FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

nuac

Fair comment Legal Eagle - Sorry to sound so negative about the law, but that is the way I and many of my experienced colleagues see it these days. I get lots of requests for training contracts and advice to younger people thinking of law ( and their parents ), so my comments on this board are an extension of what I have been telling such aspirants.

There are of course good days and bad days, and the occasional job satisfaction of getting a good result, and even occasionally the client's gratitude and appreciation. You also get to know many good people in both branches of the profession. However you do learn the truth of the adage that clients win cases, lawyers lose them.

About a career change? thanks for the suggestion but too many miles on the clock for me for that now. All I can say that if I were 17 or 18 again I would do something else.

Dante09

nuac wrote: »

Sunnyside - re your reference earlier today that 40 to 70 hours study is twice the number of hours that the average person works in a week.

If you become a self employed lawyer, you will have to put in long hours. In office again for over 15 hours over weekend to deal with some urgent matters, with a full week coming up.

Thats part of the reason I put in the hours I did, as Im well aware that those are the hours I'll have to dedicate for the rest of my life if i want to succeed-and personally, I have no problem with that.-im hoping to go into corporate and realistically, 70 hours will at the least be an average working week....or so i hear.

fe1dublin

Nuac, sorry to say this, but after sitting the fe1s and working extremely hard to get them, the last thing I want to read is 'if I was 17 or 18 again, I wouldnt go into this profession'

I think there are times when one should keep their opinions to themselves and this is certainly one of those times. This is a forum that motivates in my opinion (obviously alongside the post mortems which dissect the exams) which is something I enjoy about it.

The last thing I want to read is negativity. I understand you may not have intended for it to appear negative but thats how I have interpreted your comment and I am sure I am not alone.

After working damn hard for the last few months, I like to see the brighter side of life, not the dark cloud that you seem to have illustrated hangs over the law profession.

nuac wrote: »

Fair comment Legal Eagle - Sorry to sound so negative about the law, but that is the way I and many of my experienced colleagues see it these days. I get lots of requests for training contracts and advice to younger people thinking of law ( and their parents ), so my comments on this board are an extension of what I have been telling such aspirants.

There are of course good days and bad days, and the occasional job satisfaction of getting a good result, and even occasionally the client's gratitude and appreciation. You also get to know many good people in both branches of the profession. However you do learn the truth of the adage that clients win cases, lawyers lose them.

About a career change? thanks for the suggestion but too many miles on the clock for me for that now. All I can say that if I were 17 or 18 again I would do something else.

legal eagle 1

I think Nuac is entitled to his/her opinion and entitled to air it but, I agree sometimes it be nice to hear a bit of positivity for a change. We all know the negatives by now and yet we're still here That's why it puzzles me sometimes how people in this profession keep telling you about the negatives and how its a terrible career choice etc etc but, yet their still in it and still pursuing it as a profession! Each to their own :rolleyes:

sunnyside

nuac wrote: »

Sunnyside - re your reference earlier today that 40 to 70 hours study is twice the number of hours that the average person works in a week.

If you become a self employed lawyer, you will have to put in long hours. In office again for over 15 hours over weekend to deal with some urgent matters, with a full week coming up.

.

I have no ambitions to become self employed, I have friends who are (not in the legal business) but self employed is not something I aspire to.

Dante09 wrote: »

Thats part of the reason I put in the hours I did, as Im well aware that those are the hours I'll have to dedicate for the rest of my life if i want to succeed-and personally, I have no problem with that.-im hoping to go into corporate and realistically, 70 hours will at the least be an average working week....or so i hear.

:eek: Are you sure? I would not commit to those sort of hours long term. At the moment I'm working and doing fe1 study so that possibly adds up to 70 hours a week but for both health and family reasons I couldn't sustain it long term.

It's also unfair on family/partner/boyfriends/girlfriends, etc.

fe1dublin

Absolutely agree, one is entitled to their opinion and also entitled to air it (after all, we wouldnt be very good in the law profession if we didnt have opinions!)

However, Im sure there are other forums to express negativity towards a profession to which this particular thread of boards.ie is dedicated to.
(Not starting a debate and dont want it to continue everlasting.....just airing my opinion)

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

I think Nuac is entitled to his/her opinion and entitled to air it but, I agree sometimes it be nice to hear a bit of positivity for a change. We all know the negatives by now and yet we're still here That's why it puzzles me sometimes how people in this profession keep telling you about the negatives and how its a terrible career choice etc etc but, yet their still in it and still pursuing it as a profession! Each to their own :rolleyes:

sunnyside

Actually with all this talk of unemployed solicitors and the lack of conveyancing work what would they be doing to be keeping them busy for 70 hours a week?

nuac

Sorry for the negativity guys - comes from a long time in the law - now much nearer 71 than 17. Talk to people who have been in practice for some time before you commit.

The various establishments publicising courses in law paint a rosy picture of legal careers which is not in accordance with reality.

Wishing everybody a good week and a good life.

Dante09

sunnyside wrote: »

I have no ambitions to become self employed, I have friends who are (not in the legal business) but self employed is not something I aspire to.




:eek: Are you sure? I would not commit to those sort of hours long term. At the moment I'm working and doing fe1 study so that possibly adds up to 70 hours a week but for both health and family reasons I couldn't sustain it long term.

It's also unfair on family/partner/boyfriends/girlfriends, etc.

Everyone has their own views on what I kind of hours they would like to be working and what kind of area they'd like to practice in etc. Im 100% positive that the above is what I want to do (unless after a while I find i despise it....which is highly unlikely).

Thirdfox

I know Trinity recently increased their law student intake by around 50% as they added law & politics and law & business to their curriculum.

Like the solicitors that I've talked to though "the best rise to the top". Just make sure you're one of the best (as with any other profession).

It is disheartening to see friends who have to emigrate to find jobs, though I'm sure some preferred to be working in England/Germany/HK etc. But this thread is about the FE-1s and I'll stop the derailing

colonel1

Hi all,


the case law wheel is just a method of recalling case law that I came up with myself. It simply consists of drawing a small circle for your topic on a sheet of paper, e.g. consideration, then drawing a line for each case radiating out from the circle [the spokes of the wheel], so the finished product looks like a wheel, hence case law wheel. The cases would be listed in clockwise order, with the main case 1st and so on and so forth. Taking notes from the manual, just took so long that, I never got to the case law wheel stage!:) Probably sounds daft, but everyone has their own methods. Definitely don't leave it till last week to learn stuff off by heart though , major mistake on my part. For as that memory techniques seminar guy said reading the stuff isn't enough. He is right.

I just didn't like the sound of the journey method as I am terrible at directions, street names etc.

I would agree with the poster who stated that the Fe1s are a memory test, and as for that you must pass three exams in the 1st sitting, pure lunacy:(

colonel1

Sadly, that wasn't his only duff judgement. What about his comments concerning black jurors? It is a shame that he blotted his escutcheon thus.

On another note, I dare say he would have relished the notion of the camera being allowed into the new Supreme court:D

brian__foley wrote: »

He could be entertaining and sensible at times, but it's hard to forget some things that should never be forgotten.

When the "Birmingham 6" took a civil action against the Midlands police for assault, (see [1980] 1 QB 283) the Queens Bench heard an application (and dismissed it) to strike the claim out on the basis of issue estoppel. An appeal was brought to the Court of Appeal by the police.

Denning - accurately noting that that if they won, it meant that the "confessions" of Ger Conlon et al obtained were involuntarilty which meant (shock) that they had been framed, he said:-

"Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further".

Everytime I see that, I can't ignore the part "If they won...."

He deserves to be judged for all time on this Judgment.

(Fe1 unrelated, but there you go)

mirwin

Dante09 wrote: »

Personally I think its daft that in this day and age anyone would throw away 110euro on writing their number on the exam book without a reasonable justification for why they havent bothered preparing for the fourth exam.

Possibly because some of these people work full time too?????

Dante09

mirwin wrote: »

Possibly because some of these people work full time too?????

I think its pretty self-explanatory that that would fall under "reasonable justification"

sunnyside

I think panic attacks could be another reason for it. Some people don't cope all that well with doing exams.

littlemac1980

[/quote]Now that i have done my first set of fe1s i am reasosnably satisfied with how i have performed but cannot help thinking there has to be a better way. This process is mentally and physically exhausting. It is a glorified memory test and does not exactly set potentially good solicitors apart from the bad. It merely awards those who put it ridiculous hours of study, is this really necessary. I believe they should be assessed on an open book basis, this is the reality of a practising solicitors life, knowing how to and where to look to find the law, for the fe1s people take chances on what they learn and empty their memory after them. It all stems from college exams where we learn 3 or four topics and leave everything else out, we really are not getting a good broad feel of the law. In addition how many people develop a hatred for learn for law after the fe1s??![/quote]

I'm gonna disagree with you slightly there, I believe the FE-1 exams are probably better as a guage of ability than the college exams. Certainly in college its a lot easier to remember arguments put forward by lecturers and to regurgitate those in the exams, in addition to, as you say, choosing the topics you want to concentrate on. At least the Fe-1's have no set pattern, examine the whole course and require such a broad level of knowledge that you can either learn the whole lot from griffith or other notes, to your detriment and misery, or you can rationalise the enitire course ( allbeit through more time and the same amount of learning ).

The former method is flawed because although you pass the exams, you spend a hugh amount of time learning the cases and 'mapping' the development of law through case names related to some fanciful imaginative relationship without fully understanding the underlying principles and policies that drive the descisions in one direction or another. As such, this appproach, IMHO, is what gives rise to disillusionment of the type I believe 'NUAC' talks of. Why? because if you don't learn to connect the dots when you are younger you'll never learn to draw. Therefore you spend longer in later professional life skirting around the difficiencies in your foundational education. The latter is the preferred method of study because though it may be more time consuming at this stage, it means that the only map you should arrive at is the map of jurisprudence which is the map you are supposed to know to practice.

In my opinion no one should be allowed to progress further in the legal profession without, demonstrating the fact that they know the law of the land inside out, we expect the same standards of our doctors. Good lawyers can give good advice, bad lawyers can ruin lives.

nuac

Littlemac1980 - interesting post. Agree that a good academic grounding is a necessity for the practice of law. My pessimism about the practice of law in present conditions is not due to any deficiency in my own academic education which was thorough if aeons ago - i.e. in those days our Roman Law lecturer quoted extensively from Latin, and expected us to follow him.

My concerns about legal practice these days is based on more mundane economic and regulatory factors.

I have no direct knowledge of FE!'s but I believe in any subject a full course should be read using appropriate text books and source material. Notes etc from grind institutions may get one through an examination but do not give a proper understanding of the subject

legallad

nuac wrote: »

Littlemac1980 - interesting post. Agree that a good academic grounding is a necessity for the practice of law. My pessimism about the practice of law in present conditions is not due to any deficiency in my own academic education which was thorough if aeons ago - i.e. in those days our Roman Law lecturer quoted extensively from Latin, and expected us to follow him.

My concerns about legal practice these days is based on more mundane economic and regulatory factors.

I have no direct knowledge of FE!'s but I believe in any subject a full course should be read using appropriate text books and source material. Notes etc from grind institutions may get one through an examination but do not give a proper understanding of the subject

I firmly agree with this point. In response to littlemac, this is the point i was trying to convey. Using text books and covering more of the law can only be a better thing, just because an open book exam scheme would mean you would not be able to cite an exact judgement from memory it will mean that you will know exactly where to look for the law and more detailed law at that (while putting less stress on the person being examined). The griffith and independent manuals are great for getting someone through the fe1s but they leave out large areas of the law. My point is we could be examined in a more effective manner to enable us to be more rounded and knowledgeable solicitors in the future.

32minutes

brian__foley wrote: »

He could be entertaining and sensible at times, but it's hard to forget some things that should never be forgotten.

When the "Birmingham 6" took a civil action against the Midlands police for assault, (see [1980] 1 QB 283) the Queens Bench heard an application (and dismissed it) to strike the claim out on the basis of issue estoppel. An appeal was brought to the Court of Appeal by the police.

Denning - accurately noting that that if they won, it meant that the "confessions" of Ger Conlon et al obtained were involuntarilty which meant (shock) that they had been framed, he said:-

"Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further".

Everytime I see that, I can't ignore the part "If they won...."

He deserves to be judged for all time on this Judgment.

(Fe1 unrelated, but there you go)

so does there come a time in every solicitors/judges/lawyers life when they replace their knowledge of justice with knowledge of the law ?

Jev/N

legallad wrote: »

My point is we could be examined in a more effective manner to enable us to be more rounded and knowledgeable solicitors in the future.

In fairness it's an entrance exam - nothing more than that.

In addition, this way is probably more beneficial IMO because it forces people to gain a broader knowledge of topics rather than go into depth with regard to fewer topics. The detrimental effect of this approach is evident in college where you generally have a good idea of what's coming up and therefore, can discard what you don't like (to a point). I've done this with those exams and haven't had a clue about half the course topics after doing them, whereas having done the FE-1s in those subjects, I've a much better idea of all the topics

brian__foley

32minutes wrote: »

so does there come a time in every solicitors/judges/lawyers life when they replace their knowledge of justice with knowledge of the law ?

I'm not sure what you mean. I would have thought the real test is whether one can replace what one believes the law to require, with what one thinks justice ought require. But didn't Hardiman J in Sinnott decry the idea that the law is subject to an overriding theory of justice (at least in the Rawlsian sense?)!!!

I suppose, one could say, there comes a certain time when you realise that your own views of justice may not be reflected in the law. That then is your time for reflection as to whether (a) you want to do something about it or (b) you don't. Some choose the former and change the world.

Brian

shaneybaby

colonel1 wrote: »

Hi all,


the case law wheel is .... For as that memory techniques seminar guy said reading the stuff isn't enough. He is right.

I just didn't like the sound of the journey method as I am terrible at directions, street names etc.

I would agree with the poster who stated that the Fe1s are a memory test, and as for that you must pass three exams in the 1st sitting, pure lunacy:(

Brill, thanks for that i'll try it out!

legallad

Jev/N wrote: »

In fairness it's an entrance exam - nothing more than that.

In addition, this way is probably more beneficial IMO because it forces people to gain a broader knowledge of topics rather than go into depth with regard to fewer topics. The detrimental effect of this approach is evident in college where you generally have a good idea of what's coming up and therefore, can discard what you don't like (to a point). I've done this with those exams and haven't had a clue about half the course topics after doing them, whereas having done the FE-1s in those subjects, I've a much better idea of all the topics

Jev i understand where you are coming from, but saying its an entrance exam nothing more than that is downplaying its significance. Yes literally speaking it is an entrance exam and one has to complete exams within blackhall which are open book exams, but it is the only means that one can avail of to qualify as a solicitor, so it assumes a much more significant role than just an entrance exam.

I dont question that the fe1s make you learn alot of the law and now i have an excellent knowledge of the independent and griffith packs, but my point is, is this enough for real working life? I am not suggesting that we cut down topics like college exams, I actually gave out about college exams in an earlier post, i am suggesting we learn even more and more relevant material but that it will be examined in an open book manner. This will allow you to cover even more law without the stress of having to remember every single case name. One of my subjects was examined in this way in college and i came out having to do very little study for the fe1s in that subject as i had such a good grounding in it.

I respect what you and littlemac are saying but i just wanted to share my opinion

32minutes

brian__foley wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean. I would have thought the real test is whether one can replace what one believes the law to require, with what one thinks justice ought require. But didn't Hardiman J in Sinnott decry the idea that the law is subject to an overriding theory of justice (at least in the Rawlsian sense?)!!!

I suppose, one could say, there comes a certain time when you realise that your own views of justice may not be reflected in the law. That then is your time for reflection as to whether (a) you want to do something about it or (b) you don't. Some choose the former and change the world.

Brian

well i agree with you there, im a firm believer in the liberal democratic creed that man made laws are always subject to higher ideals, but in that particular case with lord denning i dont think theres any question that a blind fundamental belief that the police can do no harm ever fits in with anyones sense of justice ? i dont think thats dependant on someones perspective of how the law and justice are related, its simply wrong.
i probably used the wrong phrase (fe1s inertia) but what denning was saying about it basically not being worth finding out that the police were corrupt because it would damage the system as a whole contravenes the rule of law. the point i was trying to make was that sometimes we sometimes forget the role of justice completely in pursuit of the law and the system, how we apply our parameters fo justice to the law is an abstract question that will never be answered

littlemac1980

nuac wrote: »

Littlemac1980 - interesting post. Agree that a good academic grounding is a necessity for the practice of law. My pessimism about the practice of law in present conditions is not due to any deficiency in my own academic education which was thorough if aeons ago - i.e. in those days our Roman Law lecturer quoted extensively from Latin, and expected us to follow him.

My concerns about legal practice these days is based on more mundane economic and regulatory factors.

I have no direct knowledge of FE!'s but I believe in any subject a full course should be read using appropriate text books and source material. Notes etc from grind institutions may get one through an examination but do not give a proper understanding of the subject

I firmly agree with this point. In response to littlemac, this is the point i was trying to convey. Using text books and covering more of the law can only be a better thing, just because an open book exam scheme would mean you would not be able to cite an exact judgement from memory it will mean that you will know exactly where to look for the law and more detailed law at that (while putting less stress on the person being examined). The griffith and independent manuals are great for getting someone through the fe1s but they leave out large areas of the law. My point is we could be examined in a more effective manner to enable us to be more rounded and knowledgeable solicitors in the future.


Just want to quickly respond to that 'Nuac'... I'm pretty sure you're aware I wouldn't have been having a go at your own education...

The economic and regulatory factors you speak of are beyond my understanding and experience I must say. Are you suggesting that the Law Society is using the exams as a gate into the field of the profession... I wouldn't be surprised. Does that mean we can look forward to tougher marking this time round? How long will it be til they give us a morality check? Now that would be interesting. Considering where the real concerns are within the law society at the moment, perhaps the Insurance companies would run this exam.

Those are all fair points legallad, however, who would be the judge of what book u can and can't bring in, and how many books would be allowed, I might want Lyall for land law, some one else may want Wylie.... Criminal Liability, MCCauley and McCutcheon doesn't have Theft offences or criminal practice and procedure, but still carrys great weight as an authorative text. Never mind the fact there are more decent European text books than decent European countries. Chances are you'ld have a variety of numbers of and titles of text books requested by each person... and who would check every page for notes... I imagine if its costing us 110 per exam now, the extra burden for an open book exam would significantly increase that price.

Another point on that, most of my research in college was equally done with online material and printed books. Does that mean that an open book scenario would also favor a certain category of persons. Should we allow internet access in the exams. There's certainly no black and white answer to where the line could be drawn with respect to allowing additional material into the exams. It probably does require an all or nothing approach

As I'm sure 'Nuac' will probably agree, while we certainly appear to have a raw deal in having to sit these exams as compared to those who we will petition for apprenticeships. They never had to sit the exams. However, they never had the www, and as far as I can see, getting a copy of a judgment or article must have been by comparison a pain in the whole of your resolve back then. Everything is at our fingertips. So there are ups and downs to both sides and I'd say that ( lack of jobs aside ) we still come out on top.

Oh and finally, when you actaully think about it, to be successful, and a competent and employable or otherwise sustainable legal professional, you can't, at the request on the spot by a potential client of some advice, respond by saying, ' can you come back to me tommorrow or in half an hour, I do know this topic inside out, but I must refresh my memory with a quick flick through the book'. If they'd any sense, they're gone out the door, down the road to the next McWhoever, O'BlahBlah and SteinSteins.

legallad

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I firmly agree with this point. In response to littlemac, this is the point i was trying to convey. Using text books and covering more of the law can only be a better thing, just because an open book exam scheme would mean you would not be able to cite an exact judgement from memory it will mean that you will know exactly where to look for the law and more detailed law at that (while putting less stress on the person being examined). The griffith and independent manuals are great for getting someone through the fe1s but they leave out large areas of the law. My point is we could be examined in a more effective manner to enable us to be more rounded and knowledgeable solicitors in the future.


Just want to quickly respond to that 'Nuac'... I'm pretty sure you're aware I wouldn't have been having a go at your own education...

The economic and regulatory factors you speak of are beyond my understanding and experience I must say. Are you suggesting that the Law Society is using the exams as a gate into the field of the profession... I wouldn't be surprised. Does that mean we can look forward to tougher marking this time round? How long will it be til they give us a morality check? Now that would be interesting. Considering where the real concerns are within the law society at the moment, perhaps the Insurance companies would run this exam.

Those are all fair points legallad, however, who would be the judge of what book u can and can't bring in, and how many books would be allowed, I might want Lyall for land law, some one else may want Wylie.... Criminal Liability, MCCauley and McCutcheon doesn't have Theft offences or criminal practice and procedure, but still carrys great weight as an authorative text. Never mind the fact there are more decent European text books than decent European countries. Chances are you'ld have a variety of numbers of and titles of text books requested by each person... and who would check every page for notes... I imagine if its costing us 110 per exam now, the extra burden for an open book exam would significantly increase that price.

Another point on that, most of my research in college was equally done with online material and printed books. Does that mean that an open book scenario would also favor a certain category of persons. Should we allow internet access in the exams. There's certainly no black and white answer to where the line could be drawn with respect to allowing additional material into the exams. It probably does require an all or nothing approach

As I'm sure 'Nuac' will probably agree, while we certainly appear to have a raw deal in having to sit these exams as compared to those who we will petition for apprenticeships. They never had to sit the exams. However, they never had the www, and as far as I can see, getting a copy of a judgment or article must have been by comparison a pain in the whole of your resolve back then. Everything is at our fingertips. So there are ups and downs to both sides and I'd say that ( lack of jobs aside ) we still come out on top.

Oh and finally, when you actaully think about it, to be successful, and a competent and employable or otherwise sustainable legal professional, you can't, at the request on the spot by a potential client of some advice, respond by saying, ' can you come back to me tommorrow or in half an hour, I do know this topic inside out, but I must refresh my memory with a quick flick through the book'. If they'd any sense, they're gone out the door, down the road to the next McWhoever, O'BlahBlah and SteinSteins.

Again fair points and well argued at that. The way I was examined when I had my open book exam was ANY hand written notes were permitted, no use of the net was allowed. I understand where you are coming from with regard to your final point however if i asked you one year down the line for a detailed account of a certain topic you studied for your fe1s would you realistically be able to do that for me. The vast majority of information learnt for college exams and fe1s is stored within our short term memory, the brain is powerful and can store these huge quantities for a short space of time however as time passes one forgets alot of what was learnt bar maybe a general account of the topic. I found with an open book exam I was able to give a better account of a topic after a few months than if i had it learnt off for an exam. Your argument about having to consult a book is not really relevant here as most of the information a solicitor will offer to a client is information that he has learnt over the years from practicing certainly not from what he learnt during his fe1s. In fact the reality is alot of what is learnt for the fe1s comprises a very small basis of what is needed as a practicing solicitor.

On this point, forget about whether it is feasible or not, does anyone think that work placement and practical work should be included in a law degree instead of just rote learning? This idea will probably be shot down as quickly as my open book idea!!

colonel1

You are welcome shaneybaby:) All methods are worth a try, so long as you aren't trying to learn the wheel off the day before, which definately didn't work for me this time round.:(

shaneybaby wrote: »

Brill, thanks for that i'll try it out!

brian__foley

On the notion of an open book exam.

1. I know that very many people have books in front of them, but still make mistakes.

2. If I was correcting an open book exam I would be merciless on mistakes as there should be no excuse for any. I would assume that the pass rate would have to be above 95% in such a case (assuming we'd change the grade system).

3. So, I would assume that if entry to a profession was regulated by an open book exam, it would be a mercilessly tough open book exam to maintain some degree of integrity in the system and I, assume, the same problems would replicate themselves re failing etc.

Further, the books go out of date quickly, and its a bit weird to consider actively examining people on out of date law. At least with the system now, one can say that students are expected to be up to date.

I do think these exams are more-than-doable with committment and consistent study/work. Its the "sprint" at the end that seems to let some people down, more than anything else.

Brian

legallad

brian__foley wrote: »

On the notion of an open book exam.

1. I know that very many people have books in front of them, but still make mistakes.

2. If I was correcting an open book exam I would be merciless on mistakes as there should be no excuse for any. I would assume that the pass rate would have to be above 95% in such a case (assuming we'd change the grade system).

3. So, I would assume that if entry to a profession was regulated by an open book exam, it would be a mercilessly tough open book exam to maintain some degree of integrity in the system and I, assume, the same problems would replicate themselves re failing etc.

Further, the books go out of date quickly, and its a bit weird to consider actively examining people on out of date law. At least with the system now, one can say that students are expected to be up to date.

I do think these exams are more-than-doable with committment and consistent study/work. Its the "sprint" at the end that seems to let some people down, more than anything else.

Brian

True, but how do they maintain the integrity of the open book exams within blackhall and the marking scheme? This is an honest question. Ok il drop my idea doesnt seem well received!! Im just thinking of ways to improve this area now that i have no study to do, boredom can lead to non sensical ideas!!

brian__foley

legallad wrote: »

True, but how do they maintain the integrity of the open book exams within blackhall and the marking scheme? This is an honest question. Ok il drop my idea doesnt seem well received!! Im just thinking of ways to improve this area now that i have no study to do, boredom can lead to non sensical ideas!!

Well, because they use their own materials? And if that had to be done for the fe1's then the costs of application would be far, far higher.

I just think it wouldn't be possible to stand over an open book exam where, say, the most recent pure criminal text is the last edition of Charleton etc.