FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

darkangel1986

hey guys,

down to eu law and really want to pass.....so any ideas on what 2 topics i can leave out??? have tried looking through thread for ideas but only seeing what people doing want to know what 2 areas to leave out and not chance arm leaving out too much.

ta ta in advance!!!

chops018

May92 wrote: »

Currently doing a masters so can't, unfortunately! That's why sitting all 8 at once is looking like the most appealing, if not the most unrealistic, option for me at the moment.

Well if you could afford to do 4 I would attempt it next March. You have to pass at least 3 out of the 4 to move onto the next set so you could always do a 'ghost fourth' and study loads for 3. Even if you just called it a trial run for the 8 just to see what they are like exam setting wise and the standard etc and just put whatever study in you can. You never know, you could be surprised and pass all four.

chops018

JCJCJC wrote: »

They are held before each sitting, Spring and Autumn. GCD update their site in good time. I think you need to get your head straight on tactics, if you'll forgive the bluntness. When are you planning to go to Blackhall Place? That's the big question. If the answer is Sept 2013, then you need all eight next March. If it's Sept 2014, then you have three sittings to get them - a lot less pressure. If I were you and had a 1.1, I'd go for the eight - you'll impress an employer with a hit-rate like that. LLMs are fine and grand, but are you aiming to be an academic lawyer, or a solicitor? the big advantage you have in doing the LLM is you have access to a college law library and the online databases, that's a huge resource - you won't realise how valuable it is until your college log-in dies. Do your FE1s while you have that, and you can look up articles etc. by your examiners - it pays off.

I have an LLM and my once I graduated I stopped being able to access there off campus online databases. I wasn't happy, I really enjoyed the use of them and I assumed graduates always would have.

JCJCJC

chops018 wrote: »

I have an LLM and my once I graduated I stopped being able to access there off campus online databases. I wasn't happy, I really enjoyed the use of them and I assumed graduates always would have.

Sorry if my post was ambiguous - I meant the OP would have the access whilst doing the LLM which, as you've said, is a very useful asset as you tackle the FE1s. Access will cease once you leave college. One of my buddies went on to do the BL degree at King's Inns. Being a sociable sort of chap, he used to occasionally ring one or two of our former lecturers in UL to clarify something by way of a quick discussion on the phone. He got an email from a very senior person in the law faculty basically telling him - when you're gone, you're gone! No more free legal aid.
If you get a log-in from someone, be very careful. I know that in UL, especially when a person is right on the borderline between two grades, the examiners can look at the amount of library usage the student has clocked up. If your friend is - say - an archaeology student, it'll take some explaining why they have developed such a deep interest in criminal law.

sorchauna

JCJCJC wrote: »

As as aside - I've been using Healy's book on Law of Evidence in the past few days - anyone doing constitutional in the FE1s would benefit from it, on unconstitutionally-obtained evidence etc, it's probably better than the straight constitutional law textbooks.

thanks for that have an evidence book at home that I used for college and it never occured to me how I could use it for consitutional so thanks for the tip.

And I agree about use of the online resources. I did my degree and masters in UCC. They will extend college use for those doing fe's for €60 for the year and keep your log in details but you can only access the online resources from the college. Before you could do it anywhere but apparently the licences for the online resources seem to be very strict and even when your paying the library for the use, you cannot get access unless your phyiscally in the library.

JCJCJC

darkangel1986 wrote: »

hey guys,

down to eu law and really want to pass.....so any ideas on what 2 topics i can leave out??? have tried looking through thread for ideas but only seeing what people doing want to know what 2 areas to leave out and not chance arm leaving out too much.

ta ta in advance!!!

You need an up-to-date grid to make a best-guess decision on that, right up to Oct 2102. Sorry I don't have one that fresh to advise you, but I passed it with a lot more than two topics unvisited.

ananas

Hogzy wrote: »

Oh I know, Maybe i jumped the gun a bit in saying that the majority of trainees are in smaller firms. Maybe someone in PPC 1 or 2 would have a better idea.

I'm in PPC1 at the moment and people seem to assume that the majority of those are from top 5. This couldn't be further from the truth. The majority are with firms from all over the country. There are a lot from Dublin firms from the small to mid sized.

From those I know, there are 26 trainees from Matheson, around 17 from Mc Canns and Cox, around 15 from frys and I think 20 from a and l, MHC have 11.

Thats a fairly small percentage of the 400 people in blackhall at the moment.

These figures (bar Mathesons) are not 100% accurate but they're in and around.

frustratedTC

Hi
I have 2 FE1 left to do, when should I start studying for them? Why are they so much worse than the others to study for?

chops018

frustratedTC wrote: »

Hi
I have 2 FE1 left to do, when should I start studying for them? Why are they so much worse than the others to study for?

I have 4 under my belt and I'm finding it very hard to get the motivation to study for the final 4. Now I do have work aswell and the Christmas hours are stopping me getting more study done than I should but it's scary to think that they are only in the middle of March. I wish I had a lot more covered by this stage.

Even on my day's off it seems hard to get a full days work done.. Hoping that changes now after Christmas or I'll have to say bye bye to the job for the 2 and a half months till the exams.

LegallyAbroad

chops018 wrote: »

I have 4 under my belt and I'm finding it very hard to get the motivation to study for the final 4. Now I do have work aswell and the Christmas hours are stopping me getting more study done than I should but it's scary to think that they are only in the middle of March. I wish I had a lot more covered by this stage.

Even on my day's off it seems hard to get a full days work done.. Hoping that changes now after Christmas or I'll have to say bye bye to the job for the 2 and a half months till the exams.

I'm working full time in a serious job (not that yours isn't, but it's not a job I can give up or get hours off) and listening to lectures online - I've only listened to about 4 hours so far (i only decided to do the FE1s when I got the contract there a few weeks ago). So take solace in the fact that you're miles ahead of me.

sorchauna

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

I'm working full time in a serious job (not that yours isn't, but it's not a job I can give up or get hours off) and listening to lectures online - I've only listened to about 4 hours so far (i only decided to do the FE1s when I got the contract there a few weeks ago). So take solace in the fact that you're miles ahead of me.

I think once you have the 3/4 done, the pressure is not as much. Im the same as chops018 in that I have 4 left aswell and finding it hard to get into it. Since you have a full time job and unless you need to be ready for PPC1 in 2013 maybe you could just do one each sitting in 2013 so as not to put yourself under pressure with a full time job thats not flexible with study.

LegallyAbroad

sorchauna wrote: »

I think once you have the 3/4 done, the pressure is not as much. Im the same as chops018 in that I have 4 left aswell and finding it hard to get into it. Since you have a full time job and unless you need to be ready for PPC1 in 2013 maybe you could just do one each sitting in 2013 so as not to put yourself under pressure with a full time job thats not flexible with study.

Yeah, that was my original intention, but I reckon there's no downside to doing a March sitting, even if I don't get the 3, at least I'll have experience of giving the exam a bash and the forced study in the bag.

sorchauna

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

Yeah, that was my original intention, but I reckon there's no downside to doing a March sitting, even if I don't get the 3, at least I'll have experience of giving the exam a bash and the forced study in the bag.

And if you pick your three wisely you can get the 3/4. Defo do property, as you will seen in other posts its the only really predictable paper you can get out of the 8! Most people also do a mixture of criminal, contract and equity in their first lot.

chops018

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

Yeah, that was my original intention, but I reckon there's no downside to doing a March sitting, even if I don't get the 3, at least I'll have experience of giving the exam a bash and the forced study in the bag.

There certainly isn't any downside to doing the March sitting, even if it is just to gain the experience of doing them and seeing what the standard is - as you said yourself above. You never know, you might get 3 out of the 4 and then be a bit ahead of yourself. Congrats on getting the TC, lots of people with all 8 FE's done and they still don't have a TC. In fact I'm seeing a lot more people without the actual exams done gaining TC's with the big firms these days, wonder was it always like this, I always imagined that they would prefer a person with the exams done than someone just embarking on them.

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

I'm working full time in a serious job (not that yours isn't, but it's not a job I can give up or get hours off) and listening to lectures online - I've only listened to about 4 hours so far (i only decided to do the FE1s when I got the contract there a few weeks ago). So take solace in the fact that you're miles ahead of me.

Yeah it is good to have the 4 done and not be under as much pressure - in that I keep what I pass now. But still I would love to get them over and done with in March, but at the moment I'm finding it very hard to study at the same level or pace I did for the first 4. I'm sure that will change in the new year and I'll pick up the pace then, and yes my job is a job but it isn't serious and I'll be asking for my hours to be cut first and see how I'm going then before I start handing in notices to leave. But as I said, I would have preferred to have had more done at this stage.

LegallyAbroad

sorchauna wrote: »

And if you pick your three wisely you can get the 3/4. Defo do property, as you will seen in other posts its the only really predictable paper you can get out of the 8! Most people also do a mixture of criminal, contract and equity in their first lot.

Ah! Therein lies the problem - due to work I can only do second week of exams, so will have to do EU, contract, criminal and equity one after the other. In fairness, I've sat them all at least once in college and the latter 3 in a different jurisidictions professional exams, so I'm hoping the basics are somewhere in the head and it's a matter of putting flesh on bone. Tall order, all the same!

sorchauna

chops018 wrote: »

In fact I'm seeing a lot more people without the actual exams done gaining TC's with the big firms these days, wonder was it always like this, I always imagined that they would prefer a person with the exams done than someone just embarking on them.

I'd assume in the bigger dublin firms since they have the traineeships lined in the future years, not having the fe's is not a major factor. Looking for jobs locally you would have a better chance having the fe's done. I think smaller firms can't really plan in advance if they can afford a trainee and when they know it will be more of a lets get you in here as soon as possible.

sorchauna

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

Ah! Therein lies the problem - due to work I can only do second week of exams, so will have to do EU, contract, criminal and equity one after the other. In fairness, I've sat them all at least once in college and the latter 3 in a different jurisidictions professional exams, so I'm hoping the basics are somewhere in the head and it's a matter of putting flesh on bone. Tall order, all the same!

Contract and criminal you cannot leave out anything as they tend to be a mix of topics in exams. Im doing the eu and equity and have only looked at eu. Although its a big course, in a way since its so big you can only be asked so much so that would deserve time looking at the grid and deciding what your willing to gamble on.

frustratedTC

What should I focus on for EU and constitutional? From reading the thread it seems these 2 have shocking high failure rates

Tom Young

The answer is everything. It's amazing the way law students feel the need to be spoon fed - the failure rates are high because the examiners are not following a mappable or discernible pattern, or set thereof. Therefore, logically, cover everything.

One never knows when that thing called the Constitution, or heaven forbid Directly Effective and Supreme EU law might come into a case upon which you are advising.

chops018

I agree with Tom above, you really do have to cover everything, or at least nearly everything. I learned that the hard way, March 2012 I decided I'd only cover a certain amount of topics and I didn't get the 3/4 to move onto the final 4 subjects. For the October set just gone I decided to try cover as much as I could, and I passed 4/4, and the feeling you get when you open a paper and you are able to attempt all or almost all of the questions is amazing.

Now there will always be one or two that can be left out - where a topic rarely comes up. But at the end of the day try cover as much as you can. You will see for some topics, example in equity for specific performance, that there is only 3 or 4 types of questions they do and in essence can ask, if you want to narrow it down go through the grid and the past questions and see what exactly they have asked and can ask but again, try cover as much as possible. This might not be as applicable for the likes of EU and Constitutional as there is always new developments, but it definitively gives you a good idea of what types of questions you can expect on a certain topic.

I also think you have to able to answer a question well, so for a problem question I feel you should be able to identify the issue(s) set down a coherent set of advice on that issue using your knowledge of the law and move onto the next issue, don't start rambling and try to stay on the issue(s) actually present in the question. An essay however gives you a bit more room but again try to answer the question being asked.

doing

Tom Young wrote: »

The answer is everything. It's amazing the way law students feel the need to be spoon fed - the failure rates are high because the examiners are not following a mappable or discernible pattern, or set thereof. Therefore, logically, cover everything.

One never knows when that thing called the Constitution, or heaven forbid Directly Effective and Supreme EU law might come into a case upon which you are advising.

That's true for some subjects like Constitutional, EU and Contract, but if you study for everything in Criminal or Property for example you'd be wasting a lot of your time and putting yourself at a huge competitive disadvantage versus smarter students who will just study the topics that come up every year in far greater depth than you and do a far better exam than you, leaving you with a mark in the mid to high 40% range, and short of the standard required by the bell curve, even though you actually know far more law.

Plus when people ask "which topics should I cover" I wonder if you're misunderstanding them? They might well mean "which topics should I become an expert on, get several books on" etc. Not necessarily "which 5 topics should I study to the exclusion of everything else".

Cthulhu!

Tom Young wrote: »

The answer is everything. It's amazing the way law students feel the need to be spoon fed - the failure rates are high because the examiners are not following a mappable or discernible pattern, or set thereof. Therefore, logically, cover everything.

One never knows when that thing called the Constitution, or heaven forbid Directly Effective and Supreme EU law might come into a case upon which you are advising.

I would hope that were you advising on a case that did involve some Constitutional or EU aspect, you would go and consult a book, rather than trying to recite case law and statute from memory. In fact, doing solely the latter would be grounds for a claim of professional misconduct.

You shouldn't be "amazed" at how law students need to be "spoon fed", though you should be amazed that the Law Society have instituted a glorified memory test as a means of determining who may train as a solicitor.

Tom Young

I see we are in agreement then.

Cthulhu!

Tom Young wrote: »

I see we are in agreement then.

If you say so.

Tom Young

Cthulhu! wrote: »

If you say so.

I do. You are of course right that I shouldn't be surprised.

Cthulhu!

Tom Young wrote: »

I do. You are of course right that I shouldn't be surprised.

And yet you were but a short time ago. Glad I could clarify things.

Tom Young

Cthulhu! wrote: »

And yet you were but a short time ago. Glad I could clarify things.

What would your alternate solution for professional training/entry be?

Cthulhu!

Tom Young wrote: »

What would your alternate solution for professional training/entry be?

I don't have an alternate solution. My position is simply that the FE1 is an unfair exam that has been designed to maximise profit for the Law Society. I notice that neighbouring jurisdictions do not require law graduates to sit substantive exams, at great cost, with high failure rates, just for the privilege of being eligible to begin training.

I think that there are a number of changes that could be made to the FE1 which would allow it to reward candidates who can engage with and understand the law as opposed to anyone who can memorise, and regurgitate at speed, a superficial understanding the law. I am, of course, not suggesting that everyone who passes falls into the latter group.

chops018

Cthulhu! wrote: »

I don't have an alternate solution. My position is simply that the FE1 is an unfair exam that has been designed to maximise profit for the Law Society. I notice that neighbouring jurisdictions do not require law graduates to sit substantive exams, at great cost, with high failure rates, just for the privilege of being eligible to begin training.

I think that there are a number of changes that could be made to the FE1 which would allow it to reward candidates who can engage with and understand the law as opposed to anyone who can memorise, and regurgitate at speed, a superficial understanding the law. I am, of course, not suggesting that everyone who passes falls into the latter group.

They are actually very good points.

Hogzy

Cthulhu! wrote: »

I don't have an alternate solution. My position is simply that the FE1 is an unfair exam that has been designed to maximise profit for the Law Society. I notice that neighbouring jurisdictions do not require law graduates to sit substantive exams, at great cost, with high failure rates, just for the privilege of being eligible to begin training.

I think that there are a number of changes that could be made to the FE1 which would allow it to reward candidates who can engage with and understand the law as opposed to anyone who can memorise, and regurgitate at speed, a superficial understanding the law. I am, of course, not suggesting that everyone who passes falls into the latter group.

I think the constitutional paper is the only one that comes close to these criteria. I found it theonly one to actually test your understanding of the law.