Difficulty standard of FE1 exams?

ryanciara

Hi,

I am currently in my 3rd year of a law degree and I was considering doing the FE1 exams when I finish my degree and excuse me for being ignorant but is there much of a difference from the level of difficulty of law exams in a degree compared to that of the FE1 exams?

Thanks for your help.

NormalBob Ubiquitypants

Not really. Pretty much a repeat of the same stuff except , as far as I remember you do 5 questions instead of the usual 3. I think it is the quantity of exams that gets to people sitting them.

NoQuarter

Thought the fe1s were much more difficult myself.

chops018

They are much harder than undergraduate exams.

Most undergrad exams at the end of the year you will have a good idea of what is coming up, the questions won't be as long winded, and the lecturer will usually cut out any topics that were examined at the Christmas exams or topics that arose in Continuous Assessments. Plus I've found, personally anyway, that you can waffle a bit and not really understand something in an undergraduate exam and get away with the 50 mark once you have a few cases etc.

These exams are much more difficult. You have to know 90% of the syllabus to be sure of being able to attempt 5 questions, although some do much less and get pox lucky. You have to see how the examiner likes questions to be answered by reading the reports. No waffle, to the point, so state the law back up with cases legislation etc, tie it into the facts or essay question, move on. Understand the area well so you would be able to explain a topic to your mother/friend over a Sunday lunch.

From just looking it seems people seem to get all 8 over 3 sittings on average, but it's not surprising to see people do it over 2 in a year, and it's not surprising to see people take 5 or more sittings and take 2-3 years to get them all as some may fly through 5 or 6 and then stumble with the last couple and have to repeat.

Plus in college repeats come around a lot quicker, many people are usually not working full time in college, more interaction with the lecturer and so the examiner. I also think some of these exams are marked harder too.

Santa Cruz

FE1s harder. Used as a method of slowing down the rate new qualified people

Pat Mustard

FE-1s are harder. Also, of eight exams, you have to sit four and pass three in one go at the outset, in order to 'bank' those initial exams as having been passed. The pass mark in exams is 50%, as opposed to 40% in university.

You need to know your stuff and have had a lot of practise at past papers.

joycey31

Hi

Is there anybody who has sat the FE1 Exams with a non legal background, I have a Business degree but have an interest in Law.

S12b

My take:

* standard of answer required no different to undergrad
* volume of work required to pass in a different stratosphere to undergrad and this is what makes the FE-1 significantly harder

Bayb12

Would this include having academic commentary or you could you just get away with caselaw

Dandelion6

Bayb12 wrote: »

Would this include having academic commentary or you could you just get away with caselaw

Absolutely no need for academic commentary in the FE1s.

IRAC War

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Absolutely no need for academic commentary in the FE1s.

One would assume unless the area of law is unsettled but I'll defer to people who've actually done them of course.

Dandelion6

IRAC War wrote: »

One would assume unless the area of law is unsettled but I'll defer to people who've actually done them of course.

Even then you could get away with just referring to conflicting case law or, if there is no case law yet, just say that the courts have not yet determined the issue. I don't have a law degree and didn't refer to a single piece of academic commentary and I still passed all my FE1s comfortably on the first attempt. So defer to me

Robbo

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Absolutely no need for academic commentary in the FE1s.

As a general rule, I'd agree.

However where a particular area is known for being troublesome you might want a bit more to beef out your answer especially where past papers may indicate a "reform" style angle to an essay. An example of this would be in EU where it's basically impossible for a non-privileged applicant to judicially review an act of the Union.

Similarly in Constitutional, you'd want to throw some in for certain areas.

Mr. Incognito

The exams are not hard if you know the material.

Knowing the material is hard.

People are lazy, they leave topics out and gamble. And fail. Then gamble again. Then fail again.

The people that pass first time are the people that cover the material. Not some of it. Not most of it. ALL of it.

This allows you to cherry pick your questions and not be forced into a difficult answer because you "didnt study that topic".

You can guess at undergrad and leave things out. People carry this habit into the FE1s and get spanked.

If you want to pass them or excel study all the material. All of it.

IsaacWunder

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The exams are not hard if you know the material.

Knowing the material is hard.

People are lazy, they leave topics out and gamble. And fail. Then gamble again. Then fail again.

The people that pass first time are the people that cover the material. Not some of it. Not most of it. ALL of it.

This allows you to cherry pick your questions and not be forced into a difficult answer because you "didnt study that topic".

You can guess at undergrad and leave things out. People carry this habit into the FE1s and get spanked.

If you want to pass them or excel study all the material. All of it.

<<Mod; offensive remark deleted>> Most people doing the fe1s are working full time while sitting them, so they have less time to study than in college, not more. This idea that you're somehow deficient if you use your brain cells in an attempt to predict what will, or will not come up, is nonsense. There is some element of predicting carried out by everyone who sits them.

It's not a lottery. <<Mod; Offensive remark deleted>>
On this Forum pls keep it civil

Mr. Incognito

IsaacWunder wrote: »

. Most people doing the fe1s are working full time while sitting them, so they have less time to study than in college, not more. This idea that you're somehow deficient if you use your brain cells in an attempt to predict what will, or will not come up, is nonsense. There is some element of predicting carried out by everyone who sits them.

It's not a lottery. Only a fool would study every section equally.

Exhibit A.

Dandelion6

I was working full time when studying for mine and initially I thought I'd cover everything, but after a while it became clear that there were a few topics I just couldn't really get my head around, so I left those aside and focused on the others. When it came it to exam time it turned out two of the exams had so many difficult questions, if I was going to answer five then one of the five would have to be a subject I'd "dropped". So I pulled whatever I had left in the reserves of my mind about that topic, managed to construct an answer around it, and passed the exam. If I'd just decided from the start that I wasn't going to study those topics I doubt I'd have passed.

IRAC War

Dandelion6 wrote: »

I was working full time when studying for mine and initially I thought I'd cover everything, but after a while it became clear that there were a few topics I just couldn't really get my head around, so I left those aside and focused on the others. When it came it to exam time it turned out two of the exams had so many difficult questions, if I was going to answer five then one of the five would have to be a subject I'd "dropped". So I pulled whatever I had left in the reserves of my mind about that topic, managed to construct an answer around it, and passed the exam. If I'd just decided from the start that I wasn't going to study those topics I doubt I'd have passed.

I'm panicking about a retake tomorrow, I have to say this has kinda inspired me a bit!

nuac

IRAC War wrote: »

I'm panicking about a retake tomorrow, I have to say this has kinda inspired me a bit!

Hope all went well.

smeal

The volume of material required to pass is enormous compared to undergrad. The problem questions can be quite cryptic so if you haven't covered the bulk of the work and compare caselaw across the topics you would struggle on what topics you were being examined on. The content however is not anymore difficult than that learned at undergrad.

Unlike at undergraduate where you have the opportunity to learn directly from the lecturer/examiner it is difficult to know what the FE1 examiner is looking for. The exam reports can be quite vague in some subjects. Also, there is no exact consolidated learning material. Many people use the grinds college manuals and courses (eg. Independent, Griffith, City Colleges) which are brilliant however in recent sittings examiners have hit out at students relying too heavily on these courses and have focused away from the main material covered in the manual towards the "Law Society recommended syllabus" which is huge by the way and contains a list of every main academic material ever! For example, a couple of sittings back the examiner put a question on fire liability on the paper with the manuals only covering fire liability in a short paragraph making it pretty much impossible for people who had relied on their manual to get a good stab at that question. I would say though that the courses do cover you for 90% of what is required.

Again, as some people have already mentioned, a lot of people work full time and study at the same time. Unlike undergraduate where you can chip away at making notes throughout the semester and put all your manpower into maybe 2 weeks of full blown study prior to the exams, the FE1s require serious organisation and willpower in the months leading up to the exams. If you are working full time expect to have to re-organise your priorities in the evenings and weekends as you will need to prioritise studying ahead of hobbies and social life if you want to pass (not saying you need to give it up entirely e.g. go to the gym before work, if you're heading out on a Saturday night get up early on Saturday morning and set yourself a goal of doing 2/3 chapters before you go anywhere etc.)

Bayb12

smeal wrote: »

The volume of material required to pass is enormous compared to undergrad. The problem questions can be quite cryptic so if you haven't covered the bulk of the work and compare caselaw across the topics you would struggle on what topics you were being examined on. The content however is not anymore difficult than that learned at undergrad.

Unlike at undergraduate where you have the opportunity to learn directly from the lecturer/examiner it is difficult to know what the FE1 examiner is looking for. The exam reports can be quite vague in some subjects. Also, there is no exact consolidated learning material. Many people use the grinds college manuals and courses (eg. Independent, Griffith, City Colleges) which are brilliant however in recent sittings examiners have hit out at students relying too heavily on these courses and have focused away from the main material covered in the manual towards the "Law Society recommended syllabus" which is huge by the way and contains a list of every main academic material ever! For example, a couple of sittings back the examiner put a question on fire liability on the paper with the manuals only covering fire liability in a short paragraph making it pretty much impossible for people who had relied on their manual to get a good stab at that question. I would say though that the courses do cover you for 90% of what is required.

Again, as some people have already mentioned, a lot of people work full time and study at the same time. Unlike undergraduate where you can chip away at making notes throughout the semester and put all your manpower into maybe 2 weeks of full blown study prior to the exams, the FE1s require serious organisation and willpower in the months leading up to the exams. If you are working full time expect to have to re-organise your priorities in the evenings and weekends as you will need to prioritise studying ahead of hobbies and social life if you want to pass (not saying you need to give it up entirely e.g. go to the gym before work, if you're heading out on a Saturday night get up early on Saturday morning and set yourself a goal of doing 2/3 chapters before you go anywhere etc.)

Would it be right to say that at undergrad you answer a question by setting out the entire law in that area ie if it's offer you discuss everything including invitation to treat etc.

Whereas from reading the examiners reports if your offer question is just concerned with revocation you don't need to go into the detail of every thing relating to offer in that chapter?

smeal

Bayb12 wrote: »

Would it be right to say that at undergrad you answer a question by setting out the entire law in that area ie if it's offer you discuss everything including invitation to treat etc.

Whereas from reading the examiners reports if your offer question is just concerned with revocation you don't need to go into the detail of every thing relating to offer in that chapter?

Yes. The examiners really dislike the "write everything you know" approach.. They want you to address the issue at hand and answer the question. Depending on the question of course, it is often no harm to sum up the background to the topic you are answering in a few lines in your introduction but there is no need to write reams and reams of regurgitated notes for the sake of it- you will only lose marks and waste time.

Also, try not to worry about how much you actually wrote for your answers. You'll often come out of exams and hear people (or else see people on boards) discussing how many pages of answers they wrote. Doing well in these exams relies heavily on quality over quantity. You could easily give a top answer to a problem question in 1.5 pages with only 3 cases if you have addressed and answered the question as opposed to X who writes 6 pages and mentions 15 cases, 12 of which had absolutely no application to the problem set out.

Remember, you only have 3 hours to do 5 questions when you probably only had 3 questions to do at undergrad. I think it works out at 10 mins to read the paper, 10 mins to check over your paper at the end and 33 mins per question or something along those lines