Ghana School of Law Entrance Exam: Exclusionary Measure or Talent Assessment? A Critical Analysis

Introduction

The gateway to legal practice in Ghana, the Ghana School of Law (GSOL) entrance examination, stands at the center of a heated debate. Prominent legal practitioner and writer Daniel Korang has reignited this controversy by asserting that the exam was fundamentally designed not to identify the most talented aspiring lawyers, but to systematically exclude candidates and manage institutional capacity. His perspective, shared on The Law program broadcast by JoyNews (a subsidiary of the Multimedia Group), challenges the official narrative surrounding the assessment and forces a critical examination of access, equity, and quality in Ghana’s legal education system. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized exploration of Korang’s claims, the historical context of the exam, the ongoing legislative reforms, and the practical realities for law students. We will dissect whether the current entrance mechanism serves the public interest by upholding standards or inadvertently creates systemic barriers, and what this means for the future of the legal profession in Ghana.

Key Points

The Core Assertion: An Exam to Exclude, Not to Excel

Daniel Korang’s central thesis is that the GSOL entrance exam functions as a gatekeeping mechanism rather than a merit-based evaluation. He contends the exam was implemented out of “great inconvenience”—a response to overwhelming application numbers—to create a defensible, seemingly objective method for limiting admissions. Its primary purpose, he argues, is to maintain a fixed number of available places (“limited space”), thereby distributing blame for non-admission onto the exam itself rather than arbitrary institutional decisions. This reframes the exam from a tool of talent identification to one of quota management.

Historical Catalyst: Managing Logistical Overflow

The introduction of the exam is directly tied to a specific, verifiable problem: a surge in applications that exceeded the GSOL’s physical infrastructure, faculty resources, and accreditation limits. As a professional school mandated to provide the mandatory Post-Call Practical Law Course for aspiring lawyers, GSOL faced a capacity crisis. The entrance exam emerged as a scalable, standardized filter to manage this overflow without appearing to reject candidates on a subjective, case-by-case basis.

Distinction from Meritocracy

Korang makes a crucial distinction: a true merit-based system aims to “distinguish the best from the worst.” The GSOL exam, in his view, does not purport to do this. Its function is binary—pass or fail—with the pass mark calibrated not to find a threshold of excellence, but to ensure the number of successful candidates aligns with available resources. Therefore, a candidate’s failure does not necessarily indicate a lack of legal aptitude but may simply reflect the constraints of the system.

Background

The Evolution of Legal Education in Ghana

To understand the current controversy, one must trace the pathway to becoming a lawyer in Ghana. The standard route requires: 1) A Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree from an accredited university; 2) Successful completion of the GSOL’s Post-Call Practical Law Course, which includes the Bar Examination; and 3) Induction by the General Legal Council. Historically, admission to GSOL was relatively straightforward for LL.B. graduates. However, the proliferation of law faculties in Ghanaian universities in the 2000s and 2010s dramatically increased the number of graduates seeking the mandatory practical training. The GSOL, based in Accra with limited regional infrastructure, could not expand its capacity proportionally. This mismatch created the pressure that led to the introduction of a competitive entrance examination for the practical course, a policy formally instituted around 2012.

The Current Reform Bill and Stakeholder Debates

Korang’s comments coincide with deliberations on a new Legal Education Reform Bill. This legislation aims to overhaul the structure of legal training, potentially altering the role, governance, and admission criteria of the GSOL. Stakeholders are divided. Some advocate for maintaining or strengthening the entrance exam as a necessary quality control measure. Others, echoing Korang, argue it is an unfair barrier that contradicts the profession’s duty to serve the public by limiting the number of lawyers entering a market that needs more legal professionals, especially outside major cities. The debate centers on balancing maintaining standards with ensuring equitable access to the legal profession.

Analysis

Deconstructing “Exclusionary” vs. “Merit-Based”

The semantic distinction Korang makes is profound. A merit-based assessment theoretically ranks all candidates and admits the top X%, regardless of how many apply. The cut-off score is a function of cohort performance. An exclusionary or capacity-based filter sets a pass mark based on the number of available seats. If 500 seats exist, the exam is designed to fail enough candidates to leave exactly 500 passers, even if 1,000 candidates all demonstrate high competence. This model inherently treats admission as a zero-sum game controlled by supply, not by a pure measure of individual merit. Evidence for this model in Ghana includes the reported fixed number of admissions and the intense focus on the exam as the sole hurdle, rather than a holistic review of academic records, interviews, or potential.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

While not a legal opinion, the system raises potential questions under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution. Article 25 guarantees the right to education, and the state is obligated to ensure equitable access at all levels. If the entrance exam operates as a rigid cap that arbitrarily excludes qualified candidates due to infrastructural limitations—a problem of state planning—it could be argued to fall short of this obligation. Furthermore, the principle of fair administrative action requires that decisions affecting rights be rational and proportionate. A system where failure is pre-determined by capacity, not individual failings, may challenge this principle. However, courts traditionally grant significant deference to professional bodies on admission standards, making any legal challenge complex and hinging on proving the exam is an “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” constraint.

Impact on Diversity and Social Mobility

The exclusionary model disproportionately affects candidates from less privileged backgrounds. Students from well-resourced secondary schools or private universities often have better preparation for standardized tests. The exam becomes a cultural and socioeconomic filter. It may also discourage prospective students from regions with weaker pre-law education, impacting the geographic diversity of the legal profession. This contradicts broader national goals of inclusive development and could lead to a legal profession that is less representative of Ghanaian society, potentially undermining public trust.

Comparative Perspective: How Other Jurisdictions Manage Capacity

Many jurisdictions with oversubscribed law programs use a combination of tools: 1) Direct university admission controls (limiting LL.B. intake at source); 2) Standardized tests like the LSAT (used for predictive validity, not as a sole cap); 3) Regional campuses to expand capacity; and 4) Holistic reviews. Ghana’s model places the entire bottleneck at the final, high-stakes GSOL entrance stage. A more sustainable approach might involve regulating LL.B