King's Inns Entrance Exam Help.

hullaballoo

Hi,

I'm in the middle of trying to study for these exams just after my finals, and apart from the worry of whether 6 weeks is enough time to get through 5 courses, I'm having trouble assessing the standards.

I've got past papers and syllabi etc. and have books and notes and everything, but I can't work out what standard the exams are marked at.

Can anyone help?

Cheers,
hulla.

mountainyman

I just asked a friend of mine this question and he says that if an answer would be of a two one quality in an undergraduate course then it should be OK for the Inns. He also said that the FE1 standard is slightly higher and the real problem with the Inns is that it is 5 in 5 days.

Good luck.

MM

johnnysmurfman

The exams are fair, just remember not to panic as they are stressful and there is little or no time between them. Remember to be well up on ECHR caselaw for the constitutional exam and to leave nothing out for tort (not even liability for animals). I agree that the FE1 standard is higher, but that's because more people sit them. If you study hard you should pass.

hullaballoo

Thanks for your replies so far chaps. I'm logging out of boards now until September, so I probably won't be able to reply again.

Time to get the head down, methinks.

Tom Young

Evidence was amended last year. The first question is going to be a challenge if you ask me. Moved from the O'Brien Rule and Confessions to Child Witnesses I believe. New examiner. I believe question 1. is 50% of the marks.

Criminal, practical application is critcal. Sexual Offences changed drastically CC v. Ireland and A v. Govr. Arbor Hill Prison.

Tort, general trend is to have 3/4 Torts per question, one gets the impression that a student going only graze the surface in order to address the problem question(s).

Constitutional, nothing to say. I take it you've read the syllabus. Constitution was 70 years old this year. Separation of Powers hasn't shown up for some time also. Sometimes newsworthy items have a habbit of arising.

Company, knowing the examiners my own view is that the standard is actually higher than the FE1s. WPC v. Gambotto

From the rules the marking appears to be fairly ok. I believe the compensation rule is handy as well.

My take: Its impossible to play the numbers game with the entrance exam. One needs to have a broad knowledge well in advance of the beginning. Endurance required for 5 law exams on the trot!

johnnyskeleton

If you want to be a barrister, the last things you need worry about are the kings inns entrance exams.

Know the law not the cases.

mountainyman

There might be lots of things he has to worry about but getting into the inns is deffo one of them!!!!

If your point is that you need to think about the law iu is obvious he does that.

As do we all I hope.

MM

johnnyskeleton

mountainyman wrote:

There might be lots of things he has to worry about but getting into the inns is deffo one of them!!!!

I would be more concerned about the ever diminishing prospects of earning a living at the bar, acquiring a good master, supporting yourself over the first few years and the other attendant worries of life at the bar. Or to put it another way, I think it would be more fruitful to consider these things now rather than putting them off until after the exams, and then until after the course, and then until after starting practice.

But as regards the standard of the exams, there is a much higher pass rate for Kings Inns than for the FE1s. Take whatever conclusions you like from this, but to me it is down to the way in which they are marked - only a certain number of solicitors can go to blackhall every year, but there is no specific quota to the Inns, based on the philosophy that if you are good enough you can attend.

mountainyman wrote:

If your point is that you need to think about the law iu is obvious he does that.

Have a thorough knowledge of the basic principles and don't overburden yourself with lots of caselaw is my view. For example, if you're not sure what the answer is in an evidence question, saying that the evidence is admissable if the probative value outweights the prejudicial effect will get you through most of the time.

Tom Young

Well put! Particularly the last sentence.

My earlier posts where I referenced cases were really only placed to show shifts rather then the need to know precise nature.

The master issue is a complete pain. Rumour has it that some are booked almost years in advance.

Tom

Tom Young

PS: The Irish Exam has been lifted in standard. B2 on the Common European Framework (Level 3 on the Cambridge Common Scale for Speaking) is the passing grade for the oral Irish Exam.

Rumoured also that a number of people didn't quite get over this hurdle in the past 24 months. So in that way it also differs from the Law Soc.

dats_right

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I would be more concerned about the ever diminishing prospects of earning a living at the bar, acquiring a good master, supporting yourself over the first few years and the other attendant worries of life at the bar. Or to put it another way, I think it would be more fruitful to consider these things now rather than putting them off until after the exams, and then until after the course, and then until after starting practice.

But as regards the standard of the exams, there is a much higher pass rate for Kings Inns than for the FE1s. Take whatever conclusions you like from this...

Fully agree with the points made here by johnnyskeleton. Just some observations/comments of my own: Whilst, I don't intend getting drawn into a debate on the fe-1's vis-a-vis King's Inns, but I would say that from my experience, I have known several individuals who could not pass the FE-1's for love nor money and after having had multiple attempts at same (i.e. 4+ sittings of 4 exams) jacked it in, and are now BL's having succesfully passed the King's Entrance exam with flying colours first time out! Without doubt these were remarkable and miraculous turn arounds in fortunes! And, perhaps there are good reasons for such turn arounds in fortunes (although can't think of any other than the obvious myself), I suppose that ultimately we are free to draw whatever conclusions we like from those facts.

Finally, I would wish all those prospective barristers all the best in the exam and indeed with their future careers at the bar.

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote:

Fully agree with the points made here by johnnyskeleton. Just some observations/comments of my own: Whilst, I don't intend getting drawn into a debate on the fe-1's vis-a-vis King's Inns, but I would say that from my experience, I have known several individuals who could not pass the FE-1's for love nor money and after having had multiple attempts at same (i.e. 4+ sittings of 4 exams) jacked it in, and are now BL's having succesfully passed the King's Entrance exam with flying colours first time out! Without doubt these were remarkable and miraculous turn arounds in fortunes! And, perhaps there are good reasons for such turn arounds in fortunes (although can't think of any other than the obvious myself), I suppose that ultimately we are free to draw whatever conclusions we like from those facts.

While I am inclined to agree with you, all that practice at exams might have been the key - sort of like when you try to open a jar for ages and when you give up the next person opens it easily because you've loosened it up so much.