
As the
Ministry of Justice announced that the abolition of the bar exam will be
postponed until 2021, law school students in all parts of the country,
including Seoul National University, refused to attend the rest of the semester
and collectively submitted voluntary resignations. Also, all of the 59
professors in the law school of Seoul National University announced a statement
against the Ministry of Justice’s postponement of the abolition of the bar exam.
Moreover, after the bar exam applicants’ tonsure, they
picketed with signs and demanded to have face-to-face talks with the head of
the law school, who is resisting the abolishment of the bar exam.
The
pros and cons of the bar exam and law school have always been a heated
controversy. But recently, controversy arose again with the Ministry of Justice’s
announcement that the bar exam that was planned to be abolished in 2017 would
be postponed until 2021.
In the
view of the maintenance of the bar exam, anybody can attempt upward movement
without limitation and can train more competent legal professionals.
The
bar exam is open to people who earned 35 credits in law, regardless of the
method of learning (university, college, correspondence college, or
self-study). The successful candidate’s average duration of study is
about 5 years. When they pass the bar exam, they enter the Judicial Research
and Training Institute and are evaluated for 2 years. During the long study period, students can learn
about law, and during the Training Institute period, competence and evaluation in many
quarters are possible.
However,
under the legal system, it is only possible to take the bar exam after
receiving one's undergraduate degree and graduating from three years of law
school. And, because of its high pass rate, it lowers lawyers’
fees by producing too many lawyers. The bar exam produces less than 1,000
lawyers, but in the case of law school, it produces about 18,000 lawyers, about
20 times more. Also, it is not limited to just learning law, it can produce
judicial officers that are distinguished in many different fields.
But
there is a shortcoming with its tuition beyond their practice, considering that
their parents are to retire at the standard age. Law school also adds fuel to
Korea’s qualification fever, which requires top TOEIC scores and highly
recognized university degrees. Moreover, it is controversial because law
schools do not show exam results. Pass or fail is determined behind closed
doors, so there is an opinion that it is unfair. It has led to criticism that
the law school system is for people who have many judicial officers in their
family.
For
the position of the protection of the judicial examination, they denounce law
schools that attempt to abolish the judicial examination and support the stance
in which anyone can become a judicial officer regardless of age, class, and
academic background. In practice, they argue about 85% of people support the
judicial examination and want to sever the link passing down poverty or wealth
to their children. Also, they criticize the position of law school, which is
the hereditary succession of wealth and lets only wealthy children become
judicial officers, preventing opportunity for ordinary people.
Most
of all, if the judicial examination and law school are maintained
simultaneously, more judicial officers could be trained, allowing people to
enjoy reasonable and high-quality legal benefits. In practice, the public
opinion about the approval rate of maintaining the judicial examination is
high.
On the
contrary, for the position of law schools, if the judicial examination were
retained, there would be more examinees that risk their livelihoods to pass the
examination, and it is not appropriate for an era of internationalization
because jurisprudence is studied and taught focusing on the judicial
examination. Also, becoming a judicial officer through law school is cheaper
than the costs of the judicial examination. Recently, it has been stated that
high school graduates and people of lower classes rarely passed the bar exam.
Law school provides diverse scholarships and entrance-related benefits such as
special admissions to lower-income groups, and they have reduced the period of
study to 3~5 years so they could defend against training the examinee who spent
several years studying for the bar exam to avoid wasting 10 or 20 years.
However,
for the stance of the judicial examination, specially selected children from
wealthier families have been selected to enter more easily. Most of all, on
average, lawyers from the judicial examination are highly acclaimed to be more
competent than judicial officers from law school. And, the reason why law
schools insist on abolishing the judicial examination is for equal treatment of
lawyers, unlike today’s favorable treatment of the judicial examination
lawyers.
There
is an opinion to retain the judicial examination and law school simultaneously,
but it has the negative possibility to split into 2 factions and would only
erect more barriers. This matter is expected to be a fierce battle and it would
exert its influence under the direction of a related bill. Also, it could be
influenced by a decision of the constitutional court challenged as examinees
filed a petition. Even if the judicial examination were abolished, there is
always the possibility of a revival.
The
examination which trains national judicial officers should reflect public
opinion and be retained.
Social Forum 17일.docx