|
Professor Kim Kwang-rok |
Law School Enrollment Quota No Better Than Current State-Run Judiciary Exam
By Kim Kwang-rok
Law professor at Bukyung University
After a tedious tug of war of 13 years, the bill on the U.S.-style law school system has been finally passed.
But the vociferous public brawl has not ended yet, with many people raising issues over the law school enrollment quota.
The writer argues that as long as it limits the number of first-year
law school students, the reform is not much different from the
traditional bar exam because it leads only to serve the interest of
practicing lawyers and grant privilege to selective universities.
In order to expand the legal service to people in every corner of the
country, the government should not impose a quota on law school
entrants.
At the same time, to realize the spirit of the reform, the government
should push for the development of an exclusive curriculum so that law
schools can differentiate themselves from the existing undergraduate
program.
The debate that started 13 years ago with a goal “to improve the legal
service for the entire population” has finally borne fruit.
The lengthy delay was largely due to the entanglement of vested interests put forth by lawyers and scholars.
After more than a decade of remaining on the agenda, the new system is
at last endorsed now, which should be worth a hearty welcome.
The present state-run judiciary examination system has produced a
number of highly educated intellectuals who remain jobless for years to
prepare for the test.
It has also hindered the sufficient supply of legal professionals equipped with all-round knowledge and expertise.
Even the universities have failed to achieve their purely academic goal
of teaching the law as most students are too preoccupied with the bar
exam.
The expectations are that these problems will be resolved with the
introduction of the U.S.-style law school system to some extent.
Stakeholders fighting over the enrollment quota of law schools to protect their own vested interests
Against the hopes that the law school system will bring better legal
service to the entire society, the reform seems to stir up more
conflict and confusion among not only legal professionals and academic
advocates but also the general public interested in the field.
The academic world insists that law schools should recruit a minimum of
a combined 3,000 new students every year in order to ensure sufficient
supply.
Enrollment Quota
Of Korea’s cities, counties and districts, close to half of them have no lawyers within their boundaries.
In contrast, the Korea Bar Association, an interest group representing
lawyers in practice, calls for a quota of 1,200, a level slightly above
the current ceiling of 1,000 allowed under the present judiciary exam.
The Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development which has the
de-facto authority to set the quota, however, has taken little action
to narrow down the discrepancy.
There were some reports that the ministry might propose a compromise to
recruit up to 2,000 new students every year after grading law schools
by A, B, C and then allocate the quota by 150, 100, 50, accordingly.
The ministry has strongly denied such a report, saying that it has not
yet looked at the enrollment quota nor the quota for individual
universities. The denial puts us into more confusion.
Under the original schedule, the government will set the entire quota
as early as September and allocate the quota to selected individual
universities by November.
Then the law school can start for the school year of 2009 as planned.
We are already in August and not enough time is left till September.
The ministry, however, flatly denied that they have yet to consider the enrollment quota.
Bearing in mind that it took as long as 13 years to reach an agreement
to adopt the new system, we cannot sit idle when the ministry says that
it still has no idea about such a critical issue as the enrollment
quota, with only two months to go till the deadline.
No Quota on Lawyers in US
The law school system to be introduced here was modeled on the U.S.
style. The U.S., however, does not set a limit on how many lawyers
enter the field every year.
In New York where many South Koreans are applying for the bar exam, a
total of 14,013 law-school graduates took the test last year and 8,893
applicants passed it.
In Korea, the entire group of legal professionals amount to 8,000. New
York alone produces more lawyers a year than the entire population of
practicing lawyers in Korea.
In spite of such a huge gap, people here are saying that the enrollment
quota should be set at 1,200, 2,000, or 3,000, based on the number of
lawyers qualifying each year.
If this is the case, what we’re introducing hardly resembles the U.S.
system. So far the government has limited the number of lawyers, which
fell far short of meeting the nationwide demand for legal services.
The restriction means a large number of towns have no lawyers. Legal
services have been mostly below standard, causing the public much
trouble.
To solve the existing problems and provide people with highly reliable
legal services everywhere is the goal of the so-called “U.S.-styled”
law school system.
When you simply adopt a U.S.-style law school system while still
restricting the numbers of lawyers, how can you expect that it will
make a difference and provide better legal services for the people?
If the education ministry pushes through its compromise plan on the
enrollment quota, although it was refuted by the ministry _ government
officials should be held accountable for the denial regarding the quota
_ the move may intensify the existing practices of ranking universities
and provide another yardstick for the rating, which will only heat up
the tension in universities, and establish a perception that the
entrance into the law school is another shortcut into the mainstream of
the society.
Even now, it’s not too late. Rather than setting a limit on the number
of lawyers to be produced every year and the enrollment quota of law
school accordingly, the government should push through to introduce the
real “U.S.-style” law school system that ensures better legal service
to the public.
They may realize that even 3,000 students, the top of the quota range proposed so far, is not sufficient to meet the goal.
Law school only by appearance should be avoided
There is another issue that demands consideration regarding the introduction of the law school system.
By schedule, the law schools will launch in 2009. The universities who
are granted to open a law school should abolish the existing
undergraduate course of law.
This change will be the most significant step to help uphold the spirit
of the “specialized and professional graduate school of law.”
Law School Only by Appearance
Other universities who fail to set up a law school may continue their
undergraduate course of law, which creates another problem.
The existing undergraduate course of law has a curriculum centering on
the judiciary exam. Therefore, unless all the universities develop a
new curriculum for their undergraduate course of law, there won’t be
major difference in curriculum between colleges and law schools.
As the law school is designed to produce legal professionals, it cannot run a curriculum irrelevant to the bar exam.
Of course, each law school will set up strategies of specialization and declare differentiation from the undergraduate program.
But everyone knows that such sophisticated and specialized knowledge cannot be mastered within two or three years.
Even in the event each law school offers a completely specialized
program, the bar exam that students are set to pass after graduation is
critical.
Its importance will grow further if each university is graded and
granted a quota based on the performance of their students at the exam.
At least, for a considerable period of time, the curriculum offered by
both the undergraduate course of law and the law school will inevitably
remain redundant.
Law schools, seeking to offer specialized legal education, will face a tough road ahead in achieving their goals.
The reason that we have called for the law school system so strongly is
that the entire society has reached the conclusion that the current
system of the judiciary exam falls far short of meeting the rising
needs of customer-driven legal services.
Expectations that the new system will ensure better legal services for the entire population have driven us thus far.
Whatever difficulties remain, everything should start on the right track to run through to the finishing line.
In this sense, law schools should provide a program different from that
of the undergraduate course. Universities who launch a law school must
establish a specialized program.
If nothing much is changed from the existing undergraduate program,
then it is meaningless to push through the launch of the law schools in
2009.
The government should bear it mind that people do not want a law school following the U.S. system just by “appearances.”
The local legal service market will be forced to gradually open its
doors to the international law firms in the wake of the free trade
agreement with the U.S.
The market is also entering into a phase of limitless competition.
Under the circumstances, the new system should not be used to help
maintain the vested interest of the lawyers’ community and grant new
privileges to a limited number of universities.
Therefore, what is more important than rushing to meet the deadline is
making the right start. To this end, the government should determine
the enrollment quota based on the real demand for legal services and
provide a prudent guideline for the law school’s curriculum.
This is essential to not only improve the quality of legal services for
people but also reinforce lawyers’ global competitiveness.
The article appears on the Web site of the Center for Free Enterprise (www.cfe.org)
|
