Read on Twitter
I understand the objection to a waiver outlined here: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2020/08/13/guest-post-by-dame-judi-bench-exam-fiasco-part-2-message-in-a-bottle/ but I don't agree for the following reasons:
1. Ethics, Civil and Criminal are not difficult to pass because of the content, but because the examination is fundamentally misconceived, as the blog
1. Ethics, Civil and Criminal are not difficult to pass because of the content, but because the examination is fundamentally misconceived, as the blog
points out. This part of the course should not be "the part of the course that is actually difficult to pass." Punishing us further because the course is a joke is not the solution.
2. I do not understand the 'fairness' point regarding previous cohorts.
2. I do not understand the 'fairness' point regarding previous cohorts.
What's gone before is irrelevant. Just because other people failed these modules (because they are stupidly assessed) is not a reason to force us to take them - especially under these circumstances. That some faced the injustices of the past cannot be an excuse to maintain those
injustices - defining fairness in the way the writer has would demand the maintenance of the status quo even in the face of grave injustice. That's clearly wrong.
So, in blunt response to "what about those who failed them last year and before": so what?
So, in blunt response to "what about those who failed them last year and before": so what?
Do we not change archaic sentencing laws because that would be unfair to those sentenced under them? Any change inherently contains within it the potential "what about those who suffered under the previous regime". Change demands we ignore such specious reasoning.
3. The writer's interlocutor asks "what about the fact this is the only chance to sit these exams" and the writer's response is blunt: no it isn't. The writer then goes on to explain why that's actually a glib answer but doesn't properly address the points raised.
We've waited long enough to sit these exams. We should not be forced to wait any longer. Deferring to December is not an option for so many of us and is inherently discriminatory - those with means are more likely to be able to afford to put their lives on hold *again*.
So I'm sorry @BarristerSecret: your guest poster has got this very wrong.
Further: 4. If its these three exams that are so difficult and the others are easy, why bother with them at all? Why not just have the course consist in these three exams only? What was the point of paying £20,000 to take this course when actually it's easy
Only three of the exams are difficult (for no reason, given they are just needlessly memory tests). Do away with the entire course on this logic.
