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

Lumi77

I sent it in for my own peace of mind as it is really bugging me .... I think from past posts is a gamble once again..
Good luck

monroe89

Mayo91 wrote: »

I did 3 Prop, Equity and Contract.

Thought I failed contract, got a 53

Thought I honestly aced Equity. Easiest exam I sat in years. got 50

Prop I got a 60 and I thought I may have barely passed.


I really question the way they're marking this. I've been in a few unis and have postgrad, I have an idea about marking exams. In this case however, there seems to be absolutely zero consistency. I have no idea what parameters they're using. They're obviously marking straight on the curve, with no credence for whats actually on the page. I feel like this is an absolute lottery at best, and a scam at worst. People are saying stick at it, and put in the work but it's genuinely worrying how off these exams are. If they're going to mark on the curve, then say you're marking on the curve and change the grading system. It makes zero sense.

I am happy I passed, but with a few more to sit, this kind of marking doesn't really bode well for me going forward. I just don't get it.

I sat Contract, Equity, Criminal and EU.
I am over the moon I somehow managed to pass all four (2 by the skin of my teeth) but I was absolutely convinced I failed Equity. I came out of that exam in tears, I had even started to rewrite my notes already, that's how sure I was - I only managed to answer 3 questions properly, one was mediocre at best  and the 5th was a shambles.......so to say I'm baffled is an understatement. Bit of a lottery for sure!!

AishlingB1993

Sat my final two (Contract and EU)

I came away from Contract delighted with how it went especially being the last exam. Felt I answered 5 questions really well. I even still have the text to my Mam with thumbs up emojis delighted with life they were over- failed with 42!! It was my second time attempting Contract. The first time I failed with 40 but understood why as I didn’t cover enough and was only able to answer parts of the question and couldn't manage a 5th question full stop. Despite doing the online course this time around, covering the manual head to toe, practising about 5 years of past papers and attempting 5 questions really well I only went up 2%...It just does not make sense.

Meanwhile, came away from EU in tears with the thought of having to learn it all again after what I thought was a shocking paper. I was in such a fluster in the exam I completely didn’t realise I still had to do a 5th answer until the last 10 minutes and scrambled down a few sentences from the Acts. Passed with 54! It was a similar situation with my first three. Had a meltdown in Constitutional and came out with 60 and flew through the Equity paper and came out with only 50 on the dot.

I have no idea how these exams are marked.

I’ve now passed 7/8 and had to tell my Partner after lunch that I won’t be able to go to Blackhall this September. He was gutted for me and thankfully he is completely understanding. I am just gutted that I now have to wait another year at least to go and have absolutely no idea what more I can do for Contract..

Mayo91

I've come to the conclusion with ACA and ACCA, the Law Society is a quasi-monopolistic cartel with the Kings Inn that are basically keeping the numbers of people low so legal fees can be extortionately high. Simple supply and demand of the markets. I get this to a certain degree, we saw what happened to the poor Taxi men. At the same time, there has to be a consistency and method to follow which is justified, fair and makes sense. People are gambling with their lives. This isn't a 19year old university student whos himming and hawing about life. It makes zero sense, and I passed all my exams. My best was my worst. I've marked exams before, and what I wrote in that Equity exam was a high 2.1 or a solid 1.1 in my mind. I've never been so confident about a successful result in my 60+ university exams.

If you're going to run some sort of scam like this, at least give the impression there isn't a scam. By the looks of it, I can't fathom how somebody hasn't brought this to the attention of some government body. I really wonder how they can and continue to get away with this. Like to a certain degree, everyone who sits these exams has a high level of legal knowledge, so we all know to a certain degree what should be expected. I just don't get it.

I really feel for the poor lads and ladies who worked their arses off to get ****ed over by this. If they're marking on a curve tell the student for gods sake, because people have put their lives on the line for this career and the way it's done has zero compassion for them. The least that could be done is a bit of transparency. I have a friend now who's career is on the line, and is just devastated and I have no doubt they realistically had enough on that day to pass. If you're going to pass 30% of people because that's what keeps the market forces in play for a sustainable living, fair enough. Then mark on a curve and let it be known to the people taking it.


I've done the maths and they make at least 800 thousand euro from each sitting. Run another one during the year for gods sake, so people can go on their merry way and the Law Society can bankroll a new building. These exams don't even help us as solicitors, its just insane how this still is allowed.

Snakeydoogey

Is the timetable up for the October sittings up anywhere? If anyone finds it can you post a link? Thanks

smeal

If you're going to run some sort of scam like this, at least give the impression there isn't a scam. By the looks of it, I can't fathom how somebody hasn't brought this to the attention of some government body. I really wonder how they can and continue to get away with this. Like to a certain degree, everyone who sits these exams has a high level of legal knowledge, so we all know to a certain degree what should be expected. I just don't get it.

It absolutely is a cartel. You can't have the same body educating, regulating and penalising the profession. It doesn't happen in any other profession. Unfortunately, given the limited size of the profession very few have had the b*lls to challenge them.

hullaballoo

Congratulations to those who passed and commiserations to those who didn't... it's a tough slog!

Those who are unhappy today, have heart; it is a tough slog for a very good reason. Even if you are a law graduate and have passed your law degree, or gotten better than just a pass, perhaps even firsts across the board, you may not know what you need to in terms of analysis and application of the substantive law to enter into professional practice!

I know it seems odd to say that but follow me...

The Law Society is not privy to the internal workings of the awarding institutes at undergrad level but as the regulator of solicitors, must ensure that entrants to the roll have the requisite standard of legal knowledge to practice. The various undergrad courses are prone to issues that may mean the mark given for a particular subject does not accurately reflect the candidate's knowledge. If the candidate's knowledge is greater than the mark awarded, no problem. But if it's the other way, and it does happen, there is a huge problem if that person is allowed to matriculate into professional practice with a gap in their substantive legal knowledge. The FE1s are how they go about this. The standard has to be high (the 50% pass grading, the tough marking, the complex questions and need to cover vast amounts of material...)

Once you get beyond the FE1s, you may never have another opportunity to explore the minutiae of the law again. Never. These core subjects must be known to a standard that will allow you, as a solicitor, to be able to competently advise clients. As I've previously said, if you are presented with a client whose issues cross numerous areas, it is not good enough for you to fail to advise the client on the basis that you didn't do that chapter in college.

The FE1s are exceptionally demanding and will put you under extreme pressure and really test your legal knowledge. They are the final hurdle when it comes to truly testing your mettle as a lawyer that you will face.

So, you should not be disappointed by "failing" these exams. Passing them is an extraordinary feat. It would be better to use the experience of the exam and what you did and did not learn in preparation for it to make the next time a little easier on yourself.

Yoop_

Snakeydoogey - the link to the October timetable is on the results page, just at the end.

Sorry, I don't seem to be able to use the quote button; I had to make a new account because boards wouldn't let me log in off my fb account anymore so maybe that's why?

XxMCRxBabyxX

Snakeydoogey wrote: »

Is the timetable up for the October sittings up anywhere? If anyone finds it can you post a link? Thanks

The timetable is on the application form which is linked on the results page:

Tuesday 03 October Tort
Wednesday 04 October Company Law
Thursday 05 October Constitutional Law
Friday 06 October EU Law
Monday 09 October Criminal Law
Tuesday 10 October Property
Wednesday 11 October Contract Law
Thursday 12 October Equity

Mayo91

Hullaballoo that is absolute garbage and misses the point of the complaints completely.

1. How are a ridiculous amount of people getting 50 on the button year on year. This is not in line with statistical probability. I've heard of so many people who get like 5 results at 50. Thats farcical.

2. Standards. I have no issue with a standard, and I don't think anybody else does. However, when you're arbitrarily picking numbers from a hat if someone does a pass standard paper, there is something wrong.

3. The Supply/Demand side - I think its fair that it should never be deregulated so as to ensure a decent standard of living from the profession and the standard is high. This is fair. Giving off an illusion to this ulterior motive is not fair, this is the reason there are so many fails. If this is the case, mark on a curve, and let it be known. Giving no credence for whats on the page, is what's happening here, and its very obvious. If everyones getting a 50, year on year, common sense will tell you this.

4. Every solicitor I've known says they forget 95% of what they tried to learn for the FE-1s and it doesnt have practical use. Yes it gives principles of the law, but there are legal secretaries up and down this country with 10x more legal knowledge than a legal graduate of UCD or Trinity.

5. These are exceptionally demanding exams, there is no doubt about that. But how they are marked is not consistent with what is put on that page, and everyone can see this. People wouldn't have an issue with the concept of a hard exam. People are coming out thinking they did well and getting 42's and 45's. Everyone who is sitting these exams has a decent level of education, and across the board we hear the same thing every year.

6. Secrecy and transparency - All secrets, not an ounce of transparency. Not to mention most people couldn't bloody sign in today to get their results due to administrative errors. An absolute embarrassment.


The law society needs to be overseen by a government body, because the conflicts of interest and management is a joke.

hullaballoo

I'll deal with that when I get back to my laptop later.

I wasn't going to engage but since you've attempted to call me out, I think I'm obliged.

Mayo91

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'll deal with that when I get back to my laptop later.

I wasn't going to engage but since you've attempted to call me out, I think I'm obliged.

Let it be known, I passed everything I sat. I don't have a vested interest in this. The problems that lie in the marking and examination procedure are blatant. Common sense would tell you this.

yournerd

Would anyone have any sample answers they'd be willing to share?

Lumi77

Just a quick question for those of you that are selling or buying manuals whats the best place for it please.
Thanks

laurenburne

Lumi77 wrote: »

Just a quick question for those of you that are selling or buying manuals whats the best place for it please.
Thanks

Adverts is best I find.

laurenburne

I completely agree with the above comments. These exams are a joke. How many sit these exams in each sitting and how many places are in blackhall each year?

I just failed what I thought was my final exam. It was my third attempt and I studied 8 hours a day everyday for this giving it 100%. I answered five questions well, having passed the other seven I think I know what is needed to pass these exams.

I have a law degree and masters. I got a 1.1 in my degree. I can honestly say the times I sat EU and constitutional I hadn't spent as much time studying them as I had Tort and Contract, I wasn't even too sure what I was being asked or what topic a question was about. I gave it my best shot and by some complete fluke I managed to pass. I failed the ones I had studied more for. How does that make any sense?

I feel I know tort better than any other subject, by far, I did two revision courses and studied like crazy for these. I now failed on third attempt. I thought I did well and got 45??????? FOURTY FIVE!!!!!!!

It makes absolute no sense to me and i am FUMING. It feels like some kind of sick joke. I woke up this morning and it hit me first thing.

I just lost a training contract and the chance of going to blackhall this year. After spending the last three years studying for these exams putting a huge amount of time and effort and a huge amount of money It is devastating to be coming away unemployed, no training contract, no blackhall again and just debt from these exams. Telling friends and family is the icing in the cake.

I am 30 years of age and I don't see the point in continuing now that I have lost my training contract and taking into account I did everything in my power to pass this time and i have no idea what I'm doing wrong. I have my other seven passed some time ago. I think I will have to look for legal Secretary work now and give up on my goal of becoming a solicitor.

Would anybody be up for taking this further? Demanding transparency? Be given the opportunity to view our papers before a recheck? Much clearer examiner reports.or request some information on what exactly happens in the grading process. I am so angry at all the time and money I wasted for nothing and all the stress its caused me.

We need some answers!!!!!!

Mayo91

Laurenburne - I completely agree. I am so sorry to hear. Thats a tough ride. I hope you come out the other side stronger or have learned something from it all. Don't make rash decisions in the moment, you may feel differently in a month or 2.

I passed all the ones I sat, and I am amazed how they've gotten away with this archaic joke of a system for so long. A TD or something should really be informed of this lack of oversight. They're 100% giving no credence to whats on the page, and marking on the curve and not telling students. If they want to do that, then do an LSAT exam like the states and let it be known.

I was thinking about this last night. I just won a lottery, rather than sitting an exam. Then there are those who did the exact same amount of work and probably had similar things on the page and got a 46, because there were too many passes. I wonder how often we see the number 49 being handed out? Do they want the hassle of someone complaining about a 49? Do they tactically give out 48 and below to ensure a calm acceptance of the results. I haven't heard of a 49 and I've spoken to a lot of people on this. This is obviously speculation based on personal experience, but I'd like to hear other peoples opinions.

I really feel for the people who didn't pass, because what people are putting in, they're not getting out. What could be fairer was mark the bloody exam properly, and whoever gets in top 50%, gets a pass to next round, but with a minimum of 40%. The exam is marked properly, so you know where you stand with regards to information and at the same time, you're keeping a high enough standard while marking on the curve which they seem to love to do.

On top of all this you can't see your own exam, which is your ideas and your answers. All of what they do seems to be limiting oversight, limiting hassle, limiting solicitors into the market, making tonnes of money and no transparency. A TD would win over a lot of votes if they tackled that cartel for what it is.

Wonderstruck

I don't even see the big deal if everyone (or a very high percent) pass or fail sitting on sitting. That is the nature of exams - sometimes that can happen. I've always found class ranking / bell-curves etc unseemly as the best way to ensure ace an exam is to sabotage the other people sitting it... (so who wants to go to mine for undercooked dinner?)

I don't see any hope for a change on it a political level - remember Alan Shatter's attempts to reform the sector.

Speaking of that attempt, I definitely think a read of the Competition Authority's report is worth it cos they had the nail on the head on the whole matter (p52 onwards):
http://ccpc.ie/sites/default/files/documents/Solicitors%20and%20barristers%20full%20report.pdf

Recommendation 2:
Have an independent body to set standards for solicitor training and approve institutions that wish to provide such training

But in particular the pass 3 exams requirement is the craziest and most obvious moneymaker! I now have to sit two exams I passed all over again! I don't think I'm being spoilt by wanting to have every exam I've actually passed count(!) Such a monopoly... I know I sound like a "can't beat them, join them" type but I think they have an unfair amount of control and they certainly know it.

Mayo91

Wonderstruck wrote: »

I don't even see the big deal if everyone (or a very high percent) pass or fail sitting on sitting. That is the nature of exams - sometimes that can happen. I've always found class ranking / bell-curves etc unseemly as the best way to ensure ace an exam is to sabotage the other people sitting it... (so who wants to go to mine for undercooked dinner?)

I don't see any hope for a change on it a political level - remember Alan Shatter's attempts to reform the sector.

Speaking of that attempt, I definitely think a read of the Competition Authority's report is worth it cos they had the nail on the head on the whole matter (p52 onwards):
http://ccpc.ie/sites/default/files/documents/Solicitors%20and%20barristers%20full%20report.pdf



But in particular the pass 3 exams requirement is the craziest and most obvious moneymaker! I now have to sit two exams I passed all over again! I don't think I'm being spoilt by wanting to have every exam I've actually passed count(!) Such a monopoly... I know I sound like a "can't beat them, join them" type but I think they have an unfair amount of control and they certainly know it.

Even the Comeptition authority see the huge issues of conflict of interest.

I don't think you're understanding what we're saying here. I've explained that if you're going to have a certain amount pass and fail, that's no issue. You have to set a standard. However, there's no consistency and no oversight into how they're giving out results. For gods sake you can't even recheck your paper. Not only that, they're accountable to nobody. They are literally the gatekeepers of the profession and they're like the illuminati about how they administer everything.

I don't think people have an issue with anything you're saying about difficulty or exam standards. The format and way it's done is just a mess. Why are so many people getting 50s? I've heard of a ridiculous amount of people getting ridiculous amount of 50s. They're plucking numbers from thin air. They're obviously marking on the curve and to take your point about the one upmanship that can take place in those cases, well it doesn't matter because it's obviously the case that we're being marked on the curve right now. So there's no need to 'bring in' a system of that nature, because we're dealing with a bastardised version of it at the moment.

I'd have no issue with getting a fail, if there was a transparent fall back protocol so as to ensure all procedure was followed. I passed mine and I'm moaning about this. I've nothing but disgust for the whole system. It's not fair on people and ironically there seems to be a clear lack of justice. They're running a money racket with the 3 pass in first sitting you say; well it used to be 4. This is just nonsense. You're being tested on your organisation over the course of a hectic few days, as opposed to real legal knowledge, which is what they're asking for. The whole system is a joke. I might have passed, only because I was better than my peers with no credence for what was on the page. Well if that's the case, then tell me that's the system. Don't BS the people that are paying you to ensure we're of a certain standard. They're just a bloody archaic cartel institution, and it's about time they were seen to by a regulatory body.

lawbee3

Lumi77 wrote: »

Personally I am thinking is a scheme to make money, I dont know many people that paid for a recheck that got a higher mark but thats how they make 115 per subject. I am absolutely shocked at the results I got as I was expecting a lot higher, I have studied 8 hours a day for three months with work and two kids and I was sure I was going to get higher marks.
And like the others have mentioned I have an undergrad and Masters so plenty of exams sat!!!

I got moved up in two exams last sitting both from 48 so you never know!

clare2015

I thankfully now have all 8 exams under my belt.I didn't get magic 3 first time and in the last 2 sittings I passed them all.I found a big difference in the 2nd sitting as I strongly focused on exam technique by way of obtaining sample answers and only answering that which was relevant to the question using specific memory retention tricks that I read about how to retain information and numbers.not saying for a second that those who didn't pass didn't deserve to pass but as I have experience in both passing and failing,I think suggesting that people who passed only did so because they were lucky is potentially damaging to morale and putting off those mid process.there is normally a lot of goodwill and support on this thread after the results but it seems to just be anger at the moment.the exams are frustrating but after a year of giving up literally everything In my life to ensure I passed,I am going to focus on celebrating the exams and not focus on the flaws in the examination prices whether in existence or not.looking forward to hullaballos thoughts on the matter this will be my last post,but congrats to those who passed and for those who didn't, don't let this week's frustration put you off.we all started these exams knowing they were difficult but will all get to qualify at the end with a little positivityðŸ‘

Chuckler

lawbee3 wrote: »

I got moved up in two exams last sitting both from 48 so you never know!

I got 37 in one of my exams. If I appeal it, I'm going to Blackhall in September having passed the rest of them. It was one of my weaker exams but I'm considering it, especially considering the amount of time I set aside for study (5 hours every evening after work and 12 hours Sat and Sun since last October). Anybody else get bumped up to 50 from mid 30's mark?

smeal

Chuckler wrote: »

I got 37 in one of my exams. If I appeal it, I'm going to Blackhall in September having passed the rest of them. It was one of my weaker exams but I'm considering it, especially considering the amount of time I set aside for study (5 hours every evening after work and 12 hours Sat and Sun since last October). Anybody else get bumped up to 50 from mid 30's mark?

What exam was it? I know somebody who got 36 in Company and was brought up to 50. Likely a question was missed the first time

Chuckler

smeal wrote: »

What exam was it? I know somebody who got 36 in Company and was brought up to 50. Likely a question was missed the first time

Yep - It was Company! I answered all 5 out of 8 questions and also teased out answers to all 8 on the inside cover, so maybe...

smeal

Chuckler wrote: »

Yep - It was Company! I answered all 5 out of 8 questions and also teased out answers to all 8 on the inside cover, so maybe...

Definitely worth it then as I think the Company examiner is a fair examiner and gives credit to good attempts. It may just be that a question was forgotten about or something

nuac

Mod
Pls do not discuss individual examiners or lecturers here
Congrats to all who have passed and best of luck to those who still have fences to jump

Gunslinger92

Right lads I've the four (in my opinion) nastier ones left - EU, company, tort and constitutional. I'm planning on doing them in twos over the next two sittings.

Any opinions on which ones would be handy to do together? Or is it just down to my own preference? Looking at next sittings timetable they're all close together

claiomh solais

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Right lads I've the four (in my opinion) nastier ones left - EU, company, tort and constitutional. I'm planning on doing them in twos over the next two sittings.

Any opinions on which ones would be handy to do together? Or is it just down to my own preference? Looking at next sittings timetable they're all close together

I strongly recommend keeping constitutional and EU on separate sittings. They are both very large in terms of material!

graduate555

claiomh solais wrote: »

I strongly recommend keeping constitutional and EU on separate sittings. They are both very large in terms of material!

I'd actually recommend doing 3 your next sitting - you have loads of time and last thing you want is the stress next March if you plan to go to blackhall in Sept. I think company and tort are marked a little stricter so do those next sitting, and EU as well just because of the timetable would give you a little break in between. But if youre sure you want only two, id say go for tort and EU.

Leraf

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

This Google group was set up before. We could try it again?

After getting totally panicked last night and talking about giving up on the exams entirely, I'm feeling way better today! Passed Company (AT F**KING LAST) and Contract so I'm now at 5 out of 8. Got a 42 in Criminal and that was the only one I thought I had a chance in passing so I'm debating as to whether to recheck that.

Well done everyone!

Has there been anymore thoughts about setting up a google group for the October sitting or will the old one be still active?