FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

Arcturus2112

lawbear wrote: »

LawCQ91 wrote: »

Mine is all packed up , not going to look at it again ;( but recall It's the one on the charter, something about double jeopardy on EU criminal law and one about art 47 of the charter, The one on criminal law one is definitely not on the syllabus .. To be honest I didn't know what the art 47 is it asking .

Did anyone else attempt the charter question? I didnt have a clue what it was really asking but i remembered studying something on the charter, how the judiciary played a huge role in developing it, art 7 then with lisbon, how eu is influenced by ECHR and threw in Art 260 about pecuniary fines and that ....probaby completely wrong but I was desperate...rattled my brain to throw sometging down

Yeah, I wrote a bit on the Article 47 question. I mentioned Article 263, UPA v Council (AG Jacobs) in terms of denying people an effective remedy. Good shout on Art 260. I knew topic well but it was all so rushed it never occurred to me to add that!

Arcturus2112

FeDespair wrote: »

So what happens next? Write letters to the lady mentioned?

.

I spent a good portion of my morning preparing one, so mine is ready to go anyway. Perhaps it should be copied to the examiner also. I think he and the Law Society should really have some communication on this.

Troels Hartmann

I'd add a note of caution here before anyone writes to the LS:

1) I'm not sure if I would openly ask for a resit. From the LS perspective that might sound like a cheeky request from a crowd of people who have had a bad exam, and (let's face it) it's a long shot.

2) I'd steer well clear of mentioning prep courses or manuals. Bear in mind that all of them are conducted totally separately from the LS and have nothing to do with them and are therefore not any kind of official indication of the syllabus or likely content of the exam.

If you're writing to them, focus on the syllabus syllabus syllabus syllabus, and secondly the appalling and confusing drafting of some of the questions.

I suppose we need to be realistic here. While a resit would be nice, the best we might be able to hope for is some kind of drastically lenient marking scheme to take account of all of this.

Just when we thought the stress was over!!

southcounty

Troels Hartmann wrote: »

I'd add a note of caution here before anyone writes to the LS:

1) I'm not sure if I would openly ask for a resit. From the LS perspective that might sound like a cheeky request from a crowd of people who have had a bad exam, and (let's face it) it's a long shot.

2) I'd steer well clear of mentioning prep courses or manuals. Bear in mind that all of them are conducted totally separately from the LS and have nothing to do with them and are therefore not any kind of official indication of the syllabus or likely content of the exam.

If you're writing to them, focus on the syllabus syllabus syllabus syllabus, and secondly the appalling and confusing drafting of some of the questions.

I suppose we need to be realistic here. While a resit would be nice, the best we might be able to hope for is some kind of drastically lenient marking scheme to take account of all of this.

Just when we thought the stress was over!!

I agree if we mention manuals they'll say they listed the books to use not manuals and if we ask for a resit outright they'll shoot it down. We should just air our grievances and keep the pressure on and let them come up with the solution which they are going to have to do once they realise we won't back off!! I've a letter ready to go and I'm gonna send mine by email to [email]lawschool{at}lawsociety.ie[/email] marked for the attention of Paula Sheedy who is the education officer. I am also going to send a copy by post. I would be in favour of setting up an online petition which was done last year to get the two sittings when they changed the exam dates. However I am not tech savy and have no idea how to arrange an online petition so if anyone could help us out here that'd be great. I think the last petition only got 351 signatures and they arranged two sittings. I'd imagine we could get double that!! We could mention that petition in the letters then and show them we mean business!!

prettylamp

The website iPetition is a handy way of starting the petition. It wont let me post the link as I am a new user.


I would set it up myself but I actually didn't do EU so I would not be the best spokesperson. I support the cause though!

Paws91

Hey great idea on the ipetition ! Think that paper was totally out of line with anything that could have been anticipated, even on a bad day! I think that even going into that exam at your most confident you would have left upset ! I personally answered 5 questions , including the case note where I was merely clutching at straws! I did questions 4 even though I knew that I was on the wrong teack I thought that I had paid €105 to sit there and I was going to get every euro of it onto that page ! At this stage I think that for most people a lenient marking scheme wouldn't even be enough! I had a look at the syllabus and saw no mention of the Pringle sitution ! Also see nothing on the criminal aspects or indeed the Brussels question 2 ! Maybe I have sleepy eyes but I definitely think the syllabus is the point of reference for any emails ! I can't say I would be much of a leader in terms of these situations ! But would definitely want to be involved with anything going forward

hullaballoo

Moderator: please do not post live links to people's email addresses. Bots can read them and spam the bejaysus out of people.

Obviously, people feel there's a real issue with the eu paper here. While I'm sympathetic, I strongly recommend that you at least consult with a legal professional before writing or emailing because what you say in these correspondences could affect the outcome adversely for everyone.

Good luck with your efforts. If there is a real issue, I'm sure it can be resolved. There have been issues like this dealt with satisfactorily in the not so distant past.

missindigo123

The law society recommend these courses on their webpage so I think they either need to discuss the course more with the law society or frankly stop recommending them.

The papers are supposed to be testing but frankly there is no clear way of knowing what the law society want. There is no guidance provided and the examiner reports aren't great. We can't even see our papers so how can we know where we are going right or wrong.

There is a difference in testing students knowledge and out right tricking them. We have 30 mins to write an essay, there isn't a huge amount if time to be thinking outside the box and planning wonderful essays to overly complicated questions.

notabasicb

missindigo123 wrote: »

The law society recommend these courses on their webpage so I think they either need to discuss the course more with the law society or frankly stop recommending them.

Wrong - straight from Law Society site: "This list has been prepared by the Society at the request of prospective examination candidates. The Society has no control over and makes no input into any of these courses and gives no warranty in respect of them. The Society does not authorise any of these courses and has not asked any of the course providers to establish them."

Absolutely no recommendation just provision of a list.

Troels Hartmann

notabasicb wrote: »

Wrong - straight from Law Society site: "This list has been prepared by the Society at the request of prospective examination candidates. The Society has no control over and makes no input into any of these courses and gives no warranty in respect of them. The Society does not authorise any of these courses and has not asked any of the course providers to establish them."

Absolutely no recommendation just provision of a list.

Correct. The only thing anyone has against them is the Syllabus on the website

southcounty

So basically in the letters we just need to stick with the fact questions came up that were outsid the scope of the syllabus and the fact the problem questions were extremely long and over complicated!! In fairness a whole page for a problem question is nuts, it takes 10 minutes to read in itself never mind answer it!!

dandadub

Troels Hartmann wrote: »

A very, very tough paper.

1. Choice between role of commission and piece on legislative acts, A.288, delegated powers (I did this one last and just realised that I might have totally misread the question...)

2. Choice of essays on either remedies and the Double Jeopardy rule in the CFR (Eh....NEXT!!)

3. Essay on Pringle v Ireland - a case which makes its fourth successive appearance on the paper! And I still hadnt got it prepared! Lols ugh.

4. Problem on citizenship with a vast, rambling and highly confusing set of facts - with some equally confusing questions posed at the end of it.

5. Pretty standard free movement of goods, services question with a nice choice (2 out of three from 30/110, or 34/36, or a services option)

6. Private international law. Moving swiftly on.....

7. Choice between a nice problem on A.102, or an essay on mergers, or an essay on 107 state aid.

8. Case note which included old reliables Microsoft, ERTA and Zu and Chen


A very tough and exhausting paper. I had prepared the Case Notes and Citizenship as my fallback questions .... But ended up doing both of them!! And the Case note was my first question to get it out of the way!! That's when you know things are bad

I know he has a rep as a good marker but he will need to be very VERY fair for this because Id say most people were a bit shocked. Or maybe my fragile state of mind has me imagining how bad it was!

Ffs I was about to answer question 7 part 1 with a free movement of goods question and all but article 110 wasn't in the list of articles specified.

This was my first attempt at EU and I walked out of there at 12.30 thinking that I just didn't know enough.

Troels Hartmann

Here's an amazing little fact: Question Seven - the never-ending citizenship problem - is an incredible 730 words long.

Give or take a few words and how you count dates etc.

That must surely take the record as the longest problem question in the history of the FE-1s. Certainly having looked at a decade of past papers for 8 subjects I can't think of any which stretched to a full page.

Arcturus2112

dandadub wrote: »

Ffs I was about to answer question 7 part 1 with a free movement of goods question and all but article 110 wasn't in the list of articles specified.

This was my first attempt at EU and I walked out of there at 12.30 thinking that I just didn't know enough.

I was very tempted to write a free movement of goods answer to question 7 part 1, but after reading it a few times I understood it to be establishment. It was reminiscent of the Apothekammer des Saarlandes case about restricting how pharmacies can operate, but there was no Article 51 justification for the restrictions.

LawCQ91

Well great.. I thought I had three Qs now I only have two and half after reading this! Eek I totally answered it on free movement of goods on keck...

so anyway ...

Whoever said they emailed their lecturer please keep us updated !:)

jenspondolik

LawCQ91 wrote: »

Well great.. I thought I had three Qs now I only have two and half after reading this! Eek I totally answered it on free movement of goods on keck...

so anyway ...

Whoever said they emailed their lecturer please keep us updated !:)

I too thought it was an MEQR question and the difference btw selling and characteristics either way I just did half it so it doesnt matter. I wondered why he didnt specify art 110 either even so we could even rule it out ourselves.

Times so limited a page and a half for a problem question is beyond a joke anyway back to work tomorrow must face the music tomorrow!

FEar1

Literally havn't been able to face that EU paper again till now and I am comforted to see that we're all in the same boat if anything. I was just thinking that I had made an absolute balls in my own study (especially with that fecker of a citizenship problem) and, even though I knew he had caught us out, I didn't realise the effort he had gone to to do it. I'm disgusted and I feel especially bad for a few of the people on here who had plans really screwed up by it! I'll be throwing an extra letter in the post tomorrow. Strength in numbers for all its worth guys.

Solidarity!! ;-)

Arcturus2112

FEar1 wrote: »

Literally havn't been able to face that EU paper again till now and I am comforted to see that we're all in the same boat if anything. I was just thinking that I had made an absolute balls in my own study (especially with that fecker of a citizenship problem) and, even though I knew he had caught us out, I didn't realise the effort he had gone to to do it. I'm disgusted and I feel especially bad for a few of the people on here who had plans really screwed up by it! I'll be throwing an extra letter in the post tomorrow. Strength in numbers for all its worth guys.

Solidarity!! ;-)

Likewise. Mine is sealed and stamped, going out in tomorrow's post.

Pepp1989

I'll be sitting down tomoro with the paper and checking the syllabus on the law soc website. Are people confident there was a question that wasn't on the syllabus? Is that the main focus of peoples letters? As well as the structuring of questions?

Troels Hartmann

Bit strange that he didn't specify A.110 in the freedoms problem. Nonetheless he has said in various previous reports that a consideration of whether a charge or levy would be a breach of A.30 would inherently involve consideration of whether it might be "saved" by A.110 - so the two automatically go hand in hand as far as he is concerned. Still though a bit odd that he didn't mention it. I didn't spot that in the exam myself, presumably as a result of the acute dissociative state I descended into once I had read some of the other questions .....

Troels Hartmann

Pepp1989 wrote: »

I'll be sitting down tomoro with the paper and checking the syllabus on the law soc website. Are people confident there was a question that wasn't on the syllabus? Is that the main focus of peoples letters? As well as the structuring of questions?

Certainly seems to be a very large question mark over whether the Pringle/monetary policy question is on the syllabus, and a question of sorts over the "nemo debet bis vexari in eadem causa" question on the CFR. I had certainly never even Dreamt of covering the latter and never saw it raised in the syllabus, previous exams, or reports

Arcturus2112

Pepp1989 wrote: »

I'll be sitting down tomoro with the paper and checking the syllabus on the law soc website. Are people confident there was a question that wasn't on the syllabus? Is that the main focus of peoples letters? As well as the structuring of questions?

That, but more broadly speaking the fact that the paper was patently unreasonable. If one covers 85% of the stated syllabus, one should be in a position to address at least the requisite number of questions to a reasonable standard. The previous paper (or perhaps the one previous to that, I don't recall off-hand) had the highest pass rate ever and perhaps this one was intended to reduce that figure. In doing so, he went too far in requiring a unreasonable level of detail for discrete areas either not on the syllabus or questions that could not be reasonably expected to arise.

Consider the essay question on fundamental rights. Fundamental rights had previously arisen but usually in the format of a "discuss the development" or something reasonably generally. To arbitrarily pluck two specific Articles and demand the case law and principles on those Articles implicitly suggests that in order to be prepared for that question and have a "detailed knowledge" (as is stated in the syllabus) then one would need to have detailed information researched and commended to memory for each and every Article of the Charter which might be capable of being framed as a question in that way. It is absurd to think that that should be demanded of FE1 students. Who would even possess such a knowledge? Perhaps a practitioner who specialises in rights and deals with the Charter the case law on a daily basis but certainly not people coming from a non-law background who have done their very best to cover the vast majority a syllabus within what could reasonably be expected of them.

Troels Hartmann

Arcturus2112 wrote: »

That, but more broadly speaking the fact that the paper was patently unreasonable. If one covers 85% of the stated syllabus, one should be in a position to address at least the requisite number of questions to a reasonable standard. The previous paper (or perhaps the one previous to that, I don't recall off-hand) had the highest pass rate ever and perhaps this one was intended to reduce that figure. In doing so, he went too far in requiring a unreasonable level of detail for discrete areas either not on the syllabus or questions that could not be reasonably expected to arise.

Consider the essay question on fundamental rights. Fundamental rights had previously arisen but usually in the format of a "discuss the development" or something reasonably generally. To arbitrarily pluck two specific Articles and demand the case law and principles on those Articles implicitly suggests that in order to be prepared for that question and have a "detailed knowledge" (as is stated in the syllabus) then one would need to have detailed information researched and commended to memory for each and every Article of the Charter which might be capable of being framed as a question in that way. It is absurd to think that that should be demanded of FE1 students. Who would even possess such a knowledge? Perhaps a practitioner who specialises in rights and deals with the Charter the case law on a daily basis but certainly not people coming from a non-law background who have done their very best to cover the vast majority a syllabus within what could reasonably be expected of them.

Excellent summary of the FR question. There's no way even a top class candidate would have been able to get more than two paragraphs out of it

notabasicb

Arcturus2112 wrote: »

That, but more broadly speaking the fact that the paper was patently unreasonable. If one covers 85% of the stated syllabus, one should be in a position to address at least the requisite number of questions to a reasonable standard. The previous paper (or perhaps the one previous to that, I don't recall off-hand) had the highest pass rate ever and perhaps this one was intended to reduce that figure. In doing so, he went too far in requiring a unreasonable level of detail for discrete areas either not on the syllabus or questions that could not be reasonably expected to arise.

Consider the essay question on fundamental rights. Fundamental rights had previously arisen but usually in the format of a "discuss the development" or something reasonably generally. To arbitrarily pluck two specific Articles and demand the case law and principles on those Articles implicitly suggests that in order to be prepared for that question and have a "detailed knowledge" (as is stated in the syllabus) then one would need to have detailed information researched and commended to memory for each and every Article of the Charter which might be capable of being framed as a question in that way. It is absurd to think that that should be demanded of FE1 students. Who would even possess such a knowledge? Perhaps a practitioner who specialises in rights and deals with the Charter the case law on a daily basis but certainly not people coming from a non-law background who have done their very best to cover the vast majority a syllabus within what could reasonably be expected of them.

Just playing Devils advocate:

(i) Law Soc asks you to prepare all of the syllabus not 85%.

(ii) 'Questions that could not be reasonably expected to arise' -if on the syllabus it may 'be reasonably expected to arise'.

(iii) 'certainly not people coming from a non-law background who have done their very best to cover the vast majority a syllabus within what could reasonably be expected of them' - I appreciate difficulty from coming from different academic but that is not of concern to the Law Soc.

The only firm basis on which to complain is that Qs appeared that had not appeared on the syllabus. The complaint that Qs were drafted in a overly complex manner is for me of much lesser strength. Its the Law Soc's prerogative to set a really tough paper.

Anyway as I said just playing devils advocate I do hope complaining gets you something!

Shan89

I also have not been able to think about or face the EU paper again until now.. What's the best way to go about the letter do ye think? Do we put our names to it?

Lily Belle

Shan89 wrote: »

I also have not been able to think about or face the EU paper again until now.. What's the best way to go about the letter do ye think? Do we put our names to it?

I'm emailing and also sending a letter today, yes with my name signed.

Does anybody know how it worked last time with the petition, do one of just need to set it up and then everyone signs? How do we then bring it to the Law Soc's attention?

yournerd

would anyone have the EU Manual scanned?

FE1 student

LawCQ91 wrote: »

Well great.. I thought I had three Qs now I only have two and half after reading this! Eek I totally answered it on free movement of goods on keck...

so anyway ...

Whoever said they emailed their lecturer please keep us updated !:)

Can you pm me please.

southcounty

Lily Belle wrote: »

I'm emailing and also sending a letter today, yes with my name signed.

Does anybody know how it worked last time with the petition, do one of just need to set it up and then everyone signs? How do we then bring it to the Law Soc's attention?

Not a clue been trying to figure that out myself. Apparently we need an Ipetition

Daryl Strawberry

Did people send letters/emails today?