FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

coco13

fe1ready wrote: »

While I agree that tort and eu were insane I am a regular listener to Joe Duffy and not too long ago a trainee solicitor rang in saying how tough things were and quite literally everyone who called in blasted her on air. As though she had a silver spoon in her mouth and didn't have a place to be complaining.

Which i think is hillarious because if these same people had kids who were accepted to do law, they'd be as proud as punch.

Out of interest....What are the options available to complain other than Joe Duffy re EU Law?

doz

As someone who originally failed EU (passed comfortably second time, thank God) I can identify with what a lot of people have said today. The EU paper is far too long and anything from 20-30 mins is gone reading the questions, leaving the majority of candidates with too little time to get five questions answered. I strongly feel that there should be an extra twenty minutes for the exam or the examiner should cut out his waffling and shorten the questions. Judging from the list of topics on today's paper, it appears to me that with this exam, the examiner decided, 'I'm going to catch out everyone who refuses to study my niche areas of the course by putting all of them on one paper'. I know the entire syllabus is examinable but surely examining the course in a broad sense would benefit students more rather than picking small areas in an attempt to catch them out?

May not seem much of a consolation to many here at the moment but generally EU is one of the most easily marked of the FE1s.

Jev/N

Again, I agree on the length of the paper issue but I feel people are going over the top on their reactions to this paper as a whole.

He said in his last 2 exam reports he would be examining on transparency, Brussels and equality - he specifically mentioned this

I did the property paper this time last year and it got similar reactions, asking things the likes of Profits a Prendre and Treasure Trove, and very specific angles on Adverse Possession and Co-Ownership as half-questions but students just got on with it.

I agree that the exams should be fair across the board, but that exam today, on reflection, was not ridiculous - it was far from it TBH

I can guarantee there'll be a higher pass rate than the last company exam (30%) which had little uproar.

I know that a few of the posters here complaining about EU have sat it, or others, before, but who hasn't? Is there anyone that this is their first FE1 sitting because you'll always have one outrageous one but that's the way they go!

And not to be arrogant, but the requirement to pass 3 on your first go makes nothing but sense. Otherwise, if you had the time and money you could pass one or two at a time, taking it easy

mariaod

coco13 wrote: »

Out of interest....What are the options available to complain other than Joe Duffy re EU Law?

why don't people ring the law society and make an informal complaint?
Don't give your exam number or name or anything but if enough people ring then surely the examiners will get wind of it and something might happen in terms of marking it easier.

the number is 01 6724800

_JOE_

Jev/N wrote: »

Again, I agree on the length of the paper issue but I feel people are going over the top on their reactions to this paper as a whole.

He said in his last 2 exam reports he would be examining on transparency, Brussels and equality - he specifically mentioned this

I did the property paper this time last year and it got similar reactions, asking things the likes of Profits a Prendre and Treasure Trove, and very specific angles on Adverse Possession and Co-Ownership as half-questions but students just got on with it.

I agree that the exams should be fair across the board, but that exam today, on reflection, was not ridiculous - it was far from it TBH

I can guarantee there'll be a higher pass rate than the last company exam (30%) which had little uproar.

I know that a few of the posters here complaining about EU have sat it, or others, before, but who hasn't? Is there anyone that this is their first FE1 sitting because you'll always have one outrageous one but that's the way they go!

And not to be arrogant, but the requirement to pass 3 on your first go makes nothing but sense. Otherwise, if you had the time and money you could pass one or two at a time, taking it easy

I agree with Jev/N, certainly an over reaction by many...The syllabus is there, any topic is examinable and students need to cover the material...

To be honest, I think the recent trend to make these exams more difficult is not only the current situation within the Legal profession, but also a reaction to the fact that almost every student is doing prep courses, loaded with a shiny new manual, and pro forma answers...

I think the above has been mentioned in many of the recent examiners' reports...

On the other hand, if that is the case, it's hardly fair to those who have to do these exams without any sort prep course...

I think going to the likes of Joe Duffy on liveline is more than a little over the top!

If we put things in perspective, realistically you've circa 5/6 months to study the material. Most do prep courses, focused on certain areas. Most have no jobs being just out of college. These exams are all they have. I just think there's no real excuse for not knowing the material if you fit into the above category. The reason students fail is not because they don't know the material, it's because their topic "hasn't come up." Tell me i'm harsh, but that's the truth.
I know many who do these exams with either children, full time jobs and other commitments with no benefit of doing prep courses.

If you have the time, not knowing the material is not good enough. It's all examinable, we're all grown ups now and need to take responsibility for this.

Lorraine 24

Hi. Was wondering if anyone had the topics that appeared in the last criminal paper, particulary the essay questions, would they mind posting them up. Thanks in advance.

rick flair

“””””If we put things in perspective, realistically you've circa 5/6 months to study the material. jobs being just out of college. These exams are all they have. I just think there's no real excuse for not knowing the material if you fit into the above category. examinable, we're all grown ups now and need to take responsibility for this. “”””


***********************************

Sorry Dude the time frame from results to exam is not 5/6 months or anything like it - then add on a re-check and your just about putting away the Christmas decorations. So you have about 9 weeks then to start all over again, which is ridiculous.

I do not think most people have nothing else to do or are without a job. Over 50 percent of applicants come from an employment background related or unrelated to law.

I take your point about knowing the law but in essence………
1. Why does it take so long to get results?
2. So long to get a re-check
3. Why can’t they provide a time frame for all 8 subjects instead of the 3-subject rule?
4. Cost is not an issue I am sure people would pay more for certainty and swifter results
5. If they want to test students and hone their skills then lets just have problem questions - like real life

But they wont because they make the rules, its their club

doing

They're artificially keeping the competition for jobs low because of the recession, can't blame them. The best and most deserving will still get through.

JCJCJC

_JOE_ wrote: »

The reason students fail is not because they don't know the material, it's because their topic "hasn't come up." Tell me i'm harsh, but that's the truth./QUOTE]

Joe, Nicki Lauda was F1 world champion back in the early 1980s. His motto was win every race going as slowly as you can. People here only need to get 50% - that is their ambition and focus. There is a finite amount of time, and a finite amount of memory capacity to retain material to the level of detail required to get that 50%. That time must be allocated amongst the subjects - all of us will have our favourites that suit our personalities. EU stands apart because its not on common law principles, because the regs and directives don't even have names, and because the names of the litigants are often not from the English-speaking countries. Unless you have a competency in (say) German or Spanish, names of corporations in those languages are difficult to retain. I have German, French and some Polish besides Gaeilge and Bearla and I find the Greek and Turkish names difficult etc.
Against that background, people have to make individual strategic choices, based on what is reasonable, in allocating their time and effort. That leads to decisions on the major topics of a given subject based on real-life importance and frequency of appearance. You can't just say to people doing these exams that they should know everything and tough if you don't.
There seems to be a pattern of niche topics, to use a working title, coming up this time. Animal torts came up in tort. Consumer law came up in Contract. Same in EU. That's as much as I did - others might like to comment on other subjects. If there's a pattern there's a reason and there is only one hypothesis - the examiners got instructions collectively.

Sherlock Holmes used to say: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

JC

_JOE_

JCJCJC You can't just say to people doing these exams that they should know everything and tough if you don't.

So what are you saying then? Do you want the law society to only examine the major topics and reduce the pass rate? The point I'm making is that the syllabus is there; you can't argue with the fact that everything's examinable there.

You know you only need to do 5/8 that gives you some scope; take EU for example, you can drop competition. The rest of the course is not that large.

I take your point about some of the Q's being difficult in EU, but you have to note that the examiner is one of the more lenient markers. Go back through the 250+ pages, in particular results day and tell me otherwise.

And you fail to mention all the time/ prep courses available to do these exams? Can students doing these courses ask these questions to their lecturers? For instance, if i'm answering a PQ on FMofG, can i not get the lecturer to correct past papers? What more do you need?

Considering many of these PQ's (re EU) can be difficult, i would simply suggest beginning from first principles. Just like criminal / constitutional law, you can have a skeleton type approach to many of these questions, and i mean in the sense that faced with a question, underline the relevant facts which you will deal with, then state the law without being specific (yet) to your answer.

Students seem to glaze over these points which are essentially 1/3rd plus of the marks; rather, they worry about getting the answer right.

_JOE_

rick flair wrote: »

Sorry Dude the time frame from results to exam is not 5/6 months or anything like it - then add on a re-check and your just about putting away the Christmas decorations. So you have about 9 weeks then to start all over again, which is ridiculous.

Why are you talking about results to exam. Is that the duration of the prep courses?
Just say i finish my first four next week. Is it only 9 weeks to the March/ April exam?
What's stopping you from starting then? And even if i think i might fail one, i'd be looking at the subject before the recheck. And even if i had to repeat, would the topic not be somewhat fresh in my mind? Would i not have from mid December to March / April to refresh this topic?

So to conclude, you think there isn't enough time to do the exams, but still want more sittings during the year?

rick flair wrote: »

I do not think most people have nothing else to do or are without a job. Over 50 percent of applicants come from an employment background related or unrelated to law

I sincerely doubt that. I doubt many other posters would support that assertion.

JCJCJC

_JOE_ wrote: »

So what are you saying then? Do you want the law society to only examine the major topics and reduce the pass rate? The point I'm making is that the syllabus is there; you can't argue with the fact that everything's examinable there.

What I am saying is that people are only human - they will endeavour to come up with a reasonable strategy to pass the exam, which is not necessarily a strategy to know everything. If a candidate has honestly learnt a good chunk of the course including the major topics, they are entitled to feel bruised if the particular exam didn't dwell on any major topics. It's just my own opinion, you are entitled to yours.

JC

rick flair

Joe the point is , if the LS are now going to exam the full syllabus and move away from their historical approach, then they should at least mention this and try to have the results out quickly. You are left in limbo because you do not know if you have passed, need to study the same or different topics. I have sat 4 and I will not know the result UNTIL December. Therefore, to hedge my bets I should be really studying all 8 from one until March, if I want to finish in March. That's just illogical and unreasonable.

But then again you are obviously very sure of yourself. "And even if I think I might fail one" - anyway best of luck and hopefully none of us will have to consider a re-check etc.

rick flair

Anyone up to date will do , thanks

Hogzy

+1 for these exams being sat more than twice a year. It makes it so much worse having to wait till March to sit another paper. Even if they had 2 exams per day (i know its tough) but had 4 exams per year it wouldnt be so bad. and their costs wouldnt sky rocket for renting the RDS or Neptune Stadium.

ElmoLaw

hi guys
i know the exams are tough but at the end of the day we should spend any extra time preparing as many topics as we can and (not spend time arguing about how tough they are!!) keep in mind that yes they are getting tougher which is understandable in the current climate- maybe not fair per se but cest la vie. keep motivated!!! and i think yes there prob. was some sort of discussion regarding having the less frequently examined areas up -but statistically they have to come up some time as they are on the syllabus. i only sat constitution which i think went well but there were lots of minor topics there. i also sat company which was a very fair paper but then the pass rate was horrendous last time around. my point is - pretend the examiner is your friend because in essence they are- if you deserve it they will pass you. they are not out to destroy your future!!! just be prepared to answer all topics (as much as you can )well. not very well but well- and you'll get your 50%.

Now my selfish reasons for the post- i know all topics for criminal are examinable but did any of the lecturers from the prep courses tip anything in particular?

Thanks guys and remember there is a light at the end of the tunnel!!!!!!

Jev/N

JCJCJC wrote: »

If a candidate has honestly learnt a good chunk of the course including the major topics, they are entitled to feel bruised if the particular exam didn't dwell on any major topics. It's just my own opinion, you are entitled to yours.

JC

I agree entirely, everyone has the right. What I disagree with is the naive attitude of some of 'talking to Joe'

What matters is the pass rate, and if those who should have passed, actually did.


IMO 4 exams per year would be way too much. Most other professional exams only have 1-2 sitting per year, so I don't see why the solicitors exams should be any different. All you would end up with is increased renting costs and decreased numbers, with the burden being placed on the candidates finances as a result. It's not workable

JCJCJC

Jev/N wrote: »

I agree entirely, everyone has the right. What I disagree with is the naive attitude of some of 'talking to Joe'

Well, the man from Ballyfermot has carved out his own niche as the nation's safety valve, seeing a public representatives have failed beyond abysmally at their role as checkers and balancers of public services, in fact they have literally taken us into the abyss. Joe lets people blow off steam. Once in a while he achieves something, he got the boys in blue to get their finger out in Thurles last St. Pat's day if you recall, when our socially-housed cultural cousins held the town to ransom with random acts of violence and committed the unspeakable atrocity of assaulting an articulate english-speaking yank. I don't think a call from a FE1 student complaining about severity of the exams would do much, but if it makes somebody feel better go ahead, it's a personal choice.

JC

glengirlie

Was my first time sitting the FE1s in Cork on Weds last.
Had a very nice experience (except for the fact I was doing an exam)
The invigilators were really nice, friendly, handed in my constitution at 9 in the morning and it was on my desk 10 mins later thanks to the very friendly lady.
There was no issue with where you left your stuff. When signing in, they addressed you by name and also offered if anyone was unhappy with a wobbly chair or desk, they could change.
Mind you the only thing I could fault was the PA system, could not hear it very well and I was near the top of the hall most of the time.
Overall experience of FE1 Cork Exam centre aka Neptune was grand. Bit of a smell of gas from the heaters, but you'd get over that because it was warm for once.
Now onto Tuesday and my last exam CRIMINAL any tips on cases or ones to watch apart from the usual murder, manslaughter and rape et al ????
Pls help, need a pick me up in this exam, following the disaster that was contract where they wanted all the course in your 5 questions
Hope everyone else is getting on ok!!!!

NoQuarter

Does anyone have a list of what topics have came up since they start examining on the 2009 act?

I dont even know where to begin with the act! its a nightmare...

ElmoLaw

Can someone tell me the verdict in R v Abdul- Hussain in the context of duress of circumstances.

Thanks

doing

rick flair wrote: »

Cany anyone email me exam grids for Equity, Contract, EU and Torts. Looking for recent ones and not the old stuff on the Google Group.


Cheers

I would appreciate this too.

doz

_JOE_ wrote: »

And you fail to mention all the time/ prep courses available to do these exams? Can students doing these courses ask these questions to their lecturers? For instance, if i'm answering a PQ on FMofG, can i not get the lecturer to correct past papers? What more do you need?

The way you speak here you'd almost assume the prep courses were free! Believe it or not, these cost a small fortune and a vast amount of students simply cannot afford to do them.

Hogzy

doz wrote: »

Believe it or not, these cost a small fortune and a vast amount of students simply cannot afford to do them.

Exactly, Griffith charge €395 per topic and long gone are the days that you get to repeat for free. You now have to pay if you want to repeat which is tough going.

JCJCJC

NoQuarter wrote: »

Does anyone have a list of what topics have came up since they start examining on the 2009 act?

I dont even know where to begin with the act! its a nightmare...

It wasn't even on the syllabus in March, which was the first exam since it became law - it should have been on it, and lots of people here rang the law society and got short shrift. You could however work it in to your answers and demonstrate your knowledge. By way of comparison, in tort this week, there was a defamation question which was an indirect way of trying your knowledge of the new Defamation Act, which similarly made an appearance on the syllabus this time.
It's a monster of an act, it changes a lot of things in land law - I think you have to go through it all and make notes, and keep asking yourself how it might come up in a problem or essay in the areas you know reasonably well already. The way things went last week, I doubt you'll get a simple essay saying write all you know about three interesting features of the new act.
I passed property in march on that sort of approach.
I've said this before, it's irrational that we can bring in the Succession Act but not this one. Where's the logic?

JC


(only average guitarist ;-) )

NoQuarter

JCJCJC wrote: »

...

Yeah i was in tort myself last week (shocking paper), i hate the fussing around in the interim of new legislation, id just like to use the act to amend the topics in the ways its changed them and go with that!

Im just going to try do topics that mostly havent been affected by the act and then bluff the rest! My bluffing skills have got plenty of practice over the last few days!

_JOE_

rick flair wrote: »

Joe the point is , if the LS are now going to exam the full syllabus and move away from their historical approach, then they should at least mention this and try to have the results out quickly. You are left in limbo because you do not know if you have passed, need to study the same or different topics. I have sat 4 and I will not know the result UNTIL December. Therefore, to hedge my bets I should be really studying all 8 from one until March, if I want to finish in March. That's just illogical and unreasonable.

But then again you are obviously very sure of yourself. "And even if I think I might fail one" - anyway best of luck and hopefully none of us will have to consider a re-check etc.

No worries. All the best.

doz wrote: »

The way you speak here you'd almost assume the prep courses were free! Believe it or not, these cost a small fortune and a vast amount of students simply cannot afford to do them.

I'm just questioning the fact that some students can complain about the exams being tough when they've been hand fed the info. The info / resources/ pre prepared past question and lectures those courses provide should be more than enough to attempt any question.

I can't understand how anyone would be in a position to pick and choose / or hope for courses when they've gone through the above.

When I did these exams, i did 7 the first time, passed 6. I worked 30+ hours a week, did a postgrad, played / trained with a very good football team and competed in another sport. And not a prep course in sight. And it wasn't too long ago either.

All i'm saying is that bogey questions aside, a bit of hard work and you should have no problems passing these exams.

_JOE_

Hogzy wrote: »

Exactly, Griffith charge €395 per topic and long gone are the days that you get to repeat for free. You now have to pay if you want to repeat which is tough going.

Why is it you feel the need to quote the fees of Griffith college? Such courses are not the be all and end all. A bit of independent study never went a miss:p

JCJCJC

NoQuarter wrote: »

i hate the fussing around in the interim of new legislation,

So right. As soon as a Bill becomes law it should be reflected in the syllabus - we should be examined on the law as it stands on the day of the exam. They spend years moaning about bad law, we are expected to read and know what the LRC have recommended, the Oireachtas plays ducks and drakes with it for another few years and then eventually there is a big bang and it becomes law, and the lawsoc pretends it hasn't happened for almost another year!

best comment I heard from a fellow-sufferer in the past few days in relation to the defamation problem in tort was - first, when did this happen? good lateral thinking, opens up two strands of debate. me being an impulsive thicko I dived into the new Act of course ;-)

JC

Hogzy

_JOE_ wrote: »

Why is it you feel the need to quote the fees of Griffith college? Such courses are not the be all and end all. A bit of independent study never went a miss:p

I am sorry, i dont have the time to go and quote every price of every FE1 course. But griffith have a reputation for being the best and are by far the most popular therefore quoting griffiths prices seemed reasonable at the time :rolleyes:
Nobody said they were the be all and end all. But they sure do help and they consolidate alot of information in a very good way. I dont know how i would cope with Studying EU if i didnt do a study course.

I so regret voting yes on Lisbon :P