King's Inns entrance exams 2010

law10

Hey guys,
Was just wondering whether Kings Inns give you any manuals for the five entrance exams? And if so... How can i get them? I would greatly appreciate any helpful responses. Thanks

FreudianSlippers

No, they don't give you any manuals, but prior exams can be found on their website.
Trust me, do yourself a favour and pay for the prep course at Independent.

law10

Thanks Oisin, I'll look into the prep courses its just my location is not the most favorable and trying to finance the prep course with the amount that is due if we actually pass the exams... Leaves a lot of debt before anything has even started.I was hoping it would be possible to do without the prep course, but i appreciate the reply and the honesty.

Arsenal1986

How much is the BL course in Kings Inn out of curiosity?

subrosa

I think the fees are due to rise next year so best check with them directly.

It's entirely possible to pass the entrance exams without a preperation course. Many people do. Personally I think these courses are only really vital if you've been away from study for a while or if you dont trust yourself to do the independent study that's required.

Good Luck.

law10

subrosa wrote: »

I think the fees are due to rise next year so best check with them directly.

It's entirely possible to pass the entrance exams without a preperation course. Many people do. Personally I think these courses are only really vital if you've been away from study for a while or if you dont trust yourself to do the independent study that's required.

Good Luck.

The fees are 12,600 euro for the full year. Thanks Subrosa, just wondering have you done them or has anyone you know done them?? I'm very willing to put in the work, I just don't think its possible to know the entire course in every subject to do 5 exams in 5 days. I'm a little bit anxious about that, and would appreciate any opinions on how to approach the exams, without leaving vital topics out .

Arsenal1986

From what 've heard from friends that have done them - the exams themselves are not very daunting, if it were a case of doing just one or two in the week it'd be relativley(!) easy but its the stamina required during the week is the real challenge. Having said that don't be intimidated by them, if you can pass College Law exams then you can pass them.

FreudianSlippers

subrosa wrote: »

I think the fees are due to rise next year so best check with them directly.

It's entirely possible to pass the entrance exams without a preperation course. Many people do. Personally I think these courses are only really vital if you've been away from study for a while or if you dont trust yourself to do the independent study that's required.

Good Luck.

fees are actually going down this year. I think I paid around €14,600 including €1200 for parking.

Arsenal1986 wrote: »

From what 've heard from friends that have done them - the exams themselves are not very daunting, if it were a case of doing just one or two in the week it'd be relativley(!) easy but its the stamina required during the week is the real challenge. Having said that don't be intimidated by them, if you can pass College Law exams then you can pass them.

They are definitely not as easy as undergraduate law exams, but you'd be right in saying that it's the stamina of doing 5 in 5 days that is the really tough part.

Tom Young

One might be tempted to suggest that they are not as easy as undergrad exams, as undergrad exams are set (generally) by the correcting lecturers and pattern matching tends to be rampant.

My own view is that stamina is required and 5 days on the trot is not really fun for crammers. So you do need to have the work done and have a good breadth of knowledge for all subjects in all areas.

I seem to recall that when I sat them them, we all knew Tort was front loaded with various torts and drafting a half decent answer was nightmarish, as it took a good while to just spot the torts, note down the tests and then deal with the problem. Olde worlds torts included!

Criminal, sexual offences were a dead cert! Not one on the paper. All property, non-fatals and TFA 2001 issues (No legislation available).

Evidence, compulsory question - random. The a limited choice thereafter. Time to answer but meant you had to know the entire course (practically) to pass.

Company/Contract - Similar. Little room for hedging.

Constitutional - Trend is recent issues or issues in which the examiner is engaged! Look to major judgments of past 6/12 months. No prep manual is able to cater for this in the fullest sense. I think that brian_foley a poster here made that point recently. Stating that lecturers generally facilitate examinations and study groups with more refined notes prior to the exams. In his case, the notes are on point, should he be the same person as the lecturer!

There's my take.

Curunina

Hey -
Good luck with the entrance exams. When I did them, the only useful information that was available were the exam papers and the examiner reports (these were most useful of all), and the official syllabi. The syllabus for each subject had a list of topics, and you could operate from that - consititutional in particular had a list of cases that you could then just look up in an index (or on justis etc if necessary) and note the principles.

I really don't think that a prep course is necessary, the exams are not particularly analytical, and just require you to cram a huge pile of information into your brain.

Also - the stamina issue is huge - I know a guy who got to Wed, was convinced he failed that exam, and then didn't come back for Thurs or Fri, only to get results and find out that he had passed Wednesday. You just need to slug out the week, and set aside the following weekend for a serious sleep catch-up.

Best of luck again!

eagle_&_bear

Well I'll throw my two cents into the ring and people can take from it what they wish.

I did my LLB in griffith and then defected to Independent Colleges.

While it is true you don't have to do a preparatory course, the exams are easier (to a degree) by doing such a course.

I don't agree that all you need to do for the exam is cram alot of information into your head - that is what you do for undergrad exams. These exams (well in 2008 anyway) require you to advise a fictional client given a certain set of facts. The main reason why I say a prep course is very worth while is because at undergrad level you are not taught how to advise a client.

You're taught to learn ad nausium huge volumes of information (which you do need) and then regurgitate that information in an exam.

The type of questions you will get in the Kings Inns will be entirely different and will challenge you immeasurably. On top of that you have the stress of 5 large exams in 5 days, almost no sleep for those 5 days, travel etc

What i found with the prep course, that helped me was that it revised every area that is examinable - and you might think sure you've done it all before it'll come back to you but to get undergrad law upto practitioner level law is not easy and unless you're supremely dedicated and you can work 100% on your own at this stage, to my mind, its too much of a gamble. While I'm not a huge protagonist of cash-cow companies who feed off our instant needs, sometimes you have to capitulate for your own advancement. (thats my take, disregard if you like)

You then get some 1on1 time with tutors and you get to do tons of previous actual exam paper questions and they are individually corrected and returned to you so you see exactly, without any guessing game, where you are hitting the nail on the head and where you're way off point.

This, I think, is the most important part of a prep course.

There is of course a money issue involved and in the current climate, money is a rarity.

For those who are thinking of going-it alone, definately do keep abreast of the ARIL series, the newer cases on courts.ie and get the most recent edition of all the law books. Cross-compare it with the entrance exam syllabi and you really do have to give 12weeks prep for the exam.

Unfortunately you can not leave any topic out. Cherry pick your topics and you'll feel it on the day

I wish you all the best

FreudianSlippers

eagle_&_bear wrote: »

Well I'll throw my two cents into the ring and people can take from it what they wish.

I did my LLB in griffith and then defected to Independent Colleges.

While it is true you don't have to do a preparatory course, the exams are easier (to a degree) by doing such a course.

I don't agree that all you need to do for the exam is cram alot of information into your head - that is what you do for undergrad exams. These exams (well in 2008 anyway) require you to advise a fictional client given a certain set of facts. The main reason why I say a prep course is very worth while is because at undergrad level you are not taught how to advise a client.

You're taught to learn ad nausium huge volumes of information (which you do need) and then regurgitate that information in an exam.

The type of questions you will get in the Kings Inns will be entirely different and will challenge you immeasurably. On top of that you have the stress of 5 large exams in 5 days, almost no sleep for those 5 days, travel etc

What i found with the prep course, that helped me was that it revised every area that is examinable - and you might think sure you've done it all before it'll come back to you but to get undergrad law upto practitioner level law is not easy and unless you're supremely dedicated and you can work 100% on your own at this stage, to my mind, its too much of a gamble. While I'm not a huge protagonist of cash-cow companies who feed off our instant needs, sometimes you have to capitulate for your own advancement. (thats my take, disregard if you like)

You then get some 1on1 time with tutors and you get to do tons of previous actual exam paper questions and they are individually corrected and returned to you so you see exactly, without any guessing game, where you are hitting the nail on the head and where you're way off point.

This, I think, is the most important part of a prep course.

There is of course a money issue involved and in the current climate, money is a rarity.

For those who are thinking of going-it alone, definately do keep abreast of the ARIL series, the newer cases on courts.ie and get the most recent edition of all the law books. Cross-compare it with the entrance exam syllabi and you really do have to give 12weeks prep for the exam.

Unfortunately you can not leave any topic out. Cherry pick your topics and you'll feel it on the day

I wish you all the best

I did the same thing (undergrad in Griffith & prep course in Independent) and I can 100% agree with you that the prep course was useful in bringing up areas that you may not have even thought of for 2 or 3 years. For me also, having people there that keep you to a study pace was really helpful - it stopped me from getting strung out by studying too much and also from doing what I did in undergrad and leaving it until the last minute.
Other than the physical exhaustion by the end of the week of the KI entrance exams I flew through them with pretty high marks - something I honestly don't know if I could say if I didn't do the prep course.

So in the end money is always an issue, but remember that it costs enough just to do the exams and if you don't pass them the first time you'll probably end up spending money anyway (masters maybe?). In the grand scheme of things, a prep course is worth its weight in gold - especially the condensed materials you get from them (which are usually quite easy to sell for a good bit of money around this time).

subrosa

I agree totally with what has been said about the stamina required. It's a hellish week. A lot of people don't make it to the end. You notice more and more empty seats in the dining hall as week goes on.

Its vital to keep going even if you think you have failed an exam. You probably havent and there's nothing to be gained for assuming that you have.

None of the exams, taken in isolation, are hugely difficult. The problem is five in a row. I get the feeling that the intensity of the process is a part of the test.

As Curunina said it's mostly about getting the volumes information to stay in your head somehow.

Remember most people who sit all the exams pass, good luck again.

Curunina

Just wanted to weigh in on the issue of "client problem" questions - and I absolutely realise that others may disagree with me - but I would say that I don't think that questions in that format are any more challenging than standard essay questions, with the only "extra" being an ability to identify legal issues from a set of facts.
The questions do not require answers in the format of a Legal Opinion, and are satisfactorily answered by a description of the relevant law on the issues raised (i.e. there is not requirement for advice on the relevant evidence rules in a criminal exam question, as there would be if a full "client advice" opinion was required). Fair enough, you end up referencing the fictional client a few times in your response, but I'm not sure that that complicates matters. A decent memory of the important cases surrounding the issue presented is sufficient to get you through these exams.

Obviously if you retain information better through oral presentation and discussion than by individual study, a prep course is worthwhile, but personally, I have always found that "bum on seat" revision was more time efficient. It is, of course, entirely an individual decision, I just wanted to clarify what I meant when I said that the questions tend not to be overly in-depth, or to require an "outside the box" level of analysis.

Good luck again!

bahhoweya

eagle_&_bear wrote: »

For those who are thinking of going-it alone, definately do keep abreast of the ARIL series, the newer cases on courts.ie and get the most recent edition of all the law books

Sorry, what is the ARIL series?

FreudianSlippers

Curunina wrote: »

Just wanted to weigh in on the issue of "client problem" questions - and I absolutely realise that others may disagree with me - but I would say that I don't think that questions in that format are any more challenging than standard essay questions, with the only "extra" being an ability to identify legal issues from a set of facts.
The questions do not require answers in the format of a Legal Opinion, and are satisfactorily answered by a description of the relevant law on the issues raised (i.e. there is not requirement for advice on the relevant evidence rules in a criminal exam question, as there would be if a full "client advice" opinion was required). Fair enough, you end up referencing the fictional client a few times in your response, but I'm not sure that that complicates matters. A decent memory of the important cases surrounding the issue presented is sufficient to get you through these exams.

Obviously if you retain information better through oral presentation and discussion than by individual study, a prep course is worthwhile, but personally, I have always found that "bum on seat" revision was more time efficient. It is, of course, entirely an individual decision, I just wanted to clarify what I meant when I said that the questions tend not to be overly in-depth, or to require an "outside the box" level of analysis.

Good luck again!

If I remember correctly I went straight for the problem questions in my entrance exam, only relying on essays to fill in where I wasn't strong in a particular problem question

crimmyj

Does anyone know where I can get the exam reports to accompany past exam papers? I rang KI this morning but they told me that they don't have them

Tom Young

I don't believe examination reports are made available on same.

Tom

page1

Are the papers much different to the FE-1s - would they be comparable in terms of difficulty?

Arsenal1986

They are generally regarded as somewhat easier by most people. What is particularly difficult abbout them is the Stamina issue, very little time between exams to study - you are exhausted by the end of the week by all accounts.

YASC

Me

Im waiting on one exam result to get my barristers degree .. just a question if you dont mind .. this was my third attempt at the exam .. if I dont pass this time do you know what my options would be as regards still qualifying as a barrister. Would it be possible to qualify in England with them taking my results into account .. as this exam was the only one outstanding ? I hope I get it but Im not sure what my options are if I dont ? as I still want a career in law as a barrister !



Can anyone provide me with some information ?

LutherBlissett

Obviously I am aware that there is no objective truth in this regard, and that the answer to the following question is largely based on personal factors...however, I am wondering - would it be possible to pass the entrance exams straight out of undergrad? (i.e. if one passes finals in May/June, and then goes on to do the entrance exams in August.)

LutherBlissett

LutherBlissett wrote: »

Obviously I am aware that there is no objective truth in this regard, and that the answer to the following question is largely based on personal factors...however, I am wondering - would it be possible to pass the entrance exams straight out of undergrad? (i.e. if one passes finals in May/June, and then goes on to do the entrance exams in August.)

Quite a lot of people do it this way (myself included) and I would agree with the other posters that the Prep Courses are a huge advantage, even if you are straight out of your degree.

The three pieces of advice I would give are:

1. Identify Issues:
Particularly in the now compulsory question 1 on all papers. These tend to be the longest questions on the paper as it is worth 50% of the overall marks. Last year's criminal question was almost 2 A4 pages long with, if I recall, about 11 or 12 separate issues. The tort paper is the same but the issues are even trickier to spot given some of them are really particular torts.

2. Give advice:
Defences in particular should get a good chunk of your attention. Same as in an undergrad exam, if the question asks you to advise then be sure to advise. Some people had literally hundreds of cases learned off between the 5 exams but knowing the correct advice to give will be better for your result than knowing an obscure decision from New Zealand.

3. Don't Even Attempt To Cram:
If you haven't started studying already, start now. The exam week is one of the most draining weeks you'll experience and you just will not survive if you're trying to cram every night before an exam. Rest, eating well and directed studying are the most important things that week.

Best of luck with them anyway!

Het-Field

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite a lot of people do it this way (myself included) and I would agree with the other posters that the Prep Courses are a huge advantage, even if you are straight out of your degree.

The three pieces of advice I would give are:

1. Identify Issues:
Particularly in the now compulsory question 1 on all papers. These tend to be the longest questions on the paper as it is worth 50% of the overall marks. Last year's criminal question was almost 2 A4 pages long with, if I recall, about 11 or 12 separate issues. The tort paper is the same but the issues are even trickier to spot given some of them are really particular torts.

2. Give advice:
Defences in particular should get a good chunk of your attention. Same as in an undergrad exam, if the question asks you to advise then be sure to advise. Some people had literally hundreds of cases learned off between the 5 exams but knowing the correct advice to give will be better for your result than knowing an obscure decision from New Zealand.

3. Don't Even Attempt To Cram:
If you haven't started studying already, start now. The exam week is one of the most draining weeks you'll experience and you just will not survive if you're trying to cram every night before an exam. Rest, eating well and directed studying are the most important things that week.

Best of luck with them anyway!

I cant disagree with a word of that.

Prepare yourself for the week. It is a physical and mental examination before one even considers the legal part ! The OP is lucky insofar as the timtable is concerned. In 2008, Tort was the final exam, which was grossly unfair. The 2009 paper was riddled with small issues which many lecturers choose to ignore such as "Detinue". The Law of Evidence, while complicated, is easier to contend with, and makes the last day easier to contend with. However, most people have a manic air about them come the last day, and are only too happy to finish.

In relation to whether one should take on exams having completed an undergraduate degree, I would point to the plethora of KI Diploma Graduates who immediatly undertake the Professional Course, having only studied law for two years. Thus, it should prove no difficulty those who come of the back of a 3/4 years LLB course.

The major caveat which I would state is that candidates should be very careful of what they study, or choose not to study. It would be easy to fall into the trap of prediciting the mandatory question. It had crossed my mind that the first question in Evidence could be the O'Brien Rule, in Constitutional it could be a Separation of Powers/Proportionality Question, and in Contract a Privity/General Contractual Principles question. This is logical on the basis that these areas are large, and often take a lot of time at undergraduate level. However, once I saw the Tort paper, I realised that the wide net I had cast in terms of study had paid off, as it was a large thematic question, which covered a wide variety of unrelated areas in a ludicrious scenario. Naturally, I deduced that this would be par for the course, and structred my remaining study hours focusing on topics which I had not paid much attention to. This equally paid off, as the first question in contract proved to be the specialised area of exemption/exclusion clauses, while the O Brien decision never appeared on the Evidence Paper. Although one could have dragged the area of proportionality into Constitutional, the first question was primairly about the Family and Religion Clauses. As such, I would implore all candidates not to ignore small areas, or attempt to predict the mandatory question. If i had trusted my original instincts, I dont believe I would have been as lucky.

Chamberlin

law10 wrote: »

Hey guys,
Was just wondering whether Kings Inns give you any manuals for the five entrance exams? And if so... How can i get them? I would greatly appreciate any helpful responses. Thanks

Hey, I'm going to do the entrance exams too this August. I'm not doing a prep course for the same reasons as you, so I'm hoping that I can do it by myself with the manuals! A friend of mine sat them last year and managed to study for them in 6 weeks and do quite well. The compulsory question means you can't really leave anything out and my friend said that unexpected topics came up as the compulsory question. The Inn's don't supply manuals but people do sell them on, they seem to be going for about 400eur. Best of luck with them!

panda_cub

I'm doing the Entrance exams in August as well without any prep course - I was getting worried hearing about all the people who are in Griffith etc. but glad to see there are more people going it alone as well! I'm hoping to get old manuals off a friend, though they won't have the most up-to-date decisions in them.

It's pretty daunting and so hard to get motivated studying at the moment but hopefully it'll pay off

Chamberlin

panda_cub wrote: »

I'm doing the Entrance exams in August as well without any prep course - I was getting worried hearing about all the people who are in Griffith etc. but glad to see there are more people going it alone as well! I'm hoping to get old manuals off a friend, though they won't have the most up-to-date decisions in them.

It's pretty daunting and so hard to get motivated studying at the moment but hopefully it'll pay off

I'm glad to see others are doing it alone too! I have last years manuals too but they should be fine to get a pass. Good luck with them, if you need anything let me know!

JuanPablo

Hey all! Hope the study is going well?!
Am doing a prep course myself and it obviously has its advantages but I don't see it as being a guarantee of passing, the way I see is that regardless of having manuals or a course you still hav to sit down and do the work....biggest hep is that the manuals are up to date and more exam focused!

Just interested to see what way people are approaching the exams? I'm going to opt for a broad approach and hope for the best, try cover as much as I can as well as I can in the time left
theres so much to cover and so many cases to remember it seems to be a bit daunting!!

3smurf

Ive actually applied to do the Entrance exams at Kings Inns this year and as Im from Galway am thinking about accommodation for the year and for the exams week. Just wondering ...from a non culchie...where abouts are good areas to live when going to Kings Inns and is there any place to find people in a similar position looking for accomodation for the incoming year?

Arsenal1986

I suppose anywhere in D7 or D1 would be handiest, Smithfield/Parnell street being very close. But D4 or D6 or D2 would all be relativley close with excellent buses goin near enough Kings Inn.

panda_cub

I was just coming on here to post about the Entrance exams and saw the title of the new thread re the BL degree course failures and nearly had a panic attack thinking it was about the entrance exams!!

Anyway, I was just going to say that I am having a mini panic about the exams in August. I am hopefully going to finish up writing up myown notes in the next few days and was going to start doing questions then but I don't know if I'll have the time with only a month left? I might just have to start learning off without practicing questions - but not sure I can face into a month of staring at pages... I know my mind will wander..

If anyone has any advice or is getting worried too would love to hear of anything that might help, a better approach perhaps?

Also - if you're going to freak me out about slow progress please be gentle, I may implode.

Tom Young

Yeah don't panic about that at all.

bahhoweya

Sounds like you're more prepared than me anyway Panda!

I think it best to try questions at the same time as learning off notes, that's what I'm doing, it means if you get bored of one you can do the other for awhile (two wonderful options to chose from ) , and hopefully get used to the format of the paper.

My biggest problem at the moment is that I have no guide as to whether I'm answering the problem questions well or not, it's not as clear as college exams, I'm worried I'm picking the wrong issues etc.

panda_cub

I know, that would be the benefit of doing one of the prep courses I suppose!

Could definitely do with exam grids to have a better idea of whether we're dealing with the right issues, how many usually in the questions etc. Always think I'm missing one!

LawGeek

I just started a Thread in the Legal Section of this Forum before seeing this Thread.

I am sitting the Inns Exams in August and am starting to panic now - big time!

LawGeek

LawGeek wrote: »

I just started a Thread in the Legal Section of this Forum before seeing this Thread.

I am sitting the Inns Exams in August and am starting to panic now - big time!

Don't panic. Just work hard. The exams are very passable if you do the proper preparation. Be sure to identify all the issues in each question, that'll go a long way to getting you over the line. Remember the only number that matters is 40 and everything after that is for ego. Best of luck.

FreudianSlippers

50 this year!

louloubell690

im the same major panic at the moment, im ok for 2 subjects but with the rest of them like tort, i find myself just reading the chapters n barely taking it in. is there any topics that could be cut out?

louloubell690

louloubell690 wrote: »

im the same major panic at the moment, im ok for 2 subjects but with the rest of them like tort, i find myself just reading the chapters n barely taking it in. is there any topics that could be cut out?

Honestly? No.

panda_cub

Im thinking at this stage, knowing all the topics but not in detail is our best bet - so we can identify the issues in the question, seems to be half the battle?

puca mor

panda_cub wrote: »

Im thinking at this stage, knowing all the topics but not in detail is our best bet - so we can identify the issues in the question, seems to be half the battle?

This is my approach. I think they're looking for issue-spotting and relevant info.. Prob best to have good general grasp.

puca mor

puca mor wrote: »

This is my approach. I think they're looking for issue-spotting and relevant info.. Prob best to have good general grasp.

Last year I'd have said this was a reasonable, if not all that great, approach.

However with the pass mark going up to 50% in line with the actual degree course I don't think this will be sufficient to pass. I don't mean to scare you but you need to know that you'll need to know more than just a general grasp.

puca mor

Yeah fair enough - i don't mean to suggest that i'm skimming through without looking at any detail.. but in the circumstances I will be unable to cover all the details for every topic of every subject, lamentable as my approach may be.

louloubell690

Do ye think that the increase in the pass rate to 50% will have much of an effect? ive heard it was due to incoming students not having enough legal knowledge and that the standard wasnt high enough, but on a purely practical level if less students get it, its less income for kings which is hardly economical atm.

puca mor

Not sure, it would seem if they've increased the pass grade on foot of requiring better knowledge, then fewer people will pass. You could be right about the money though!

What two subjects are you fine for louloubell? I think i'm probably best set for tort... worst for constitutional probably

louloubell690

i no contract n criminal well, ive skimmed through evidence n tort so not too great on them, n constitution i havnt a hope for, ive a mental block against the subject. ive it out infrount of me now n i cant stand it! how r u set? feeling very unprepared for the whole thing

puca mor

Yeah i'd have to say i feel massively under-prepared... but there is still some time left.. so just have to keep going.

I was never good at constitutional... it's quite a rambling subject - or at least that's how it seems to me - perhaps i just don't grasp it fully?!

I think tort and contract are not too bad... but criminal and evidence are iffy.

louloubell690

ive always hated constitution, to be honest i just dont understand it n its boring.

criminal is quite short, realy all there is, is actus reus and mens rea (all the bits to them), offences against ppl n property, and then the defences, i just find the amount less daunting then compared to tort, where there seems to b so much!

people seem to say that the overall pass rate of people doing the exams is very high, is this actually true? ugh i hate exams.

puca mor

I've heard the pass rate *was* around 80% - though if that was true, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be the same this year.

I suppose you just can't worry about the result in the meantime.

I worked at constitutional for about 4hrs this morning - and got through a tiny part of it it just keeps going - and there are so many cases cited in the syllabus...

I know what you mean about tort - but it's not too bad if you consider that most tort springs from negligence... criminal's not the worst - but i haven't had an exam in criminal law in about 3 years - so i'm not all that up to date

louloubell690

ya i herd 90% which seems very high, oh well i just have to get the head down and try and focus!

puca mor

Good luck!

I'm going to get my head down... right after i go down for a cup o coffee :P