The LEBMO No. 7 series of 2016 released by the Legal Education Board (LEB) establishing a unified standardized test for aspiring law school called Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) is a welcome development in the legal education in the Philippines.
My previous post regarding the implementation of PhiLSAT is clearly a product of my overthinking because apparently it doesn't matter if a potential law student has taken an entrance exam last December or January.
When I had the time to ask the admissions office of San Beda Alabang to clarify, the admin officer told me that all potential law students who would like to enroll to San Beda still needs to take the school's entrance exam on top of the PhiLSAT and those students who have already passed San Beda's entrance exam still needs to take PhiLSAT because they won't be allowed to enroll in law school if they don't. I guess the school recognizes that its income will reasonably decrease if they will stop giving entrance exams *wink* *wink*
In short, a potential law student needs to pass 2 exams in order to study in San Beda Alabang School of Law. One is PhiLSAT and one is the San Beda's entrance exam for School of Law.
Somehow, it becomes clear to me the statement of the LEB Chairman Aquende that PhiLSAT is implemented because some law schools implement "open admission" policy. Open admission policy means the school does not give an entrance exam.
In my previous post, I said before that PhiLSAT is at par with the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) given to aspiring medical students. However, I was wrong.
From my understanding, the score of the potential medical student in NMAT will determine in what Medical School he/she be allowed to enroll. For instance, UST Faculty of Medicine and Surgery requires its students to have an NMAT score of at least 85% percentile while San Beda College Mendiola College of Medicine requires its student to have an NMAT score of at least 40% percentile.
Furthermore, NMAT does not have a passing score, it just shows you the number of students who got lower score than you. To illustrate, if you got a score of 75% percentile, it means that that 75% of NMAT takers scored lower than you while 25% of NMAT takers scored higher than you.
On the other hand, PhiLSAT has a passing score requirement. A student is not allowed to enroll to any law school if he fails to obtain a score of at least 55%. I thought in my previous post that passing PhiLSAT means that law schools will no longer hold their own entrance exams and I also thought that those who have already taken and passed the entrance exams of some law schools last December and January will not be affected by the LEB's Memo because of its date of implementation.
To summarize and as far San Beda is concern, a potential law student who wants to enroll in San Beda, the students needs to pass 2 exams, one for PhiLSAT and one for the entrance exam.
On the other hand, if a potential law student wants to enroll, for example in University "X" which does not have any entrance exam, he/she only needs to pass the PhiLSAT.
Basically, LEB just wants to mandate an entrance exam for all law schools in the country.
My previous post regarding the implementation of PhiLSAT is clearly a product of my overthinking because apparently it doesn't matter if a potential law student has taken an entrance exam last December or January.
When I had the time to ask the admissions office of San Beda Alabang to clarify, the admin officer told me that all potential law students who would like to enroll to San Beda still needs to take the school's entrance exam on top of the PhiLSAT and those students who have already passed San Beda's entrance exam still needs to take PhiLSAT because they won't be allowed to enroll in law school if they don't. I guess the school recognizes that its income will reasonably decrease if they will stop giving entrance exams *wink* *wink*
In short, a potential law student needs to pass 2 exams in order to study in San Beda Alabang School of Law. One is PhiLSAT and one is the San Beda's entrance exam for School of Law.
Somehow, it becomes clear to me the statement of the LEB Chairman Aquende that PhiLSAT is implemented because some law schools implement "open admission" policy. Open admission policy means the school does not give an entrance exam.
In my previous post, I said before that PhiLSAT is at par with the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) given to aspiring medical students. However, I was wrong.
From my understanding, the score of the potential medical student in NMAT will determine in what Medical School he/she be allowed to enroll. For instance, UST Faculty of Medicine and Surgery requires its students to have an NMAT score of at least 85% percentile while San Beda College Mendiola College of Medicine requires its student to have an NMAT score of at least 40% percentile.
Furthermore, NMAT does not have a passing score, it just shows you the number of students who got lower score than you. To illustrate, if you got a score of 75% percentile, it means that that 75% of NMAT takers scored lower than you while 25% of NMAT takers scored higher than you.
On the other hand, PhiLSAT has a passing score requirement. A student is not allowed to enroll to any law school if he fails to obtain a score of at least 55%. I thought in my previous post that passing PhiLSAT means that law schools will no longer hold their own entrance exams and I also thought that those who have already taken and passed the entrance exams of some law schools last December and January will not be affected by the LEB's Memo because of its date of implementation.
To summarize and as far San Beda is concern, a potential law student who wants to enroll in San Beda, the students needs to pass 2 exams, one for PhiLSAT and one for the entrance exam.
On the other hand, if a potential law student wants to enroll, for example in University "X" which does not have any entrance exam, he/she only needs to pass the PhiLSAT.
Basically, LEB just wants to mandate an entrance exam for all law schools in the country.