FE1 Challenge the Rules

illy.m · 06-10-2018 12:07pm #1

Anyone looking into challenging the current position of the FE1s, i.e. keeping the exam subjects in same order for all sittings, and the pass in 3 exams rule.

Vegetarian2017 · 06-10-2018 12:23pm

I am 100 percent agreed on having the rules changed. I am exam free from Tuesday. We can present recommendations to the law society with x amount of signatures.
I think you can set up online petitions on some site again i can look into this on Tuesday.

jewels652 · 06-10-2018 12:43pm

I am also 100% behind this. What I said earlier about the boycott probably I wasn’t clear. A boycott will be our last measure and off course we need to get a lot of people on board. I know that getting everyone may be imposible.
But We need to start with friendly discussions first and put our argument forward:
1. Securing 3 rule
2. Timetable
3. More guidance from examiners

We don’t want to start with big demands either. Anyway my last exam is on Tuesday after that I can concentrate on this issue. We could organise a meeting maybe in December after we get the exam results. Surely we’ll get a lot angry people who failed their exam ( I probably be one of those) also we should also target prospective Fe1s students. We could do talks in universities for last year Law students.

If anybody wants to pm their email we could organise a WhatsApp group as well as we don’t want to put too much info in here as it is too public.

We can do this guys we are the future solicitors of Ireland and we need to stand and end this injustice.

Best of luck to you all in the exams!

illy.m · 06-10-2018 12:53pm

jewels652 wrote: »

I am also 100% behind this. What I said earlier about the boycott probably I wasn’t clear. A boycott will be our last measure and off course we need to get a lot of people on board. I know that getting everyone may be imposible.
But We need to start with friendly discussions first and put our argument forward:
1. Securing 3 rule
2. Timetable
3. More guidance from examiners

We don’t want to start with big demands either. Anyway my last exam is on Tuesday after that I can concentrate on this issue. We could organise a meeting maybe in December after we get the exam results. Surely we’ll get a lot angry people who failed their exam ( I probably be one of those) also we should also target prospective Fe1s students. We could do talks in universities for last year Law students.

If anybody wants to pm their email we could organise a WhatsApp group as well as we don’t want to put too much info in here as it is too public.

We can do this guys we are the future solicitors of Ireland and we need to stand and end this injustice.

Best of luck to you all in the exams!

Good points mentioned. I was thinking of contacting the SU in colleges to spread the word to 4th year students in colleges. I am up for the whatsup group.

Good luck in exams guys!

R146 · 06-10-2018 12:57pm

Not sure which poster mentioned it but I think the idea of exemptions is definitely something that ought to be considered.

If you look at the ACCA exams for example - candidates can qualify for exemptions. Seems to me that FE1 candidates should have a similar opportunity. I, for one, think a potential solution would be that exemptions could be given if you got a minimum of a 2.1 in the subject in university.

I also agree that what’s needed is a fair ‘middle ground’.

jus_me · 06-10-2018 2:49pm

Needing to pass 3 the first time or else none count as a pass is so unfair and discouraging you should get to bank every subject you pass

TemptationWaits · 06-10-2018 3:20pm

Hey guys! A big thing I don't think anyone has mentioned yet is that if you pay €110 for a "re-check" it's not even rechecked. They just tot up the marks again - no actual reread of your script. Defo a violation of fair procedures there I'd say! Unless I'm wrong about this?

jewels652 · 06-10-2018 3:39pm

TemptationWaits wrote: »

Hey guys! A big thing I don't think anyone has mentioned yet is that if you pay €110 for a "re-check" it's not even rechecked. They just tot up the marks again - no actual reread of your script. Defo a violation of fair procedures there I'd say! Unless I'm wrong about this?

I didn’t know that. Wow the more I read the more I realise the treatment we get is shocking. We can’t let them get away with this any longer we need to take action how frustrating this whole thing is.

To add to my stress I am trying to book the red cow for next Monday to Tuesday and is booked. I am travelling from Cork I will be terrified to drive that morning in case I get caught up in traffic and I am exhausted as it is.
Also we should be able to get special rates from the hotel I paid high rates and I was only staying for one night. There are people who stayed for 4/5 days crazy and unfair.
Seriously, you need to be rich to be able to qualify as a solicitor. People who are earning minimum wage can’t just afford it such stressful luxury.

SwD · 06-10-2018 3:41pm

R146 wrote: »

Not sure which poster mentioned it but I think the idea of exemptions is definitely something that ought to be considered.

If you look at the ACCA exams for example - candidates can qualify for exemptions. Seems to me that FE1 candidates should have a similar opportunity. I, for one, think a potential solution would be that exemptions could be given if you got a minimum of a 2.1 in the subject in university.

I also agree that what’s needed is a fair ‘middle ground’.

I completley disagree with the 3/3 rule.

However, comparing the FE1 exams to university exams is outrageous. The density of the FE1 manuals is far greater and beyond the tip the hat upcoming exam topics you receive at university. Any notions that we as law students should be exempt from a subject, in particular for a 2.1, because it was undertaken during university is ridiculous.

I'm all for change, but lets not push the boat out too far to sea.

vid36 · 06-10-2018 3:42pm

jewels652 wrote: »

I didn’t know that. Wow the more I read the more I realise the treatment we get is shocking. We can’t let them get away with this any longer we need to take action how frustrating this whole thing is.

To add to my stress I am trying to book the red cow for next Monday to Tuesday and is booked. I am travelling from Cork I will be terrified to drive that morning in case I get caught up in traffic and I am exhausted as it is.
Also we should be able to get special rates from the hotel I paid high rates and I was only staying for one night. There are people who stayed for 4/5 days crazy and unfair.
Seriously, you need to be rich to be able to qualify as a solicitor. People who are earning minimum wage can’t just afford it such stressful luxury.

The Ibis is just down the road from the Red Cow.

jewels652 · 06-10-2018 3:47pm

vid36 wrote: »

The Ibis is just down the road from the Red Cow.

I just booked the ibis.
Thanks

aecc · 06-10-2018 3:58pm

TemptationWaits wrote: »

Hey guys! A big thing I don't think anyone has mentioned yet is that if you pay €110 for a "re-check" it's not even rechecked. They just tot up the marks again - no actual reread of your script. Defo a violation of fair procedures there I'd say! Unless I'm wrong about this?

No way??? I didn't know this either. Makes the whole process even more disheartening.

How did you find this out may I ask?

TemptationWaits · 06-10-2018 4:53pm

aecc wrote: »

No way??? I didn't know this either. Makes the whole process even more disheartening.

How did you find this out may I ask?

This is just word of mouth.

illy.m · 06-10-2018 5:20pm

Guys, just wanted to say that if anyone have friends/people they know from college doing the FE1s at the moment, could you please spread the word re this thread. So that we could get as many people on as possible!

jewels652 · 06-10-2018 5:34pm

Perhaps we should also open a private Facebook page as well.
That will spread very fast

frankz · 06-10-2018 6:36pm

Jenosul wrote: »

I agree also. Totally disagree with the exams. It is but a mere memory test. The concept of having to pass 3 to keep 3 is completely unfair. I have never heard of such a standard in an exam.

They need to take into account that we are actually finished our college lives and most full time employees. The fatigue and stress for such an unproductive endeavor is chronic. I had to just go to bed after my last exam as I literally did not feel well and am popping pills constantly for splitting headaches, coupled with having to work full-time and study.

I think a petition is a great idea. A big boycott would also work but getting everyone on board would be a difficult task. The 50% pass is also bs. We are paying enough money to sit them at least make the rules some what on the side of fairness.

How do we go about organizing a petition. If we do this we need to actually go about it.

The reports repeatedly say that its not about memory its about reasoning and analysis and that the lack of this and just regurgitating an essay leads to failure.

They really dont need to take into account our private lives and/or work situation.

50% is that high and what we should be let pass because we pay money???

Working in law takes a lot more logic and reasoning that is coming across in the complaints.

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Ok last comment re fe1 but if one can prove they are working fulltime there should be some exemption ie. 40 or 45 percent pass rate for those in fulltime employment or spread exams out anything at this stage. Right back to study.

Cause it is hugely fair to have one pass mark for one person and a different pass mark for another? Equity anyone. (plus how could it possibly work operationally)

I think the exam stress is pushing people to just vent.

What we might be able to get is the exams spread out - one lecturer who is an examiner told us that the reason they were condensed was that people were moaning that it was talking too long to get results out!!
(ie if you spread them over 15 days the person who sits an exam on day 1 has a long wait so complaints! So we need to be careful what we wish for!)

Vegetarian2017 · 06-10-2018 7:15pm

I would highly doubt people working full-time would rather condense the exams and sit under extreme fatigue to have theor results 2 or 3 weeks sooner. Example answers (not that i have any) are doing the rounds and people are passing and using these for exams.

The tough part of these exams is the stamina you need to get through them. They could be organised much better perhaps open book and a further range of topics then the 8 we have sat in college so students are getting to use their ability. No doubt examiners would prefer that than read the same ****ty easements questions over and over again.

These are merely suggestions, probably not processed and yes we are all tired. Before any further steps, we of course need to think through our suggestions and get feedback to ensure they are workable to everyone's benefit.
And why should we go through this process with absolutely no transparency. We cannot till now perhaps request our exam script or get feedback for the price we pay. It is ridiculous.

R146 · 06-10-2018 7:26pm

SwD wrote: »

I completley disagree with the 3/3 rule.

However, comparing the FE1 exams to university exams is outrageous. The density of the FE1 manuals is far greater and beyond the tip the hat upcoming exam topics you receive at university. Any notions that we as law students should be exempt from a subject, in particular for a 2.1, because it was undertaken during university is ridiculous.

I'm all for change, but lets not push the boat out too far to sea.

frankz wrote: »

The reports repeatedly say that its not about memory its about reasoning and analysis and that the lack of this and just regurgitating an essay leads to failure.

They really dont need to take into account our private lives and/or work situation.
50% is that high and what we should be let pass because we pay money???

Working in law takes a lot more logic and reasoning that is coming across in the complaints.

Cause it is hugely fair to have one pass mark for one person and a different pass mark for another? Equity anyone. (plus how could it possibly work operationally)

I think the exam stress is pushing people to just vent.

What we might be able to get is the exams spread out - one lecturer who is an examiner told us that the reason they were condensed was that people were moaning that it was talking too long to get results out!!
(ie if you spread them over 15 days the person who sits an exam on day 1 has a long wait so complaints! So we need to be careful what we wish for!)

Definitely agree that working or studying full time shouldn’t be considered. You may think it harsh but the point of the exam is to show you understand the law- Not that you can tot up marks. Also agree it’s not practical.

Spreading exams out again makes sense. If there was an exam every Sunday for 8 weeks for example that’d be a lot more fair on candidates.

As regards exemptions - I see no reason why it couldn’t/ shouldn’t be considered. I have no idea how this could work in practice hence I said I think it should be *considered*.
The possibility of being given hints for exams is there regardless of whether you do commerce, science or law. So it doesn’t make sense to me why there couldn’t be some form of exemptions in place akin to that of what is offered for other professional exams.
To make myself clear, the FE1 syllabus is much broader than what I covered in university so of course I should be tested on what I haven’t studied. But why not exempt people from redoing what they’ve already done? The only issue I see with this is how it’d work in practice. Which could be why no such system is in place. Or maybe degrees aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. (Poor attempt at humour)

In all honesty I think the discussion should probably take off after the exams are done - once everyone isn’t so stressed. Thing is even if change does happen I can’t see it being at a time that we will benefit from it so these exams are gonna have to be passed one way or another.

illy.m · 06-10-2018 7:31pm

Yes we are all tired! but what I realised today, is that people are unhappy and they think the process is unfair! Even if I pass all exams I think it is something that should be addressed to the Law Society as it does seem to be an unfair process. I am not trying to say that "Lets get rid if these exams", but the fact that we do have to sit them (No such thing in UK or US, or EU. They have equivalents to the LawSoc, but no such exams to get into the LawSoc.)

Having that in mind, they complicate it by the "3 exam pass" rule, 50% pass mark and the fat that the exams are being charged around all the time. For example if a person applied to sit 4 exams this time, in a way they have at least a day in between the exams, and they pass all 4 exams, then next sitting when they sit the remaining 4 exams due to the fact that they change them around all the time, that person might be sitting they one after the other. How is that fair? What is the reason for this?

If everyone just sits and says oh there is probably reason for this etc. then nothing is going to change. What I am saying, they get so much money out of it, and I am prepared to give that money, sit and study and forget about my life for a period, but lets just make it more favourable for people. Even with the recheck, I want to see my paper, see what mistakes I made and where I can improve.

frankz · 06-10-2018 7:33pm

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

I would highly doubt people working full-time would rather condense the exams and sit under extreme fatigue to have theor results 2 or 3 weeks sooner. Example answers (not that i have any) are doing the rounds and people are passing and using these for exams.

The tough part of these exams is the stamina you need to get through them. They could be organised much better perhaps open book and a further range of topics then the 8 we have sat in college so students are getting to use their ability. No doubt examiners would prefer that than read the same ****ty easements questions over and over again.

These are merely suggestions, probably not processed and yes we are all tired. Before any further steps, we of course need to think through our suggestions and get feedback to ensure they are workable to everyone's benefit.
And why should we go through this process with absolutely no transparency. We cannot till now perhaps request our exam script or get feedback for the price we pay. It is ridiculous.

Fair enough, that is a more balanced and objective approach than some other posters.

Whilst you may doubt it I can only tell you what the examiner told us caused the exams to be condensed.

The problem with the sample answers are that obviously we dont know the question!!! So it would appear that people are not tailoring the generic answers to the nuances of the question.

Your ability point is a good one but very easy for the Society to say perhaps we could use our ability on the ones we are now required to sit!! And having sat them in various years in college doesn't show that we know enough about them for professional level.

Plus looking for a further range when we are struggling with the range that we have already passed hardly seems sensible!

We can now see the scripts and to be honest I never got huge feedback in college.
The exam papers are there and the reports are there is a level of transparency - I never saw such reports in college.

frankz · 06-10-2018 7:40pm

R146 wrote: »

Definitely agree that working or studying full time shouldn’t be considered. You may think it harsh but the point of the exam is to show you understand the law- Not that you can tot up marks. Also agree it’s not practical.

Spreading exams out again makes sense. If there was an exam every Sunday for 8 weeks for example that’d be a lot more fair on candidates.

As regards exemptions - I see no reason why it couldn’t/ shouldn’t be considered. I have no idea how this could work in practice hence I said I think it should be *considered*.
The possibility of being given hints for exams is there regardless of whether you do commerce, science or law. So it doesn’t make sense to me why there couldn’t be some form of exemptions in place akin to that of what is offered for other professional exams.
To make myself clear, the FE1 syllabus is much broader than what I covered in university so of course I should be tested on what I haven’t studied. But why not exempt people from redoing what they’ve already done? The only issue I see with this is how it’d work in practice. Which could be why no such system is in place. Or maybe degrees aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. (Poor attempt at humour)

In all honesty I think the discussion should probably take off after the exams are done - once everyone isn’t so stressed. Thing is even if change does happen I can’t see it being at a time that we will benefit from it so these exams are gonna have to be passed one way or another.

Yes, but is easy for the society to say well if you like the exemption requirements for being an accountant/ scientist / transponder then meet the requirement of those bodies.

In terms of retesting people on what we have done - we have shown that we dont know it to level of detail required.

I think the degree is hugely valuable - but its not a training ground just for FE1's; its to get people to the level of a degree.

Going down the practice route is different.

4ensic15 · 06-10-2018 7:45pm

There were exemptions at one time in the sense that law graduates didn't have to sit the FE-1s at all. All very well until Queens University took a case because their degree wasn't eligible. Result - everyone does the FE-1s.

Teamhrach · 06-10-2018 8:22pm

frankz wrote: »

I think the degree is hugely valuable - but its not a training ground just for FE1's; its to get people to the level of a degree.

Going down the practice route is different.

It's like passing higher maths for the leaving cert and feeling entitled to a PhD! :rolleyes:

I don’t agree with exemptions at all. I had extenuating circumstances for 5 of the last 6 years but got my degree and masters on merit and I wouldn’t want it to be any other way with the FE1s. It’s completely unworkable to have exemptions for some individuals - where’s the cut off point? Some people would chance their arm and get around it as I know people managed in uni.

That said, having to pass 3 is very difficult when ill and/or working full time, bringing up a family or whatever candidates have to deal with, so that should definitely be looked at - for us to have a more enjoyable quality of life during our 20’s (or later), rather than having to sacrifice something or other, as going by today’s comments, a lot of us are having to do. I'd guess that most of the people running the law soc didn't have to endure the FE-1s? Maybe reduce it to having to sit 3 but pass 2... It shouldn't be made overly easy but I'm sure it's soul-destroying on people who sit 3 and almost make it.

Re the venue: people from the west of Ireland are travelling anything from 3-6 hours which is tiresome and unnecessary. I’d love to see additional, more accessible, affordable venues around the country, even two venues in the midlands like Carrick-on-Shannon and Nenagh or something. I'm from north west Donegal but it would be a great compromise for people in my boat. It shouldn’t be difficult sourcing invigilators etc and there'd be lots of accommodation.

I have my magic 3 and have had so much more to contend with than exams, so I’m no longer stressing over them. One thing I am aggrieved at [no one needs to comment on this point] is that I contacted the Law Soc about 2-3 weeks before the exams to say I wouldn’t be sitting them because a relative was terminally ill (and knew it would likely coincide). They died the day I was due to start and had wake/funeral on the other days. The Law Soc kept an admin fee for EACH of my exams. I think that’s a bit low when I told them in advance and had produced a death certificate, death notice and my birth cert confirming I was related. [This point is me ranting but the other points I believe are very valid and applicable for a lot of students around the country]

illy.m · 06-10-2018 8:34pm

This is what I am saying, we are not asking for an exemption, but a more humane treatment. What is a problem of having the order of the exams same all the time? People saying that the pass 3 exam rule is reasonable as Fe1 are harder than college exams etc. But they already have a higher pass mark of 50% - I think is it fair to say at least that they make everything to make our lives harder. Also, it absolutely breaks my heart when older colleagues say "Oh we didn't have to sit them". Was college degree enough standard back in the 90s? Ok, its fine if it would have been challenged on that basis, however it was due to some student in NI. So why have the 3 pass rule? We are unfortunate enough to sit them anyway.

illy.m · 06-10-2018 8:39pm

Also, the law society itself consist of study and getting you to the standard required. Did anyone know they have ethics module (someone could correct me on the right name of the module) where they get actors who teach you how to talk and prepare for a case etc. Also take for example conveyancing, its mostly procedural - what should you do in what case and what forms needed etc. And once you pass those exams and get your traineeship done then you qualify as a solicitor. Passing the Fe1 does not make you a solicitor.

R146 · 06-10-2018 8:45pm

Teamhrach wrote: »

It's like passing higher maths for the leaving cert and feeling entitled to a PhD! :rolleyes:

I don’t agree with exemptions at all. I had extenuating circumstances for 5 of the last 6 years but got my degree and masters on merit and I wouldn’t want it to be any other way with the FE1s. It’s completely unworkable to have exemptions for some individuals - where’s the cut off point? Some people would chance their arm and get around it as I know people managed in uni.

That said, having to pass 3 is very difficult when ill and/or working full time, bringing up a family or whatever candidates have to deal with, so that should definitely be looked at - for us to have a more enjoyable quality of life during our 20’s (or later), rather than having to sacrifice something or other, as going by today’s comments, a lot of us are having to do. I'd guess that most of the people running the law soc didn't have to endure the FE-1s? Maybe reduce it to having to sit 3 but pass 2... It shouldn't be made overly easy but I'm sure it's soul-destroying on people who sit 3 and almost make it.

Re the venue: people from the west of Ireland are travelling anything from 3-6 hours which is tiresome and unnecessary. I’d love to see additional, more accessible, affordable venues around the country, even two venues in the midlands like Carrick-on-Shannon and Nenagh or something. I'm from north west Donegal but it would be a great compromise for people in my boat. It shouldn’t be difficult sourcing invigilators etc and there'd be lots of accommodation.

I have my magic 3 and have had so much more to contend with than exams, so I’m no longer stressing over them. One thing I am aggrieved at [no one needs to comment on this point] is that I contacted the Law Soc about 2-3 weeks before the exams to say I wouldn’t be sitting them because a relative was terminally ill (and knew it would likely coincide). They died the day I was due to start and had wake/funeral on the other days. The Law Soc kept an admin fee for EACH of my exams. I think that’s a bit low when I told them in advance and had produced a death certificate, death notice and my birth cert confirming I was related. [This point is me ranting but the other points I believe are very valid and applicable for a lot of students around the country]

What I was actually thinking of was more along the lines of certain areas of topics not being examined due to a competency in that area. But again - practicalities.

Your point about merit I agree with and was in a similar situation as you for university. I worked for what I achieved and like you wouldn’t have it any other way. I’m not talking about being handed a professional qualification - that would be nothing short of balmy. What I am really looking at is whether there is a way to recognize the work already done. But the point was fairly made previously that the degree is examined from an academic standpoint.

The passing two at a time rule to me is just as ridiculous as having to pass three - if you pass any FE1 exam you should be entitled to have that recognized. It shouldn’t matter how many other exams you did or did not pass in that sitting - if the point is to show competency in each subject.

I am sorry to hear about your family member and sympathize with you for having to go through so much to get the application fee back. I think if there was a set fee charged for admin as opposed to say 25 per exam it may be more fair. That said, perhaps this wouldn’t balance out monetary wise for them.

jewels652 · 06-10-2018 8:49pm

frankz wrote: »

The reports repeatedly say that its not about memory its about reasoning and analysis and that the lack of this and just regurgitating an essay leads to failure.

They really dont need to take into account our private lives and/or work situation.

Frankz
Thank you so much for outlining the points that may be used against our arguments when we launch the petition. I actually expect the Law society to even make stronger arguments against our points and they will try and shot us down. That is to be expected, at the end of the day if we succeed the result would be the end of their money making machine.

Anyway, like I said earlier we are not going to make high demands. The demands we are making are actually reasonable.
It is very unfair having to sit the exams in such a tight timetable, having to take time of work and like many of us having to travel from far away and pay money in accommodation for 3 or 4 days.

It is also very very unfair passing two exams out of 3 but having to repeat those 3 all over again. What is the purpose of that rule? Where is the equity on that? Or the fairness. What?? failing 2 out of 3 is not punishment enough is like kicking a man when he is already down.

Also the lack of transparency and guidance given to students so we don’t have to just rely on predictions or having to cover everything on the syllabus so you can make sure that you will be well covered in the exam. Well I don’t have time for that. I don’t have the time to study the entire syllabus. And not everybody have the time or money to do the professional courses.
So yeah they don’t have to consider our personal circumstances but at least give us some guidance, don’t be so harsh on us and don’t charge so much and if we request to see our paper to see where we went wrong have the decency to at least have the examiner to go through it with the student so that student can be better prepared next time. Is that too much to ask? I don’t think so. Surely, the are getting well paid to take 20 minutes out of their time to go through an exam script with a student.

The law society have been very unreasonable with their charges and their treatment of the students. Is all about making money for them.

Somebody commented about other professional bodies. If you study physiotherapy in Ireland for example, once you finish your degree you can go and practice but off course if you are a physiotherapist who trained in another jurisdiction then OFF COURSE you need to do the exams to be able to qualify in Ireland. This is completely reasonable this is because the profesional body for physiotherapists already know that the universities in Ireland meet the requirements. However, it is not practical for them to verify the standards in other countries so it makes sense that the entrance exams are only for those who trained in another jurisdiction. Imagine if they decide to introduce the entrance requirements required for foreign trained physiotherapists to those train in Ireland ? Will they just accepted and take it in the chin? I don’t think so.

Why should it be different for us who studied law for 3 or 4 long years and on top of everything is not enough we have to do exams we have to do another year of PPC in Dublin and 18 Months of traineeship. Am I the only one that thinks these requirements are completely unreasonable?

And like I said I am not looking for high demands what I am looking is for the 3 exam rule to be abolished and for the timetables to be changed. Somebody suggested that one exam every Sunday that would actually work out. I rather wait longer for the results than having to go to the stress of sitting one exam after the other and that way there won’t be any need to take time of work. That was a great suggestion whoever made it.

Again somebody else mention that this is not done in other jurisdictions and is true I applied for the New York bar and it Only costs 750€ to do the 3 exams one is open book and multiple choice questions after passing exams you do 50 hours pro bono and do a fitness to practice interview and if you passed you are a fully qualified Attorney noo need to do another year of PPC or 18 months of training and it also applies to foreign lawyers.
It is actually more expensive for me to qualify here than in New York and that is taking into account the price of the New York exam travel expenses and accommodation to go for the 3 days to do sit the exam and then to do the interview.
While some people are happy with the rules imposed by the law society there are many people out there that are very unhappy and are not longer willing to put up with their unreasonable and unfair treatment of students and if this is the view of the majority, then we will stand for them and make sure they are heard.
In the meantime, this is an issue that I will consider once I finish my exams.
Best of luck everyone.

frankz · 06-10-2018 9:09pm

Jewels - you are welcome. We are all trying to make it better. The crazy suggestions dont help anybody.

Would agree with most of what you say except for the bit about not having the time to cover the entire syllabus - there is just no arguing that; makes it too easy for them.

frankz · 06-10-2018 9:37pm

jewels652 wrote: »

frankz wrote: »

The reports repeatedly say that its not about memory its about reasoning and analysis and that the lack of this and just regurgitating an essay leads to failure.

They really dont need to take into account our private lives and/or work situation.

Frankz
Thank you so much for outlining the points that may be used against our arguments when we launch the petition. I actually expect the Law society to even make stronger arguments against our points and they will try and shot us down. That is to be expected, at the end of the day if we succeed the result would be the end of their money making machine.

Anyway, like I said earlier we are not going to make ...

Just to add
Thats not really a point for or against either and the rest of the post goes in a different direction so it we are too succeed we cant be passive aggressive and quoting one point and then going on to answer a totally different point. (Same as an FE1 exam question:)!)

The quoted point is not an argument with the society, learnt off answers to old questions obviously dont answer new unseen questions.

Personal lives is not an argument - to achieve certain things I couldn't do things my friends did and visa versa. I am happy with my decisions and believe they are happy with theirs and we both achieved some of our goals and are striving for others.

frankz · 06-10-2018 9:44pm

jewels652 wrote: »

So yeah they don’t have to consider our personal circumstances but at least give us some guidance, don’t be so harsh on us and don’t charge so much and if we request to see our paper to see where we went wrong have the decency to at least have the examiner to go through it with the student so that student can be better prepared next time. Is that too much to ask? I don’t think so. Surely, the are getting well paid to take 20 minutes out of their time to go through an exam script with a student.
...

.

????
Ok, have I been sucked in by a troll?

The examiner is going to offer 20 minutes to each student to sit with something between 650 and 900 students? Ya, that realistic.

If not a troll I think you maybe forgetting this is not just about you.

frankz · 06-10-2018 9:45pm

jewels652 wrote: »

Perhaps we should also open a private Facebook page as well.
That will spread very fast

Surely make it public?

A private one is just an echo chamber.

Teamhrach · 06-10-2018 10:47pm

There’s a King’s Inns & FE1 student page on Facebook if someone copies the link for this thread on there.

A private Facebook group might be better.....rather than getting infiltrated by spies here. Think: MI1/KGB resurfacing, The LS, or NON-FE1 students stirring... If you know, you know (:

Vegetarian2017 · 06-10-2018 10:55pm

Teamhrach wrote:

I have my magic 3 and have had so much more to contend with than exams, so Iâ€™m no longer stressing over them. One thing I am aggrieved at [no one needs to comment on this point] is that I contacted the Law Soc about 2-3 weeks before the exams to say I wouldnâ€™t be sitting them because a relative was terminally ill (and knew it would likely coincide). They died the day I was due to start and had wake/funeral on the other days. The Law Soc kept an admin fee for EACH of my exams. I think thatâ€™s a bit low when I told them in advance and had produced a death certificate, death notice and my birth cert confirming I was related. [This point is me ranting but the other points I believe are very valid and applicable for a lot of students around the country]

I am not on facebook

could we at least keep it here till after exams?

MagicThree18 · 07-10-2018 8:41am

I'm also frustrated by the current system but I must say some of the suggestions on here, and over on the FE1 thread, are ridiculous. Lowering the pass rate to 40% for those in full-time employment? Unworkable and open to abuse.

Personally, I'd just like to see the 'pass three' requirement dropped and a fixed timetable each year so people can identify what subjects they're targeting well in advance. These are not college exams and many, if not most, candidates will be working full or part-time.

I failed to land the magic three last year because all three were back to back and, with no study leave or days off in between, I burned out on the final day. It's so dispiriting to put in the time, hard work and money, but then to fall at the final hurdle because of factors outside of your control.

I accept that time management and stamina are all part of an exam experience, but there is no concession whatsoever given to the fact that these are exams being sat by working people. Even the 9:30am start gets my goat. Morning exams in the Red Cow Hotel, near one of the most notorious traffic bottle necks in the country. There's just no need for it.

Vegetarian2017 · 07-10-2018 9:48am

MagicThree18 wrote:

Personally, I'd just like to see the 'pass three' requirement dropped and a fixed timetable each year so people can identify what subjects they're targeting well in advance. These are not college exams and many, if not most, candidates will be working full or part-time.

MagicThree18 wrote:

I failed to land the magic three last year because all three were back to back and, with no study leave or days off in between, I burned out on the final day. It's so dispiriting to put in the time, hard work and money, but then to fall at the final hurdle because of factors outside of your control.

I made some good suggestions yesterday and some bad not thinking them through. Purely exhausted right now and frustrated. Obviously we will be thinking them through before taking any steps.

jewels652 · 07-10-2018 10:51am

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

I made some good suggestions yesterday and some bad not thinking them through. Purely exhausted right now and frustrated. Obviously we will be thinking them through before taking any steps.

Exactly, I made crazy suggestions too. I am exhausted I am actually thinking of not even showing up for property on Tuesday and I find property the handiest and more manageable module but I think my brain can’t keep going, I have a chest infection taking antibiotics but is just not getting better.

After the exams we need to organise a meeting where we can come up with valid points that we can put forward again I am not looking for anything unreasonable.

frankz · 07-10-2018 11:09am

Fair points, its probably the wrong time for this thread.

Vegetarian - I mean this in a helpful way - not looking back over recent papers is really really making it hard for yourself.

Yes the system could be better but you have also got to play smart and help yourself rather than criticise the system when you didn't use the resources that were there.

TemptationWaits · 07-10-2018 11:20am

frankz wrote: »

Fair points, its probably the wrong time for this thread.

Vegetarian - I mean this in a helpful way - not looking back over recent papers is really really making it hard for yourself.

Yes the system could be better but you have also got to play smart and help yourself rather than criticise the system when you didn't use the resources that were there.

This has actually put me in mind of another failing on the part of the Law Society. Why are past papers available for purchase in the format €6 for March 2018 sitting, €6 for March 2018 exam report, etc? They should follow the leaving cert formula and do up a booklet of say the past 10 papers for one exam and the exam reports. That way if you're sitting property you can buy the property exam papers.

Vegetarian2017 · 07-10-2018 11:31am

frankz wrote:

Vegetarian - I mean this in a helpful way - not looking back over recent papers is really really making it hard for yourself.

No problem. I do look back over exam papers but only have till 2014. Probably not wise.

Vegetarian2017 · 07-10-2018 11:36am

TemptationWaits wrote:

This has actually put me in mind of another failing on the part of the Law Society. Why are past papers available for purchase in the format â‚¬6 for March 2018 sitting, â‚¬6 for March 2018 exam report, etc? They should follow the leaving cert formula and do up a booklet of say the past 10 papers for one exam and the exam reports. That way if you're sitting property you can buy the property exam papers.

Isnt it actually a joke!! We shouldn't have to pay for the exam report and the exam separate wtf like!! It should be posted online if we are not been given individual feedback. I genuinely thought i was alone in my thoughts of the law society taking advantage. Seems I'm not I need to try put it aside. I'm not feeling well yes get the violins out but my remaining two exams i am not sure if i am able. Will give my best shot. But on Tuesday or Wednesday il be back on here. Deadly serious about doing something about this. Some sort of compromise is due.

Tom01111 · 07-10-2018 11:40am

Agree with a lot of what is said above, but I don't think anyone has mentioned about having to buy the legislation AND bring it in the day before your exam.

I personally live about 3 hours round trip from the Red Cow so to come down the day before when I'm getting my last bit of study done to take that kind of break.

At the very least everyone should be given a printout of the Acts you're allowed bring in, because to do otherwise discriminates against those who can't make the trip or can't afford to buy a copy, just for the exam.

L124 · 07-10-2018 12:02pm

October 2016, sat three fe1s (tort, constitutional, contract) alongside my final year of my law degree. For anyone who sat exams at this sitting you will remember the construction work - which went on all day (from early morning until late in the evening, including during the exams).

I traveled from the West of Ireland and i chose to book into the red cow for the week - I say chose but in reality I didn't have much choice here. I didn't know where the Red Cow was, I didn't know how these exams were run and I had no one who had been through it to ask. So I chose to stay where the exams were being held simply so that I could actually get to my exams. This came at a cost of nine hundred and something euro.

After Constitutional on the Thursday I felt deflated and exhausted. I didn't know if the constant headache I had since the Monday was from stress or the noise of the construction workers. I sat my exams anyway. Results came out and Tort and Constitutional were in the 60s and Contract was 36. I am not ashamed to say I cried. Pathetic but true. I rang the law society once I composed myself to find out what I could do. I was on the phone to a very helpful woman who went and got my script and even checked it was added up correctly - then and there on the phone so don't tell me the law society workers are unhelpful. This wasn't her fault. And to be honest I would love to go back and thank her for what she did.

She told me I could not view my script. I was also told me that there really was no point appealing it because all that would be done is what she did on the phone with me. Rechecking that it was added up correctly. This is where I cracked. My voice broke and I asked her why - how was it fair that I passed two exams and they were now going to be stripped from me. I understood that I didn't get my 50 in contract - that was no problem. It meant I didn't demonstrate that I knew enough on the day. Fair enough. My fault. I needed to sit it again. But two exams that I got in the 60s for?

I was told exactly the argument that you are all using here - it is a professional body exam. So you are expected to be able to pass three in one go. If you can't then you are not ready. If you are supporting that argument (it's a professional body, if you don't like it go somewhere else) for any argument then you are already on the same page as the Law Society. You are in agreement with the way the exams are.

Being falsely optimistic hoping shed got it wrong - I appealed the contract result. There was no section where I could tell them about the construction work. There was nowhere I could plead with them. But even if there was - I felt if I got 36 that is what I deserved. I never failed an exam in my life. But having failed it I had no one to blame but myself. In reality I appealed because I didn't want to resit exams I had passed. The appeal came back as showing a 36.

I gave myself time since then to study and prepare - I spent over a year studying for the subjects I was going to sit this time (five including the three I did before). And it came to last week and I couldn't do it. Mentally, I wasn't fit for it. The panic had started to kick in and I was terrified I would either fail the ones I passed before or fail the one I failed before and my new ones. Quite simply, I wasn't mentally ready. So I cancelled the hotel.

The reason for this ridiculously long post is to show you that this story is common. I was not special here. I had this experience but so did so many others. The fact is that maybe the Law Society are right. If you can't pass three you're not ready. Maybe I wasn't ready. Maybe I'm still not ready.

NewNewBird · 07-10-2018 1:18pm

Teamhrach wrote: »

The Law Soc kept an admin fee for EACH of my exams. I think that’s a bit low when I told them in advance and had produced a death certificate, death notice and my birth cert confirming I was related.

Hi guys,
This thread is actually giving me great comfort. For a while I thought I was the only one struggling and I was really starting to question whether this was for me or not.

I experienced a similar incident to Teamrach. The first time I ever applied to sit these my dad took ill and passed away two weeks before the first exam. It was a short illness and very unexpected so I was in no frame of mind to sit them. Credit where credit is due the people I dealt with were extremely sincere and sympathetic but the Law Soc kept an admin fee. At the time I thought nothing of it cos bigger problems in life really makes you forget about money but now I think an admin fee for what? I can't remember the exact figure but looking back there is no way any overheads in processing an application could have amounted to it. No doubt about it but the Law Soc are very money driven.

Which brings me to what I would like to see as a reform to the FE-1 process. I cannot understand why they have not tried to cash in on prep courses and implemented something similar. I would love to experience face to face feedback with an examiner. I don't think it would be viable to provide this to individual candidates but why not provide a one day seminar for each subject. Basically an interactive examiners report. I would certainly pay to attend something like that. It would serve current candidates who may not have passed and prospective future candidates. I know someone is going to say but just use the report but surely I am not the only one who has read a report and still been left a little puzzled. Imagine how helpful it would be to hear the examiner say this is why candidates needed to expand this area or why candidates should have mentioned this particular case. And of course a Q&A segment could be included.

Although baby steps and all that

so I am all for backing a set timetable.

Teamhrach · 07-10-2018 7:10pm

NewNewBird wrote: »

At the time I thought nothing of it cos bigger problems in life really makes you forget about money but now I think an admin fee for what? I can't remember the exact figure but looking back there is no way any overheads in processing an application could have amounted to it. No doubt about it but the Law Soc are very money driven.

I'm so, so sorry to hear about your dad. I can't remember how much it was either - it's the principle of it and the absolute lack of compassion and empathy. I hope you and your family are all doing well though.

Teamhrach · 07-10-2018 7:56pm

Guys, as relieved I am that I wasn't isolated with struggling along the way with the thoughts of these exams, we are in the middle of them - so best not to rile anyone up over them for another few days (although I probably added fuel to it as well) as it's only adding to the fear and stress some students are probably feeling.

Get a solid bite to eat, sleep in the evening time for 6-8 hours and get up early on the morning of the exams rather than trying an all-nighter.

We've passed in and around a hundred exams I'd say, so we're more than capable of getting these so don't let fear set in at this stage. Stick at it, you're nearly there this week &#55357;&#56490;&#55356;&#57340;

I'm logging out until Wednesday (until after equity) and will be in the Red Cow that night too - if anyone wants to PM to arrange a meet up about the challenge, as I'm more than happy to! Best of luck everyone

Jimdtug1 · 08-10-2018 11:05am

The most important thing to remember is that nobody is being forced to do these exams.

The law society are completely within their rights to set the exams as they see fit. The rules are clear and unambiguous and there is nothing unknown to anybody who wants to sit them.
They are ridiculously hard and time consuming but again this is well known before anybody attempts them so there is no point whinging about it during exam time.

I think the situation regarding exemptions, or lack thereof, is correct. There is no comparison between the level of knowledge required for an undergrad exam and the FE1's. It would be like giving an exemption for Leaving Cert Maths because you sat maths in the Junior Cert.

I work full time and have a 2yr old running around the house at home so i am not blessed with time but i have managed to pass 5 to date not including this sitting. The ke is being dedicated and committed and smart studying. Look at exam grids and past papers and understand what the examiners are looking for and go learn it.

I think the Law Society would laugh at the idea of a petition to change the rules or format. Put your energy into passing the exams instead.

On a side note getting the results for passing the first three was the most satisfying moment of my education to date, way better than LC or College results.

08-10-2018 12:10pm

Jimdtug1 wrote: »

The law society are completely within their rights to set the exams as they see fit.

You might have a point with this if the Law Society didn't have a complete stranglehold on the industry. If it was like in England where colleges set the professional course then you might have a point - you don't like how one college does things, you have options to go elsewhere. Here, it is the LS or no one.

Requiring a 3 out of 3 pass is ridiculous. This needs to be changed. What you pass should be banked and you focus on what needs passing. These subjects stand alone afterall. You've established competency in what you've passed, which is the whole point. Look at the Inns, you have to sit and pass the 5. If the LS require people to pass 3 what not all 8? What's the purpose of the 3? Change is needed.

I'd like to see the following changes:

1. Remove requirement to sit a min of 3.
2. Remove requirement to pass 3.
3. Have other exam centres around the country, even 2-3 per province or something. Perhaps using colleges/ITs instead of hotels.
4. Exam papers should be free to download similar to King's Inns. Fair enough to charge for examiner reports, but papers should be free.
5. Greater transparency around the rechecking process.

No one is asking for a free or easy ride. However, as it stands now, it's a total money racket.

One might argue life isn't fair and no one is being forced to sit these exams, but since when have things ever improved by rolling over and taking it?

Vegetarian2017 · 08-10-2018 12:34pm

able1 wrote:

Requiring a 3 out of 3 pass is ridiculous. This needs to be changed. What you pass should be banked and you focus on what needs passing. These subjects stand alone afterall. You've established competency in what you've passed, which is the whole point. Look at the Inns, you have to sit and pass the 5. If the LS require people to pass 3 what not all 8? What's the purpose of the 3? Change is needed.

able1 wrote:

You might have a point with this if the Law Society didn't have a complete stranglehold on the industry. If it was like in England where colleges set the professional course then you might have a point - you don't like how one college does things, you have options to go elsewhere. Here, it is the LS or no one.

able1 wrote:

1. Remove requirement to sit a min of 3. 2. Remove requirement to pass 3. 3. Have other exam centres around the country, even 2-3 per province or something. Perhaps using colleges/ITs instead of hotels. 4. Exam papers should be free to download similar to King's Inns. Fair enough to charge for examiner reports, but papers should be free. 5. Greater transparency around the rechecking process.

able1 wrote:

One might argue life isn't fair and no one is being forced to sit these exams, but since when have things ever improved by rolling over and taking it?

able1 wrote:

No one is asking for a free or easy ride. However, as it stands now, it's a total money racket.

able1 wrote:

1. Remove requirement to sit a min of 3. 2. Remove requirement to pass 3. 3. Have other exam centres around the country, even 2-3 per province or something. Perhaps using colleges/ITs instead of hotels. 4. Exam papers should be free to download similar to King's Inns. Fair enough to charge for examiner reports, but papers should be free. 5. Greater transparency around the rechecking process.

able1 wrote:

Requiring a 3 out of 3 pass is ridiculous. This needs to be changed. What you pass should be banked and you focus on what needs passing. These subjects stand alone afterall. You've established competency in what you've passed, which is the whole point. Look at the Inns, you have to sit and pass the 5. If the LS require people to pass 3 what not all 8? What's the purpose of the 3? Change is needed.

able1 wrote:

You might have a point with this if the Law Society didn't have a complete stranglehold on the industry. If it was like in England where colleges set the professional course then you might have a point - you don't like how one college does things, you have options to go elsewhere. Here, it is the LS or no one.

Totally agree with all of the above and couldn't disagree more with previous poster. The law society has no competition and are the only body you can qualify through so for those of us who want to qualify it leaves very little choice!
It is quite dominant of them!
Listen I would prefer fail an exam because it was tough in an academic way not because it was tough mentally due to the circumstances surrounding it.
What I'm saying is if all of the more reasonable recommendations were agreed with law society and there were better set timetables and more transparency, id be more than happy to welcome a more challenging exam. I agree it should be tough but academically not by the circumstances.

They need to change it has been the same for years now.

But sure previous posters reckon we should just sit back and do nothing.

vid36 · 08-10-2018 12:58pm

Can I add a right of access to exam scripts and examiner comments. The European Court ruled late last year in the Nowak case,that exams scripts and comments constitute personal data yet the Law Society has still not instigated a process through which we can view our exam scripts.

Jimdtug1 · 08-10-2018 3:02pm

Almost every profession in the country is maintained by a single professional body - RIAI for Architects, Irish Dental Association etc etc

OK I agree that the exam centres could be changed. But that's just logistics and wouldn't be an overhaul.

I don't agree at all on the minimum pass of 3 to be changed. They are a challenge for a reason. It's a demanding, prestigious industry and there should not be an easy route of entry.

The exams are designed to be restrictively hard and they are just that so i don't see any reason why they would be changed.

I just can't help thinking that this is just a snowflake generation argument by those who feel they are entitled to anything/everything they want.

lawless11 · 08-10-2018 3:09pm

Jimdtug1 wrote: »

Almost every profession in the country is maintained by a single professional body - RIAI for Architects, Irish Dental Association etc etc

OK I agree that the exam centres could be changed. But that's just logistics and wouldn't be an overhaul.

I don't agree at all on the minimum pass of 3 to be changed. They are a challenge for a reason. It's a demanding, prestigious industry and there should not be an easy route of entry.

The exams are designed to be restrictively hard and they are just that so i don't see any reason why they would be changed.

I just can't help thinking that this is just a snowflake generation argument by those who feel they are entitled to anything/everything they want.

I don't necessarily agree with some of the above propositions but the snowflake argument is getting old, really. Especially considering that some time before no such exams were necessary to become a solicitor so :-). Does it make the current lawyers in profession less good?

FE1 Challenge the Rules

Comments