FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) No trading

IgoPAP

LawNotes123 wrote: »

I don't mean to be rude, but if you just regurgitated a script from a previous year would you not have struggled to answer the question asked?

This is the most common complaint within the examiners report. Students that just transcribe pre-written answers end up failing badly. It's easy to spot and examiners invariably penalise it.

LawLearnin

FE1new wrote: »

Any tips for Tort? I felt okay before but after results today I'm lost and the reports aren't great .

If you're starting from absolute scratch: I passed it in the August sitting, used one of those Round Hall Nutshells and felt it gave me a great understanding of both the general area of Tort and also key cases. I'd zero exposure to Tort before though so dunno if others who did Law undergrad would have better suggestions.

neon123

Lovestolisten wrote: »

I just sent a big ranting email to the LS.
I’m just so fed up for the entire money racket.
I have sat these exams 5 times now,

The first 3 times I sat and passed Property 3 times but had to keep paying and passing to get the lucky three passes.

Then they changed the rules , I carried my passes forward but now it seems absolutely impossible to pass the remaining subjects.

Each time I’m literally 3%,5% away from passing , paying for rechecks and no change.

This time around I actually had a full answer booklet from a script that passed by 68% and I learned it off to a T and 37% ... how is that ?? How ??

I don’t care what anyone says , it’s all geared to keep failing enough people that the cash flow continues, and the market is controlled.
It’s absolutely nothing got to do with learning or ability.

I passed Criminal 51% back at the start with 1 week of study ..
Now 2 sittings of Equity , prep courses and a Law Degree but I keep getting 45%,

I’m sure people will think , I need to study more but how can a script that passed a topic last year by 68% only get 37% this year ?????

The best tip I know of for Equity is to only answer what has been asked and noting else. I'd imagine there is a tendency for people to write all they know on a particular topic, and perhaps do this for most of their Qs, and come out of the exam thinking that the sheer volume of stuff written must guarantee a pass. The examiner has called this out in past reports and it seems to me that even if you include all the correct case law and principles she will penalise you heavily for writing anything that is superfluous. Having said that I'm not sure how copying an almost first class paper results in fail mark. Someone mentioned earlier there is a new examiner for that topic so maybe he has completely different standards, but there is something amiss about that. Were all 5 of your Q's from that paper or just some?

Lovestolisten

LawNotes123 wrote: »

I don't mean to be rude, but if you just regurgitated a script from a previous year would you not have struggled to answer the question asked?

If you look back at questions, that are all the same.

Word for word. Like I said , I’ve had a few sittings of these exams and each year the questions are identical.

I took the Griffith prep course and you get a question and sample answer book , that shows no new questions have come up in years.

FE1Hopefully1

FE1new wrote: »

Any tips for Tort? I felt okay before but after results today I'm lost and the reports aren't great .

Did you do a prep course ?

I think definitely for tort you would need to do one as college notes just might not be up to scratch and they expect better understanding and application than college

But also I think just read the exam papers and wrap your head around what exactly is being asked

It’s a very confusing subject tbh

Fe1forthefun

I found Law Hero on YouTube very helpful for explaining what is required by the FE1 exams. I was learning far, far too much information when in reality you are meant to identify and very briefly discuss each issue. Don't get bogged down on details!

My 'formula' for the exams was always to mention between 6 to 10 cases per question. Sometimes I felt my answers were pretty weak (contract for example) but by including the correct cases and legislation it made my answers appear better and I passed.

I would create a spider diagram per topic and then the night before my exam I would just go over and over all of them.

My advice for tort would be to ensure you can identify the issues in the question. The questions are broad so it can be difficult to figure out what is required.

Feel really bad for anyone that failed today. It's definitely a punch in the guts.

jus_me

Any advice for constitutional welcome!

FE1new

FE1Hopefully1 wrote: »

Did you do a prep course ?

I think definitely for tort you would need to do one as college notes just might not be up to scratch and they expect better understanding and application than college

But also I think just read the exam papers and wrap your head around what exactly is being asked

It’s a very confusing subject tbh

I was considering it yeah but they are so expensive! Its madness that we have to pay for a course to pass.

If I wasn't so far down the path I would consider stopping.

FE1Hopefully1

FE1new wrote: »

I was considering it yeah but they are so expensive! Its madness that we have to pay for a course to pass.

If I wasn't so far down the path I would consider stopping.

They are expensive however you do get all the material included so the booklet and exam papers plus sample answers depending on the institution you do it with

I wouldn’t necessarily do it for the sample answers as they can be hit and miss but it is helpful having someone explain the cases to you and I find it helps me remember more by listening

Lovestolisten

neon123 wrote: »

The best tip I know of for Equity is to only answer what has been asked and noting else. I'd imagine there is a tendency for people to write all they know on a particular topic, and perhaps do this for most of their Qs, and come out of the exam thinking that the sheer volume of stuff written must guarantee a pass. The examiner has called this out in past reports and it seems to me that even if you include all the correct case law and principles she will penalise you heavily for writing anything that is superfluous. Having said that I'm not sure how copying an almost first class paper results in fail mark. Someone mentioned earlier there is a new examiner for that topic so maybe he has completely different standards, but there is something amiss about that. Were all 5 of your Q's from that paper or just some?

All questions were the same,

I’m in my mid 30’s , Higher Civil Servant , working in a contentious area requiring a good level of knowledge.

Have a Degree in Law, Accountancy exams sat and passed.. (not qualified)

I’m trying to stress , I’m not naively whinging about failing , I’m frustrated at the lack of clarity on what is required to pass.

I’m almost all exams I’ve attempted over the years I have some idea how it went and I’m usually always within a ballpark with results but these FE1’s are mental.
Each time I sit an exam regardless of the mountain of study I put in the results are so inconsistent.

I have a colleague, Qualified in 2013, practicing in the public sector, regularly call me to reference check legislation / legal issues but according to this system I’m a failure and shouldn’t be bothering.

LawLearnin

FE1Hopefully1 wrote: »

Did you do a prep course ?

I think definitely for tort you would need to do one as college notes just might not be up to scratch and they expect better understanding and application than college

But also I think just read the exam papers and wrap your head around what exactly is being asked

It’s a very confusing subject tbh

I had registered for the Griffith one alright but annoyingly had no time to actually watch the lectures or read the manual (I work full-time in an unrelated field and it has been horrendously busy this past 12+ months).

I did go through exam papers/examiners reports closer to the sitting alright, but found i'd been able to understand what they were on about and how things fit after going through the Nutshells first.

FE1Hopefully1

Lovestolisten wrote: »

If you look back at questions, that are all the same.

Word for word. Like I said , I’ve had a few sittings of these exams and each year the questions are identical.

I took the Griffith prep course and you get a question and sample answer book , that shows no new questions have come up in years.

The issue this time may have been the new examiner tbh - I think he prefers to the point straight forward answers and a bit of individuality and something that shows him you’ve put in a little extra work

He doesn’t like the write all you know answers at all

FE1Hopefully1

LawLearnin wrote: »

I had registered for the Griffith one alright but annoyingly had no time to actually watch the lectures or read the manual (I work full-time in an unrelated field and it has been horrendously busy this past 12+ months).

I did go through exam papers/examiners reports closer to the sitting alright, but found i'd been able to understand what they were on about and how things fit after going through the Nutshells first.

I used to listen to the lectures on my commute to and from work- I got the bus for an hour or so twice a day so that’s how I did it

I had the nutshell but I honestly didn’t use it - but it definitely would be helpful to get an idea of the topics

LawLearnin

Lovestolisten wrote: »

I’m trying to stress , I’m not naively whinging about failing , I’m frustrated at the lack of clarity on what is required to pass.

I’m almost all exams I’ve attempted over the years I have some idea how it went and I’m usually always within a ballpark with results but these FE1’s are mental.
Each time I sit an exam regardless of the mountain of study I put in the results are so inconsistent.

This is my main beef with them as well - I just don't get what they're actually testing, especially as what's considered a solid approach for answers in one subject apparently doesn't suffice in another. Would be helped greatly if there was transparency on marking scheme, as others have pointed out here.

DavidX90

LawLearnin wrote: »

used one of those Round Hall Nutshells and felt it gave me a great understanding of both the general area of Tort and also key cases.

Ursula Connolly's Tort nutshell is probably the best one in that series. Amazing lecturer too!

neon123

Does anyone have any insight into how fairly Constitutional is marked?

mydogwentroof

Lads these exams will be a thing of the past in years to come. Count ourselves lucky that we get to sit them and engage with the Law Society, and pay for the privilege.

Spreece

neon123 wrote: »

Does anyone have any insight into how fairly Constitutional is marked?

I got exactly what I predicted for Constitutional. Same for the 2 other 3 I did this time around. (Equity and Criminal).

EU was less than I expected.

Sorry to hear so many people are disappointed today. If I know one thing about the LS is they will blissfully ignore all emails, complaints and petitions and your only constructive way forward is to get back on the horse and go again.

Easy for me to say I know but they are in a monopoly position and unless you go abroad, they are the road you must travel to achieve your goals.

Fe7

Someone posted this on Reddit and made me laugh. Sharing some humour for the depressed group of us today ahaha.. https://www.reddit.com/r/FE1_Exams/comments/kx75yp/fe1sectionlawsocietymov/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

IgoPAP

Feeling particularly bad for people today that needed to pass the exams or risk giving up their Training Contracts. A terrible position to be in.

DavidX90

We've been assured that emails to the Law Society will be answered "shortly."

Proof: https://www.reddit.com/r/FE1_Exams/comments/kxci00/law_society_answering_our_emails/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Rubeth

I wrote 4 exams. My second time. Failed again... with 46% all of them .the exact same percentage....

Dropin

Could anyone who passed Criminal tell me if its necessary to know what section in a specific piece legislation the relevant information comes from? Or can I just state the Legislation and leave out the section? Seems like it would save a lot of brain space.

FE1new

Dropin wrote: »

Could anyone who passed Criminal tell me if its necessary to know what section in a specific piece legislation the relevant information comes from? Or can I just state the Legislation and leave out the section? Seems like it would save a lot of brain space.

Yes you will need to know the sections for example Assault is covered under Section 2, 3 and 4 of the Non Fatal Offences Against a Person Act 1997 and you need to be able to identify which one is the correct one.

Fe7

Rubeth wrote: »

I wrote 4 exams. My second time. Failed again... with 46% all of them .the exact same percentage....

My heart goes out to you. That is so baffling. Honestly, many of us are not too happy about today so don't be too hard on yourself.

Dropin

FE1new wrote: »

Yes you will need to know the sections for example Assault is covered under Section 2, 3 and 4 of the Non Fatal Offences Against a Person Act 1997 and you need to be able to identify which one is the correct one.

Thank you just starting it now and thought I could cut some corners..

JayFE1

Absolutely delighted. I got 54 in Company and 61 in Constitutional. That’s the FE1s done for me and I’m off to Blackhall. A massive congratulations to those who have passed today!

I’ve failed two FE1s myself before so I understand how others may feel tonight but don’t stress about it. Use the negativity in a positive way. Use that feeling of deflation today as a motivational tool for the future. Laugh about it and promise yourselves it won’t happen again. Adversity is just an opportunity to break down, rebuild and come back stronger. Even the best field marshals lose battles but the focus is always to win the war!

If there’s anything I can do to help - advice or materials or whatever then I’ll do my best to help!

JayFE1

JayFE1 wrote: »

Absolutely delighted. I got 54 in Company and 61 in Constitutional. That’s the FE1s done for me and I’m off to Blackhall. A massive congratulations to those who have passed today!

I’ve failed two FE1s myself before so I understand how others may feel tonight but don’t stress about it. Use the negativity in a positive way. Use that feeling of deflation today as a motivational tool for the future. Laugh about it and promise yourselves it won’t happen again. Adversity is just an opportunity to break down, rebuild and come back stronger. Even the best field marshals lose battles but the focus is always to win the war!

If there’s anything I can do to help - advice or materials or whatever then I’ll do my best to help!

Constitutional advice? I’m terrified of it! 😂

awsah

Dropin wrote: »

Thank you just starting it now and thought I could cut some corners..

i found it easier to learn them all off in order, instead of trying to remember, what one is "threats to kill" i would jsut go through the order 2,3,4 assault, 5 threats to kill, boom!

awsah

DavidX90 wrote: »

Ursula Connolly's Tort nutshell is probably the best one in that series. Amazing lecturer too!

i have this...and no longer have a use for it....