1:1

NoQuarter

Hi folks,

In my final year of my degree and exams are approaching soon, I usually get pretty good grades, high 2:1 usually but this is the year I aim to try push that up into a first, no easy task I know!

So has anyone got any tips on how to do this? Apart from the obvious "bring plenty of outside reading in" im a bit stumped!

Any advice would be appreciated and just to note, theres not much point in replying if you dont usually get 1st's as my technique to get a 2:1 is just fine at the moment! Im not looking for what people have told you, im looking for tried and tested methods!

Cheers!

hada

Work hard. Summarise everything down to bit size chunks. Work Hard. Get a good balance between time off and library time..and some luck always helps!

oh and best of luck!

ps. also ask yourself the reasons why you want the 1:1....

Thirdfox

Agree with the above - one does not need a 1.1 to get offers from the top firms in the country. If there are other advantages you possess it may be wise to work on those.

Similarly I have friends who have 1.1s and have yet to find a job too.

But I assume that working hard gets you places - it depends on what university you're in too. TCD is famous for giving almost everyone a 2.1 and a select few 1.1, UCD gives more balanced 1.1, 2.1 and 2.2s I hear.

hada

Thirdfox wrote: »

Agree with the above - one does not need a 1.1 to get offers from the top firms in the country. If there are other advantages you possess it may be wise to work on those.

Similarly I have friends who have 1.1s and have yet to find a job too.

But I assume that working hard gets you places - it depends on what university you're in too. TCD is famous for giving almost everyone a 2.1 and a select few 1.1, UCD gives more balanced 1.1, 2.1 and 2.2s I hear.

The above is untrue. Recent survey actually noted that TCD were actually, of all the 3rd level institutions in the country, giving the highest level of 1sts per course.

Regardless, depending on class size, it generally fits into the equation that you have between a 1/5 - 1/7 chance of getting a 1:1. This is irrespective of where you study. If what you seem to be suggesting is that a 1st from TCD, by virtue that it is "harder" to get, trumps a first from another university - well, that is un true. If you need proof - I'm it.

NoQuarter

Thanks for replies but none really answer my question. Working hard is a given for a 1st of course.

What im really looking for is ideas of the content to put into my answers!

Thanks.

ps. My reasons for getting one shouldnt come into question, the fact is that i know its obtainable for me so that is reason enough.

Dante09

king-stew wrote: »

Thanks for replies but none really answer my question. Working hard is a given for a 1st of course.

What im really looking for is ideas of the content to put into my answers!

Thanks.

ps. My reasons for getting one shouldnt come into question, the fact is that i know its obtainable for me so that is reason enough.

OP, in my experience, the following has worked:

1)Plenty of extra reading (as you said above)

2)When preparing, think outside of the box about particular topics and make notes of your own opinions---if possible include them in exam and state that they are YOUR opinions

3)Do not be afraid to criticize the question if you can justify it: "I dont agree with the statement in the question and think its entirely nonsensical to suggest that.......because......"

4)If possible, criticize the law, judges decisions etc. because criticism shows you're engaging with the topic and most importantly, that you have a deep understanding of it

5)If possible, use a bit of humour in your answers because:
-it calms you down
-it shows confidence and that you're comfortable with the question
-the lecturer will welcome something different.

6)HARD WORK (again as you said above)

I have two 1:1 law degrees (although I only adopted the above techniques in the final year of my first degree. I did very averagely in the first two years)

To each their own, but the above has worked for me.

NoQuarter

Excellent reply Dante, just the type of advice im looking for! My technique so far just cant seem to push me above a high 2:1 so im going to adopt some new techniques this year too!

2)When preparing, think outside of the box about particular topics and make notes of your own opinions---if possible include them in exam and state that they are YOUR opinions

With regard to this point, this is one thing I had intended on doing this year, how do you implement this into your answer? I cant stand to use "in my opinion" and "i think" in my answers as its not my style of writing at all. Is there a way around this or do I have to bite the bullet?

4)If possible, criticize the law, judges decisions etc. because criticism shows you're engaging with the topic and most importantly, that you have a deep understanding of it

I assume you would have to back up these critisizms with academic references? Surely I shouldnt critisize law or decisions on the basis of my own opinion?

5)If possible, use a bit of humour in your answers because:
-it calms you down
-it shows confidence and that you're comfortable with the question
-the lecturer will welcome something different.

Interesting idea, any examples for clarity?

Dante09

king-stew wrote: »

Excellent reply Dante, just the type of advice im looking for! My technique so far just cant seem to push me above a high 2:1 so im going to adopt some new techniques this year too!



With regard to this point, this is one thing I had intended on doing this year, how do you implement this into your answer? I cant stand to use "in my opinion" and "i think" in my answers as its not my style of writing at all. Is there a way around this or do I have to bite the bullet?

You dont have to use "in my opinion" if you dont want to (although, to be honest, in an exam situation, when you're under pressure, there is not a more effective and quicker methodof bringing across your point---i know its not esthetically pleasing but at the end of the day, in an exam situation all you should be concerned with is making your point effectively and quickly. Personally and unashamedly I can openly admit that my level of english drops significanlty in an exam situation but that hasnt stopped me getting firsts.). You can use terms like "Personally, I feel that the decision was erroneous becase..." etc. or just make a statement without identifying either yourself or an academic as the authour-that way the examiner may in some cases assume that it is YOUR opinion.
But as far as im concerned, in an exam situation, when you have 40 mins per question, all you should be concerned about is making your point as effectively and as quickly as possible and ensuring that YOU are easily identifiable as the original "authour" (for lack of better term) of that particular point---in other words, i'd bite the bullet.



I assume you would have to back up these critisizms with academic references? Surely I shouldnt critisize law or decisions on the basis of my own opinion?

Why not? At the end of the day, you want to demonstrate confidence (even in your future career....as a lawyer, I would assume, that one would need to demonstrate confidence in ones own advice to clients). Your opion cant be wrong if its a reasoned and a justifiable one. It doesnt have to be a very detailed criticism--use your discretion and imagination.
Yeh sometimes, if you want to back up your opinion with commentary, but you dont HAVE to.
If you feel uncomfortable with this idea of criticizing the law in an exam, consider these points:
1) Your examiner has probably written several articles critizing the law in the exact same area s/he is examining you on--surely, s/he'd love his/her students to do the same
2) Are you ever p***ed off by certain decisions?
3) Do you ever sit in a lecture hall and listen to your lecturer talk about something and thinnk to yourself "there is something fundamentally wrong with that decision/line of thought"----if so, make a note of these thoughts and elaborate on them in your exam

Interesting idea, any examples for clarity?
Its kind of hard for me to come up with an example now as it would seem completely out of context and would probably not be considered funny at all by those reading....but you have to think to yourself that a lecturer who is going through hundreds of scripts would surely LOVE to see some sort of humour...i dont know....like, in a problem question if you're avising your client at the end, something like "Other than advising Mike to speak to a qualified solicitor, I would suggest that he....."

Hope this helps, and btw a bit of luck always helps too

NoQuarter

Some great advice there Dante, really appreciated!

hada

Dante knows his stuff. Should be stickied!

Might I add, one last thing. Try and practice exam questions as much as possible. Get them corrected, leave them aside, and go back to them. If anything it helps clarify the law in your head even more so, and will bring your critical "outside of the box" thinking even further.

Also on a more basic level - try and have everything covered with a two weeks or so before the exams, meaning that by the time you actually sit the exam you will have gone over what you are going to write in the exam three, four, or more times. This will concrete everything in your mind.

Final final point - the main difference between a 2:1 and a 1:1, in my mind, is using the same info a 2:1 student has, and putting it to use in an intelligent, conscise and convincing manner. Hence the first point I made about practising exam questions.

Dante09

hada wrote: »

Also on a more basic level - try and have everything covered with a two weeks or so before the exams, meaning that by the time you actually sit the exam you will have gone over what you are going to write in the exam three, four, or more times. This will concrete everything in your mind.

This is another excellent point, one that I forgot to mention. Its crucial that you finish all prep work AT THE LATEST one week before the exams, preferably two. You need to know all of your notes like the back of your hand and dedicate a considerable amount of time solely to learning off.

NoQuarter

hada wrote: »

Dante knows his stuff. Should be stickied!

Might I add, one last thing. Try and practice exam questions as much as possible. Get them corrected, leave them aside, and go back to them. If anything it helps clarify the law in your head even more so, and will bring your critical "outside of the box" thinking even further.

Also on a more basic level - try and have everything covered with a two weeks or so before the exams, meaning that by the time you actually sit the exam you will have gone over what you are going to write in the exam three, four, or more times. This will concrete everything in your mind.

Final final point - the main difference between a 2:1 and a 1:1, in my mind, is using the same info a 2:1 student has, and putting it to use in an intelligent, conscise and convincing manner. Hence the first point I made about practising exam questions.

Thanks, some good point but alas I fear they are ideal ideas and while every year they are my intention it never actually works out like that!! But I will try!!!

Amazotheamazing

The most important thing, in my experience, is getting essaysa corrected by lecturers. They can and will tell you want style of answer they want, it's up to you to provide it. Not all lecturers like the same style answers. When I was in final year I was capable of writing in 4 or 5 different styles to suit the various lecturers. Some like facts, some like opinion, some like you to tackle problem questions, some seem to set problem questions because they have to but would rather correct theory questions etc. Engage with your lecturers, they will help you.

As an aside, I suspect every lecturer lives in the fear that a final year student will take things too seriously and harm themselves, it does happen. If you aren't getting things, talk to your lecturer or student rep. They will help you.

Also, share notes with friends, if you help people, they will help you. My first was a group effort, from a group where about 6 or 7 of us got firsts. We were no smarter than guys getting 2.2's but we worked smarter than most, we shared notes, we helped each other, etc.

Reloc8

I'm going on my own experience in TCD here and I found the following to be important :

- caselaw - know it. That means not just the bits mentioned in the text book. In subjects like Constitutional, Criminal, Evidence, Taxation, Equity, Contract, Tort, in fact all of them (aside from more pure academic subjects like Jurisprudence) you need to get the law reports off the shelves and read every case on your reading list. I used to compile a one page summary of each one and learn them off.

- Same goes for important statutes - those that you can't bring into the exam in particular.

- Presuming the knowledge of the course materials is good, the difference between a 2.1 and 1.1 is often the extent of individual analysis provided. This applies either in a problem question or an essay. I feel a lot of people in the former case think describing the the law applicable is adequate, which it is, but omit any critique. This includes predicting future changes/advocating for changes in the law but most basically offering an intelligent view on the merits and demerits of the current legal position.

- Question selection; to make a choice you need to know the course well otherwise you're stuck with what you can do. 1.1 students will usually select problem questions over essays where possible. Problem questions are probably easiest to get a pass grade on and hardest to get a first on so a lot of people avoid them. Good answers to problem questions therefore stand out more so than essays and its easier to be individual.

NoQuarter

Reloc8 wrote: »

Good answers to problem questions therefore stand out more so than essays and its easier to be individual.

Good point but how do you go about doing this?? Were told not to discuss the law in a problem question as were advising clients so we should just tell them what the present law is!

Dante09

If you want to do well in a problem question, in my experience, dont use the IRAC formual

Jev/N

king-stew wrote: »

Good point but how do you go about doing this?? Were told not to discuss the law in a problem question as were advising clients so we should just tell them what the present law is!

It's hard to know as in one of the FE-1 examiners reports, the examiner said they wanted a comparison with law in other jurisdictions which is completely against the usual run of a problem question!

NoQuarter

Dante09 wrote: »

If you want to do well in a problem question, in my experience, dont use the IRAC formual

Is there another way??

I may try stick to the essays!

ananas

My advice would be don't get too hung up on the whole "I need a 1:1 and nothing else will do". I never really aimed for a 1:1 I just worked really really hard and wasn't fixated on getting a first, and then I got it-if that makes sense!

I always find that its good to make yourself known to the lecturers, go to all your lectures because they do notice people who are there(depending on lecture size of course). Don't be afraid to ask questions.

I think the reasons people get 1:1s is obviously hard work but be sensible in your approach to how you study. Know everything about the topics that you've picked and be able to answer any question thats asked. Don't learn essays-thats a big no no- you'll just write down the essay and not apply it to the question thats actually asked. Don't cram everything in the night before. Familarise yourself with the topics so that you can go through them in your sleep.

Academic commentary is essential for a first. Stating a fact and following it up with a nice quotation is a good idea from my experience. Know what different people have said and integrate it into your own answers. For every topic that I studied I read a chapter of the recommended text book, skimmed a chapter of another book and 3-4 articles, depending on the topic.

And finally chill the beans, if you freak out and stress then nothing is going to get done. Start early. DO NOT LISTEN TO ANYONE TRYING TO PSYCHE YOU OUT. Every law course has token asses who make it their mission to cut you down and freak you out. Don't listen. People were always trying to do that to me and in final year i just said you know what, I'm done with this and didn't discuss exams with anyone.

Thats my two cents anyways, best of luck to you-I'm sure you'll be fine!:)

Reloc8

king-stew wrote: »

Good point but how do you go about doing this?? Were told not to discuss the law in a problem question as were advising clients so we should just tell them what the present law is!

Its a matter of style and practice. I don't know about any 'formulas' for problem questions but my instinct is that in an academic situation I would never use one (there will also be a marked difference in how you'd reply to an undergrad problem Q and one on the FE-1 or Kings Inn course).

Basically you of course want to describe the current legal position as it will apply to the parties you are advising. There is no harm and everything to be gained however in e.g. describing how and why the position would be different in the UK, or offering a view as to whether the application of the law to the parties leads to anomalous/surprising/undesirable/desirable result, or offering a view as to what amendments should be made, or identifying that the law is not certain/in a state of flux and offering a view as to which position ought to be applied, or is most likely to be applied.

Its a question of focus and priority - you don't base the majority of your answer on this material, but presuming the majority of the answer is accurate and well written this is the extra n% that the examiner is looking for.