Norman Manley Law School responds to call for reform

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I refer to a letter to the Editor, by a Verrol Thompson in the Gleaner of Tuesday, July 23, titled 'Urgent need to reform Norman Manley Law School'.

The writer’s call for reform flows from two fundamental errors he makes in the first paragraph of his letter, namely that “…113 out of 125, or 90.4 percent of the Noman Manley Law School (NMLS) students, failed the supplemental examinations in the ethics, rights and obligation of the legal profession course.”

The first fundamental error in the letter relates to the number of students taking and failing the examination in question. The correct numbers are that 231 students sat the examination and 132 of them failed it, a percentage failure rate of 57% and not the failure rate the writer asserts.

The second error is just as fundamental as the first. The examination was not a supplementary examination as the writer asserts. It was the first sitting and students who failed that first sitting are entitled on application to two events.

Provided the student failed three or less examinations, including the examination in question, such a student is entitled, on application, to a remark by two fresh and independent markers. If, after a remark, a student is adjudged to have still failed the exam in question then, if the student has failed two or less examinations, the student will be entitled to a second sitting of a new examination in the course in question, in other words, a supplementary examination scheduled in August.

Since the remarking process is under way and the supplementary examination is still pending, it is inappropriate and premature for the NMLS to give a comprehensive response.

However, it was critical to give this limited response to correct these two fundamental errors which formed the foundation of the letter.

Carol Aina

Principal