FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

brian__foley

Not trying to undermine you here, but that's just not right...at all and I think its important to be accurate here when we are describing what has been on exams in the past - i.e. as its objectively determinable.

From memory, October 2010, March 2010 spring to mind as the last two papers and nothing related to Article 26 was examined. The topic was an essay (in a general form - not about a particular bill) at Question 4 of October 2009, not in April 2009, not in October 2008, and was possibly (as a partial discussion) an aspect of the essay on the president in April 2008 etc, etc and was examined as a general essay in October 2007. That's two (and a bit) times in seven exams since October 2007 and both times being general questions on Article 26.

I think you're confusing the general issue as to whether an Act is unconstitutional (which is the bread and butter of constitutional law exams) and the special Article 26 procedure which is quite important to know, but has been examined as outlined above.

Whatto

The Constitutionality of an Act was that which I was referring to.

Aside from that, I think its fair to note that he definitely makes reference to the paper reflecting current issues and those which I pointed out have been topical recently.

I'm not the examiner, I do not have a means in predicting the paper, AGAIN, my messages reflect an approach I would adopt - given people seem to ask for opinions and advice on this forum.

Cover as much if not all of the material as possible in order to pass.!!

dats_right

glengirlie wrote: »

Anyone staying in the IBIS hotel for the exams? Got a quote online for 44.80 per night which is good. Just wondered is it within walking distance? Red Cow seems pretty dear if you are to add all the nights up which for me is 4 in total:(

Yeah, the IBIS hotel is literally across the road from venue.

Whatto

dats_right wrote: »

Yeah, the IBIS hotel is literally across the road from venue.

Hey guys,

Don't forget that the Luas now runs past the Red Cow. Do a thorough search of various hotels to find the cheapest!

cd.galway

Hey all, I'm just going through the questions on FMG im getting through them ok until I got to the oct 2009 q, could anyone explain why both parts are based on MEQR Art 34 and why the first is not an analysis of whether its a CD or is in fact an internal tax measure under Art110.
I can see why part ii is an analysis of whether the restriction is mandatory etc under Article 36.

JCJCJC

Hi Guys - if anybody has scans or photocopies of the Equity papers from any of the 2009 and 2010 sittings I would really appreciate same.

JC

King Ian

If anyone has:

1) Up to date exam grids, or
2) Scans of exam papers from 2010

for Criminal, Equity and Contract - I'd very much appreciate them.


(I was one of the lucky few who dodged the FE-1s by a year back in the day, but now my misfortunate sister is going through them so I'm trying to help her as best I can!)

King Ian

Also, having never sat the things, I'd appreciate a view on what the best approach would be for Criminal, Equity and Contract:

1) Having a basic but decent grounding in the principles and case law of all sections of the syllabus, or
2) Omitting (say) 30-40% of the syllabus but having a very indepth knowledge of the remaining 60%.

(I would imagine that option 1 would be impossible in the case of Company, EU and possibly Constitutional - but seem very possible for Criminal and Contract in particular I'd imagine)

Hogzy

King Ian wrote: »

Also, having never sat the things, I'd appreciate a view on what the best approach would be for Criminal, Equity and Contract:

1) Having a basic but decent grounding in the principles and case law of all sections of the syllabus, or
2) Omitting (say) 30-40% of the syllabus but having a very indepth knowledge of the remaining 60%.

The subjects you chose have VERY VERY little that can be left out. Id recommend doing 90% of the 3 topics you have stuudied. Seeing as you said this is your first sitting, have you selected a 4th subject?
You MUST choose 4 subjects for your first sitting or until you pass 3 subjects. If you are doing a 4th id recommend property given your current selection.

If you were to choose EU you could definetly leave out a good 30% of the course however that course is huge and 70% of it would be as big if not bigger than Criminal.
Criminal, Equity and Contract always have topics mixed where as EU doesnt have as much mixed.

King Ian

Hogzy wrote: »

The subjects you chose have VERY VERY little that can be left out. Id recommend doing 90% of the 3 topics you have stuudied. Seeing as you said this is your first sitting, have you selected a 4th subject?
You MUST choose 4 subjects for your first sitting or until you pass 3 subjects. If you are doing a 4th id recommend property given your current selection.

If you were to choose EU you could definetly leave out a good 30% of the course however that course is huge and 70% of it would be as big if not bigger than Criminal.
Criminal, Equity and Contract always have topics mixed where as EU doesnt have as much mixed.

Thanks for the advice. Just to be clear I'm not the one sitting the exams! (my sister is). She has already passed the other 5.

The "sit 4, pass 3" rule always mystifies me when I hear people talking about it. What is the justification behind it?

And say for example if you applied to sit 4, aced 3, but didn't turn up for the 4th - would you not be considered to have passed the 3?

Hogzy

King Ian wrote: »

And say for example if you applied to sit 4, aced 3, but didn't turn up for the 4th - would you not be considered to have passed the 3?

As long as you sign up for 4 your safe afaik. When i sat them first my 4th subject was a "throw away". I just went in for the first half hour, wrote my name and number and left.

law86

But you do have to attend the fourth exam, even if only for half an hour. Or get a sick cert!

Theory behind the rule is to show that you are capable of retaining enough information to pass at least three of them in one sitting.

Hogzy

law86 wrote: »

But you do have to attend the fourth exam

Are you sure? I dont know of anyone who ahs taken the risk tbh.

law86

I rang the Law Soc at the time and they told me I had to sit four, ie put my arse on the chair for four.

I don't know anyone who took the risk either, maybe they would let you take the passing grades for the three. After all, they have their money at that point.

Risky little experiment for someone brave, anyone?

On a related subject, I put in for a recheck, didn't expect to get marked up, so I paid for this sitting before I found out that I come up to a pass in the recheck. I'll be interested to see how that pans out, whether I get the money back or it will be credited to my PPC1 fees.

JCJCJC

Hogzy wrote: »

As long as you sign up for 4 your safe afaik. When i sat them first my 4th subject was a "throw away". I just went in for the first half hour, wrote my name and number and left.

I did that too in October - ditched EU. I wrote a few things and read the treaty for a while before bailing out - still got 20% which is encouraging ;-) At least I got the other three which has me on the score-sheet.
I wouldn't gamble on not turning up and signing for subject no 4, there is too much riding on it and the rules are loud and clear. The biggest PITA is the fact that you pay the exam fee and all you'll have to show is a paper.

Paddigol

How does the refund system for successful re-checks of exam papers work? Anyone have any experience of this?

Orla FitzP

i dont think they will refund u even if they brought u up???

Hogzy

Orla FitzP wrote: »

i dont think they will refund u even if they brought u up???

If you end up passing they do. They have to seeing as you originally passed the exam. The fault would lie in their examiners so there is no reason you should be penalised for that. Jez lads some prospective lawyers ye are going to make.:P

Joke!

JCJCJC

Hogzy wrote: »

If you end up passing they do. They have to seeing as you originally passed the exam. The fault would lie in their examiners so there is no reason you should be penalised for that. Jez lads some prospective lawyers ye are going to make.:P

Joke!

The right answer of course is to see your friendly local shrink right away in relation to the deep and lasting depression that immediately beset you on receipt of your failure letter, and that didn't lift to the extent necessary for you to leave the house and seek help until after the re-check, and immediately issue proceedings in the High Court against the Law Society and the examiner jointly and severally for negligently inflicting grevious psychological harm and look for general damages, punitive damages, loss of earnings, loss of future earnings, loss of opportunity to work for the big five , loss of enjoyment of your Christmas dinner and loss of the re-check fee. Unfortunately loss of consortium is no longer recoverable but put it down anyway.
That's what a real lawyer would do ;-)

colonel1

JCJCJC wrote: »

The right answer of course is to see your friendly local shrink right away in relation to the deep and lasting depression that immediately beset you on receipt of your failure letter, and that didn't lift to the extent necessary for you to leave the house and seek help until after the re-check, and immediately issue proceedings in the High Court against the Law Society and the examiner jointly and severally for negligently inflicting grevious psychological harm and look for general damages, punitive damages, loss of earnings, loss of future earnings, loss of opportunity to work for the big five , loss of enjoyment of your Christmas dinner and loss of the re-check fee. Unfortunately loss of consortium is no longer recoverable but put it down anyway.
That's what a real lawyer would do ;-)

Of course our loss is the Law Socs gain;) But the depression which descends upon receiving the failure letter is quite real unfortunately:(

Torment

I need to pass this in march - any tips or help from somebody that passed by doing the minimum, I know I should learn the syllabus off by heart but I am working full time and simply can't do it !!!

JCJCJC

JUst a reminder folks - Friday is the deadline for your exam application, don't forget to mail it off. Best of luck to all -

JC

Dylan123

Hypothetically speaking if a student makes a reasonable attempt at 3 papers and merely puts their name on the fourth as a tactical strategy - would this ensure a higher degree of severity in the marking of the former three examinations for that particular candidate?

Hogzy

Dylan123 wrote: »

Hypothetically speaking if a student makes a reasonable attempt at 3 papers and merely puts there name on the fourth as a tactical strategy - would this ensure a higher degree of severity in the marking of the former three examinations for that particular candidate?

Also is this a good or bad idea?

They will never know because there are different examiners for each subject

brian__foley

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Does anyone know if the Griffith one day revision courses are on prior to the March sitting? The website still has details up from the summer one.

Late answer, but if you search around the relevant websites you'll get your answer.

pink101

Just half way through tort could someone post up what came up last paper or even an idea of what came up finding it so hard to go through this stuff. Thanking you in anticipation.
:mad::(

T.Watson

Can't remember exactly what was on the last Tort paper but a problem question on defamation was definitely on it, professional negligience/vicarious liability problem question I think, one on intentional torts, general negligence principles, nuisance and that's all I can remember.

akom

Hi everyone, this is my first time posting on this thread.

Im sitting my first four fe1's in March.

Ive been going to a prep course for all four subjects which has definitely helped but im looking for advice on how much time literally locking yourself up i.e leaving work for a period of time altogether is needed??

Thanks for any responses,

A

JCJCJC

akom wrote: »

Hi everyone, this is my first time posting on this thread.

Im sitting my first four fe1's in March.

Ive been going to a prep course for all four subjects which has definitely helped but im looking for advice on how much time literally locking yourself up i.e leaving work for a period of time altogether is needed??

Thanks for any responses,

A

Welcome to this lonely outpost. There are too many variables to give a single simple answer. If you've never studied law before, you'll need more time, but the prep courses are good. If you graduated last year with a first in law, you might not need much further polishing. The big difference between a degree and a prep course is the fact that the pc focuses on this exam. It's entirely a matter of good exam technique and enough knowledge to get 50%. College law courses have a different focus. So, get past papers, look for patterns in them, ask yourself if you can competently tackle five questions to that standard in three hours and that's about it.
You have your subjects chosen by now so there't little point in saying pick complementary ones like equity with property, contract etc, there is some cross-over leading to saving of effort there.

Good luck.

johnnyskeleton

law86 wrote: »

I rang the Law Soc at the time and they told me I had to sit four, ie put my arse on the chair for four.

I don't know anyone who took the risk either, maybe they would let you take the passing grades for the three. After all, they have their money at that point.

Risky little experiment for someone brave, anyone?

Just as a matter of interest, I know exams can be stressful and so forth, but if you have to pay for the exam, why not just have a bash at it? even if you know you are going to fail, is it not worth trying just to see how you do? If you get 12%, you know you've got a lot of work to do, but if you get 25-30% with no study, you might get a lot of confidence from that.