German / Spanish

Stop the arbitrariness of the German system of juridical training

Finish the control examinations with “above-average difficulty grade”; “higher difficulty grade” and a failure rate of 30% in the German System of juridical training

Finish the competitional distortion and the inequality of opportunities in the European competitional space because of the German juristical training

 

I am a student of law and ask for help

Briefly resumed the German juristical training system means a regularly study time of 9 semesters, and implies that during this time numerous works written under supervision and homeworks have been accomplished successfully as well as focal point examinations. The whole finishes after ca. five years with the first government examination.

Once two years of training as junior barrister had been passed, finishes after ca. seven years  the second government examination. It means that after 5 or 7 years of study the German juridical training system is able to certify the qualification or not for the subject of law. Not qualification implies that the students have successfully studied law from the point of view of the university, and nevertheless it is impossible to certify it. The years of study had been  of no purpose,

In opinion of experts this is the most degrading training system of the present times, whose need of reform was already underlined by professor Noll in 1965, and failed because of the resistance from those, who fear to lose their power monopoly.

During the written works under supervision in the first government examination fellows students and I were placed in one sport hall with a temperature of 10 and 15 grades that corresponded to the outside temperature. This was attested by the care-taker as well as by an expert. The concerning law examination board was not willing to admit that during 4 examination days the central heating did not work.

Due to my legitimated mistrust in front of the attitude and arbitrariness from the law examination board, I caused to correct the 3 works written under supervision together with entries and notes through external experts.

Although the experts declared that the works written under supervision had not been corrected in due order, the law examination border refuses a new control  of them arguing that a period of reflection must be granted to the examiners. The examiners of the law examination border are occupied reflecting about their corrections, and up to the present time have not given any answer.

The external experts had come to the following conclusion:

1. All three works written under supervision must haven been declared apt, because they were not corrected in due order.

2. As the correctors from the law examination border concede, it is a question of works written under supervision in “a difficulty degree about average”, “in a higher difficulty average”…, which according to the opinion of the experts had  nothing to do in an examination.

3. A co-supervise did not take place, because the second corrector only wrote succinct commentaries like “I agree too”, without reading, correcting nor commenting the work.

4. An independent and an orderly  co-supervise does not take place too according to the opinion of the experts, when the second corrector has completely access to the valuation and appraisal of the first corrector. Such  an accomplishment of the examination causes too that the second corrector does not even read the written work, and for instance, as it has been proved, writes only “I agree too”.

Here quotation Schulze, „die Juristenprüfung zwischen  Anspruch und Realität“:

„because the second corrector just out of commodity agrees with the appraisal of the first corrector, and gives “his” vote without not even reading the work. This possibility is even admitted by the judges who represent the rather restrictive line in the administration of justice in the Federal Administration Act Seebass - Die Prüfung – ein rechtsschutzloser Freiraum des Prüfers?, NVwZ 1985, 521 (527) und Niehues -Schul– und Prüfungsrecht, Rn. 186- ein.“?

 

German law students are discriminated in the European competition in comparison with European Union foreigner students

There ist not any European country where a training system has been created, which after finishing the university studies provides for a final examination. This practically means that after a final examination the students have to pass again a new finally examination, where nearly the totality of the already “examined” matter of 8  or 9 semesters has to be again examined in a period of nine days, in which are comprised six examination days, each of them with a duration of five hours. According to statics  the failing quota in the first juridical  government examination is constantly of about 30% and even still 15% in the second juridical examination.

There is not such a bulky examination neither in Spain, nor France, Luxemburg, the Nederland, Finland nor Italy.  

To this has to be added that the first juridical government examination can only once be repeated in Germany. Contrary to it, there is no other European country which allows less than two repetitions for the examinations during the study. In Germany the students who fail two times the written first government examination have lost about six years study in the university and the higher education entrance qualification.   

I feel myself without assistance in front of the arbitrariness from the law examination board, and the professors can not much do for the time and efforts they have invested in the education of their students. At the end they have to recognize, that notwithstanding their effort in order to educate the students sufficiently and to prepare them for the examination, the students are confronted with such adverse examination conditions and exorbitant arbitrariness.

Since a lot of time press and politics occupy themselves with the situation of the German juridical education system, the junior lack as well as with the arbitrariness of …

Here an assortment:

I. How was it possible to pass from “excess of law-students” to  “junior lack”?

Since 2000 the number of law graduates in the preparatory service has decreased round 40 per cent.

II. Government examination: abolish it!

“In my opinion we must accept since a lot of time that the totality of our science can not take place in a sole head, particularly not in four years education time.”

A clear announcement that professor Peter Noll exposed in relation to this in a juridical review.

The law study has to be reformed – the sooner, the better.

A clear announcement that certainly Noll declared 50 years ago. Since then nearly nothing happened.

III. The reform of the law study again with no effect?

Professor Dr. Georgios Gounalakis believes that not much will change notwithstanding the necessary reform – for that is the jurisprudence too retracted and proud.