“As a member of the government who created the law school, it is difficult to revoke the decision,” replied Moon Jae-in, the former representative and current presidential frontrunner of the Democratic Party. The statement is Moon’s answer to a question raised by a female student who asked, “What do you think about restoring the traditional Bar Exam for those who are capable, but whose careers have been severed, who are too old, or without spectacular ‘specifications’?”

The revival of the traditional bar exam has been a center of controversy over the past 10 years. Officially the abolition takes effect starting next year. So far, the first-round test was conducted for the last time last year and the remaining two stages await their final trial this June and November respectively.

However, an unexpected turn of events in the recent political upheaval seem to spur a light of hope for test-takers. On March 10, the Constitutional Court conceded to the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye through the unanimous vote of the eight justices. Due to her early dismissal, Korea will conduct an early election on May 9.
To our dismay, on top of the abolished Bar Exam, the possibility of another exam abolition was raised by integrating the examination recruiting Grade 5 public officials with the Grade 7 officials. In response, the youth tremble in fear of the faltering lights of national exams that  once promised them an equal opportunity at stable employment. Amidst the political and collegiate turmoil, The Argus delved into the controversies surrounding the two national examinations that are of most interest to readers in their twenties.

Background Information

After the official government of the Republic of Korea was established in 1948, the Higher Civil Service Examination Act was enacted the following year. Henceforth, a state-held examination named “Higher Civil Service Examination” was carried out with the specific purpose of selecting public servants for the nation in two divisions: the Administration Division and the Jurisdiction Division. Later on, the former Administrative Divisional test was subdivided into the Higher Civil Service Examination and the Foreign Service Examination, and the latter test was changed into the current Bar Exam. Together, they have come to be acknowledged as the three most prominent national examinations, ‘goshi’ in Korean, for both their difficulty and significance as securing a high place equivalent to Grade 5 in public office.

Afterwards, the Higher Civil Service Examination was renamed to Open Competition Employment Examination (OCEE), more specifically OCEE for Grade 5. And the Foreign Service Examination was conducted for the last time in 2013. Instead, it was replaced by the Exam for Diplomat Candidate, which only confirms appointments after a single year of training at the Korea National Diplomatic Academy. As the Bar Exam is also due to become extinct this year, it can be said that the system for recruiting future public officials through state-held examinations is now heading towards its demise.

What is the Bar Exam?

The Bar Exam has stood for over 50 years since 1963. The age-old bar examination system was designed to evaluate whether a person is eligible to become a judicial officer. It consists of three stages: multiple choice questions, essay questions on law, and an interview. Once a person successfully passes every stage. they earn a status equivalent to a Grade 5 public officer. They are also entitled to enter the Judicial Research and Training Institute in which they must complete the training course in order to finally qualify to become a judge, a prosecutor, or a lawyer.

What is the Open Competition Employment Exam (OCEE)?

Formerly known as the Higher Civil Service Examination, the OCEE has been conducted by the Ministry of Public Administration and Security since 1963. It is held annually once a year in order to recruit Grade 5 public officers in the administration. There are also OCEE tests for Grade 7 and 9 officers. Anyone above the age of twenty can apply regardless of their academic background or experience.
Applications for the OCEE Grade 5 this year flooded in for four days stretching from Jan. 17 to 20. Reportedly, a whopping number of 16,953 people applied for the OCEE Grade 5 and Exam for Diplomat Candidate, recording a competitive ratio of 44.1 to 1. In other words, the future of thousands of youth are determined by the fate of the Grade 5 OCEE.

The Bar Exam Awaits Abolition

According to the Korean Bar Examination Act, the traditional bar exam will be held only until 2017. Starting from the following year of 2018, only students who have attained a Master’s degree from a law school may be qualified to take the National Bar Examination. Once they pass this test, they will finally become a judicial official.
The bill arguing for the retention of the previous Bar Exam had been proposed in the National Assembly, but all attempts failed. Currently, three new bills are pending regarding the judiciary. A few months ago, the abolition of the traditional bar exam was almost a sealed deal without many positive prospects. As of now, people supporting the Bar Exam have gained a second hope as a few presidential candidates have voiced signs of agreement on its retention.

Overview of the Finalized Abolition
The controversy over the Bar Exam dates back to the ‘90s. As it was the only way to become a judiciary member-the epitome of the nation’s rags-to-riches story-many youths in their twenties dedicated themselves to studying law for years, trapped inside small rooms called goshiwon.? As a result, the young and jobless grappled with their studies until they passed the exams. Some critics have pointed out that the Bar Exam has caused a fatal waste of the national workforce. In addition, the Bar Exam was criticized for its mass production of “legal technicians” who thoroughly memorized the contents of the examination for several years. Those technicians of legal knowledge were found to reproduce academic elitism and create a closely-knit cartel bound by their alumni affiliation.

Lee John, professor at HUFS Law School, shared his thoughts on the matter. He agreed that the Bar Exam used to qualify those who have perfected their studying techniques at academies rather than those who truly understand what it means to defend people with the power of law and behave accordingly. He lamented that often people who pass the Bar Exam were not so faithful to their undergraduate curriculum, but relied on online and offline lectures elsewhere.

In order to root out this problem, the Act on the Establishment and Management of Professional Law Schools was enacted in July 2007. Its goal lied in properly educating would-be litigators to become right-minded judiciary officers. More specifically, Chapter 1 Article 2 reads, “The educational ideology of professional law schools is to train legal professionals who have sound professional ethics based on a rich  education, a deep understanding of people and society, and morals valuing freedom, equality and justice...” Two years later, in March 2009, the system was introduced in earnest as 25 law schools opened their doors nationwide.

In accordance with the Ministry of Education’s guidelines, law schools assess applicants based on the admission data of their bachelor’s degrees, scores from their Legal Education Eligibility Tests (LEET), foreign language abilities, social activities and volunteer work experience. All students are allowed to apply to law school if they have completed a four-year college graduate degree regardless of their undergraduate major.
Once they enter students study core subjects such as the Constitution, civil law, criminal law, and litigation law during their first two years or so. Afterwards, they study elective subjects. After completing this three-year course, a student is eligible to take the lawyer qualification exam named the National Bar Examination. Here, in an attempt to prevent repeated student failures, the number of times they may take the examination is limited to five. At present, the exam is very difficult to pass with the total test takers admitted adjusted to around 50 percent.

Controversy over the Law School

This is the eighth year since the introduction of law schools in Korea. However, over the past decade, the opponents and proponents of the traditional bar exam remain sharply divided. In 2015, 114 proponents filed a constitutional complaint against the statute that revoked the previous bar exam. Unfortunately, on September 29 of last year, the Constitutional Court ruled that the National Bar Examination Act is constitutional. The court conceded that the purpose of law school was to educate lawyers by ‘training through education’ and such a purpose outweighs the previous bar exam of ‘selection through examination’.

In opposition to the abolishment, a group of opponents called the ‘Goshi-saeng’ now urges presidential candidates to revoke the abolition. The representative of the advocacy group, Lee Jong-bae, pinpointed that, “In reality, law school has high entry barriers such as tuition fees, age restrictions, and discrimination against students from less prestigious universities. They deprive the marginalized people of the equal opportunity to become a member of the judiciary.” In response, The Argus sought after the truth behind the controversies surrounding law school.

Outrageous tuition fee
According to the Ministry of Education, the tuition fees of law school nationwide were either frozen or downed by an average of 12.95 percent. If the law school fails to meet the target reduction standards set by the Ministry of Education, the graduate law school is bound to be disadvantaged with a reduction of national treasury scholarships and allocation of future scholarships and doctorates.

Additionally, on Feb. 14, the Ministry of Education distributed a total of 4.2 billion KRW of government-sponsored scholarships to 25 law schools, which were increased by 500 million KRW from 3.7 billion KRW last year.

As for HUFS Law School, its tuition fee has been reduced by 15 percent, decreased to 7 million from 9 million KRW. In addition, regardless of entrance grades and credits, the 1st and 2nd quartiles receive full scholarships and the 3rd and 5th Quartiles receive half the tuition fees. Lee John said, “What is known in the world is exaggerated. In reality, the idea that a person cannot attend law school because of high tuition fees is a groundless argument.”

He agreed that law school is more expensive than other general graduate schools. He remarked, “In fact, it is a lot less than a professional graduate schools such as medical school, and the expensive tuition fees are worth it. The intensity and quality of the classes is incomparable. Despite the arduous labor intensity, law school professors work to cultivate future judiciary officers. From the law school’s perspective, it is not at all a profitable business.”

Age restriction
It is a widespread rumor that law schools prefer young students. As a result, lower aged students make up the majority of the enrollment, and more students enroll in law school right after graduation. According to Korean Association of Law Schools, 46.41 percent of those who entered law school this year were university graduands.

Although HUFS Law School is known as relatively generous in terms of student’s age, Lee John admitted, “By and large, older people are less likely to adapt to organizational life later and are more difficult to deal with from the perspective of people in higher position. Therefore, companies prefer younger people, if the candidates possess a similar level of abilities. Aware of such a harsh reality, it is difficult to admit them because we feel responsible for their future.”

Discrimination on educational background
On March 14, the Korean Association of Law Schools also revealed that the ratios of graduates from law majors and from non-law majors were 28 percent and 71 percent, respectively. In comparison with last year’s statistics, the percentage of graduates with law degrees dropped 8.44 percentage points.

Experts said that such a decline is partly because law schools favor the undergraduate non-law students from top universities. Within the admission guideline provided by the Ministry of Education, each school may determine the ratio of each evaluation item autonomously. Professor  Lee John, explained that law schools typically aim to cultivate a diverse group of lawyers who have disparate educational backgrounds. Their previous expertise in other fields helps them become uniquely specialized lawyers. However, he acquiesced, “It is true that some law schools take great interest in the applicant’s alma mater. Therefore, in the case of a top-level university, students from the top universities constitute the majority of law school graduate students.”

In the past, HUFS Law School too admitted students from schools of similar prestige. This year, on the other hand, Lee experimented with admissions by taking individuals’ capabilities more into consideration. “We selected students based on their scores from the Legal Education Ability Test (LEET). To our surprise, students from various colleges surprised use with their capability. We believe such indiscriminate admission help single out perfectly competent students.”

Final words on the Bar Exam abolition

A student opponent named Ahn Jin-seop mentioned that with the traditional bar exam, you can compete on the same terms with others regardless of academic background, financial status, or age. And most importantly, the bar exam evaluates the student on his ‘knowledge of law’ rather than his past career history as do law schools. He emphasized that, “Knowledge itself is the most important qualification as a judiciary. Therefore, the Bar Exam should not be abolished.” Also, he added that there should be multiple gateways for becoming a lawyer. Such coexistence should allow for a well-intentioned competition which empowers judiciaries to strive for the best.

On the contrary, Professor Lee John, casted doubt on the Bar Exam and law school running parallel with the example of a neighboring country. Since 2004, Japan has implemented law school along with a ‘preliminary exam system,’ which is similar to the Bar Exam, permitting students to become a judiciary once they pass the exam. However, a confident and competent student could take the exam right away rather than enroll in law school. Thus, students who graduate from law school are classified as inferior, needing more time to study. Gradually, the coexistence of two systems engendered a hierarchy and discrimination. For this reason, Lee opposes a revival of the Bar Exam among the judiciary society.

Truth be told, the abolition of the Bar Exam was no easy feat. It was made possible after a fierce debate and finally a consensus was reached. Lee emphasized that, “Ignoring the settled agreement greatly undermines the legal stability of the laws and constitutionalism of Korea. What has been decided through the practice of democracy should be respected. If a problem arises afterwards, we should seek a solution to the problem at hand rather than retrogress to the beginning.”

Grade 5 OCEE hovers between life and death

On January 19, the ‘Korea Institute for the Future (KIF),’ a private think tank mainly composed of Democratic Party members, addressed an amendment to unify the current Grade 5 Open Competition Employment Examination with its Grade 7 counterpart. This announcement triggered the possibility of another abolishment of the grade-five employment examination?the last ‘goshi’ currently standing.

As if to confirm, the presidential candidate Moon Jae-in remarked, “Some civil servants start at Grade 9, and others start right away as an executive member without any experience as a subordinate. It would be better if everyone started off at the same Level and advanced upward together.” His comment suggests his support of the Democratic Party’s public service entry reform proposal.

In response, the test-takers expressed concerns. Since Moon is the first runner-up, they predict that such reform will be actualized as the traditional Bar Exam was sentenced to death under late President Roh Moo-hyun’s regime. In light of contrasting emotions, The Argus examined the problems generated by Grade 5 admission.

Problems with the Grade 5 OCEE

Monopoly via homogeneous group superiority
KIF announced that the OCEE for Grade 5 public officials reinforced over-stratification and contributed to the failure of the current bureaucracy. KIF reported that those who passed the Grade 5 OCEE accounted for the majority of high-ranking officials because of a prevalent preference for passers of Grade 5 over the other two grades. Such an overpopulation of Grade 5 passers in high posts maintain their superiority by sharing background-centered privileges among themselves.
As a result, it is extremely difficult for those from Grade 7 and 9 OCCE to be promoted. As a stark example, it generally takes 20-30 years for a Grade 9 entry to advance to Grade 5. Hence, most of the public officials who start from lower levels retire before that happens.

Unsuitable for high position
KIF added that, “Since Grade 5 passers embark on their career as policy practitioners in the central ministries right after they have been admitted, they lack relevant field experience.” KIF ascribes the causes of many administrative problems within in local governments to the inexperienced being appointed to key positions.
An anonymous officer in public office shared that, “The administrative environment has changed rapidly over the past few years. Amidst the changes, it is unfit to appoint young people to senior executive positions simply because they memorized theoretical knowledge well.”

Marginal distinction between different level entries
In principle, the purpose of Grade 5 entrance was to recruit young and clever individuals into the key public sector. However, as more and more people aim for public office for its job stability, the gap of academic ability among applicants has virtually disappeared. The difference lies in different goals set by the applicants as some aim high for Grade 5 and others who do not want to take the risk aim for lower grades.
A Grade 4 public officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, expressed that people who passed Grade 7 and 9 are equally competent as those in Grade 5. He said, “There is not as much of an ability gap between levels as there was in the past. Therefore, it is not fair for those who passed Grade 5 to assume and maintain superiority just because they passed one exam.”

As a result, KIF believes the solution would be to eliminate the Grade 5 entrance and leave only Grade 7 and 9 for the newcomers. Then everyone would start anew on the same level and have an equal chance at promotion. KIF said, “We ought to break the monopoly of high-ranking posts held by the minority bound by homogeneous starting points, and provide common ground so that people are evaluated solely by their capability. If everyone starts from the bottom and acquires the skills needed within the organization systematically, this will ultimately invigorate work motivation.”

Diverse facets of viewpoints

A professor from the Dept. of Public Administration at HUFS, Kyonne Jin-man, agreed to the abolition. He confessed that he had difficulty with students who neglected class studies to prepare for the OCCE. He concluded, “If the current Grade 5 integrates with Grade 7, it is imperative that we come up with solutions to deal with potential problems, such as an over-influx into Grade 7 and complaints from Grade 5 entries.”
Another professor from the same department, Ryu Sang-yub, pointed out that it is unreasonable to promote those without experience from a subordinate position. He agreed that there should be a change in the employment method. Reportedly, applicants currently are tested on their ability to memorize theoretical knowledge. “I doubt that such technicalities prove their worth as public officers. Also, such a method of selection only serves to disqualify applicants.”

In an attempt to represent the voices of the students, Ahn Jin-seop established the “National Candidate Voters’ Solidarity” on Feb. 28. He argued that organizational bureaucratic closeness, privilege, unfair and inefficient personnel systems are not a matter of selection, but of post-selection. In support of his argument, he provided foreign examples. According to Ahn, developed nations also have plans to secure high-quality manpower in charge of policy decision-making in addition to selecting general public officials. In the case of the UK, they have the accelerated appointment system, and in France, there is ENA(Ecole nationale d’administration), a school established to cultivate high-ranking public officials. The focus of these examinations is to select young and talented individuals through “fair competition” and “separate them” from general public officials.” 

By Lee Sei-yon
Associate Editor of Culture Section
disciple@hufs.ac.kr