APPARENTLY, some readers are not happy with my “opinion” on the resolution of the LEB regarding the equivalency of the basic law course. Before anything else let’s remind ourselves of the importance of goodwill when talking to or arguing with someone. When making comments or opinions especially with people we don’t know, it is more than necessary to focus on the arguments. And when we read arguments it would be not only prudent but also a sign of sufficient reading comprehension to not just isolate a few words from the whole message that has been conveyed by the writer.
For example, many reacted to the words “bar flunker” which, apparently, I mentioned as an example, and in fact only as an example in an interrogative manner: should they also be given that same equivalency with those who passed the bar exam? This is, for me, a serious question because in the world of academic doctorates (Ph.D. etc.) completion of academic units without passing the comprehensive exam would not make one a Ph.D. degree holder. In fact, passing the comprehensive exam does not make one a possessor of the degree because a dissertation is the make or break of the entire enterprise. So is the mere completion of all units in a J.D. or an LL.B. enough to make one equivalent to a Ph.D.? That is the question.
Speaking of graduate schools in general, many of those who have been put on the defensive have started attacking the quality of graduate education in the Philippines. Some criticisms are valid and the sentiments are acceptable. Okay let’s be honest that “reporting” is a common thing in graduate schools, and that some theses or dissertations are bogus researches. But are we saying that precisely because many graduate schools are doing their thing like a mumbo jumbo that the equivalency is justified?
I am really wondering though why in the course of the discussion people are beginning to talk about “facts” rather than “norms.” In Cebuano, “na-usab ang lubag sa estorya.” I would like to believe that those who are into law are in a better position to understand that prior to any sound judgment on facts, norms must first be understood from the viewpoint of reason. Reason after all dictates that we need first to lay down the norms, which by nature should be universalizable and thus a general reasoning.
Hoping that my point above is understood, let me then argue that still regardless of how graduate schools in this country do their thing, in “principle” a graduate school cannot and should not be compared to a law school and vice versa. The graduate schools cursed by many netizens are specific cases that should be faulted for not living up to the standards of graduate school. But still studies, readings and investigations in the doctorate level are different. Memorization and enumeration are presupposed in the graduate level. So this is my argument: if you want to know if studies in the doctorate level are really different then try talking to the authentic Ph.D. degree holders in the academic world. Check their researches and their contributions, and be the one to judge if their work is easy or not. Also check their contributions and engagements, and the extent of their influence including their citations in the national or global level.
The point precisely is this: a graduate school has a rigor of its own. Genuine or standard graduate schools cannot be for everyone. Those who say that a graduate school is easy are again referring to the diploma mills in this country which should be closed by CHED no less. But try enrolling in a real graduate school, and perhaps a greater challenge would be this: try enrolling in a graduate school abroad, then you will know why the Philippine Qualifications Framework is making a distinction between or among the levels of education: tertiary, post-baccalaureate, doctorate and post-doctorate.
So to make it clear, the issue of substandard graduate education in the Philippine is another matter for discussion and should not be discussed side by side with the issue of equivalency.