nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

FE1 Challenge the Rules

illy.m

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.

Find more posts tagged with

law

fe1

law society

Quick Links

Comments

Teamhrach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[Deleted User]

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

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

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

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

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?

Grolschevik

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?

Pretty sure the current system of FE1s has been around more than 20 years. That's at least 20 annual cohorts of solicitors who did them.

lawless11

Grolschevik wrote: »

Pretty sure the current system of FE1s has been around more than 20 years. That's at least 20 annual cohorts of solicitors who did them.

Okay, 20 years. Older solicitors still did not have to do them then. It does not really change what I was saying.

I'm not for the suppression of them in case you wondered. I was more reacting to the tiring "snowflake" argument, which is so ad hominem and quite frankly a big generalisation.

Jimdtug1

Is it not a snowflake argument though??? The exams can be passed if you do the work, simple as. I've failed them before because i haven't done enough work and passed them subsequently when i realized what it took to pass them. Every other argument on this page thread bar maybe the location of the exam centres and the right to get your paper back is just excuse making.

Grolschevik

lawless11 wrote: »

Okay, 20 years. Older solicitors still did not have to do them then.

Well, technically only those who had a law degree that was a qualifying one for the purposes of exemption, which was by no means all!:pac:

Wonderstruck

Grolschevik wrote: »

Well, technically only those who had a law degree that was a qualifying one for the purposes of exemption, which was by no means all!:pac:

Yeah! They are exactly like undergrad courses, the best notes i have found are my own and my friend's undergrad notes.

Of course no one is making anyone do anything I just think the rationale of sitting exams I have already passed in the past is fundamentally silly. I am sitting property tomorrow even though I passed it with nearly 70 !!! per cent in a past FE1 sitting... and reading this thread you can see it's not uncommon! Also one can pass 3 then do the remaining 5 spread out over the next few years if one wished so the idea one need to know it all at once kinda falls down.

But i think the set dates is a good idea which they should and hopefully will implement, so people can arrange the time off work in advance. My manager was a bit annoyed when i started the role in May and announced i needed 2 weeks time off at a completely unspecified time in October! It actually clashed with his own leave in the end so i was fortunate my "grandboss" said i could take the time off at all!

I think a lot of people might really struggle to get their leave approved without a lot of notice depending on their particular work. It would be great to know earlier, but they will most likely say that is up to Red Cow... hats off to the person in the other thread who rang the hotel cos that helped with some planning in the office!

Roisin Phelan

Teamhrach wrote: »

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 ��

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

But equity is Thursday right???

[Deleted User]

Jimdtug1 wrote: »

Is it not a snowflake argument though??? The exams can be passed if you do the work, simple as. I've failed them before because i haven't done enough work and passed them subsequently when i realized what it took to pass them. Every other argument on this page thread bar maybe the location of the exam centres and the right to get your paper back is just excuse making.

You see, when people use the word "snowflake" in the context you used it in, it's usually done with the intention of shutting up debate. It's hardly snowflake of people to want change? Society would be stuck in the stone age otherwise. It's about an organisation with a 100% monopoly needing to be open to change. Look at the legal system in England. It's far more open, different ways of entering the system, more open to change and a heck of a lot more flexible than the LS is here. It's colleges that provide the LPC (PPC equivalent) rather than the LS and no entrance exams needed, just a qualifying law degree.

I don't think anyone is arguing to make the exams less academically rigorous. I certainly wouldn't be. But is the 3/3 really based on making it more restrictive? People can attempt these exams a million times if they want. Hardly restrictive. More of a time wasting exercise than anything for those who have already passed 2/3 and shown competentcy in those 2/3. It just looks like a money grab by the LS. All 8 are stand alone. None depend on the other. If they did, you'd have to pass all 8 the first time. It just doesn't make sense when you consider the fact that people (once 3 are passed) can then sit as few as they want each year. Is that academically challenging?

Change can be good and sometimes it really is needed. What's happening here is people throwing around different ideas and thrashing it out to see how it could be logistically made easier, not academically.

[Deleted User]

I think there is talk in LS about making some changes to FE1s. Think it was in last month's Gazette.

R146

able1 wrote: »

I think there is talk in LS about making some changes to FE1s. Think it was in last month's Gazette.

You’re right.

Reports of Law Society Council Meetings, June 8 2018
Law Society Gazette, Aug/Sept 2018 page 62.
“Solicitor education
A presentation was made to the Council on the report of the Future of Solicitor Educa- tion Review Group by its vice- chair Carol Plunkett, director of education TP Kennedy, and deputy director of education Geoffrey Shannon. The report was produced as a response to the consultation process being conducted by the LSRA on legal education and training in Ireland.
Ms Plunkett outlined the recommendations of the review group in terms of access, the entrance examination, train- ing contracts, the professional practice courses, a part-time model, physical resources, and a centre for teaching, develop- ment and innovation (see p11 of the July Gazette).
Following a lengthy discus- sion, the Council agreed that the report should be submitted to the LSRA, and also agreed that there should be a rolling programme of debate at the Council on legal education and training.”

Law Society Gazette, July 2018, Exerpt from page 11
“Entrance examination
The FE1 will remain in place as the entrance assessment for those wishing to train as solicitors. This is to ensure a common knowledge of core academic legal subjects among applicants drawn from the 19 law degree providers in Ire- land, from non-law graduates, and others. The alternative to the FE1 is a system of standard setting and assessment of undergraduate law provision, which would be expen- sive and controversial.
Accelerated access to taking the FE1 will be facilitated on the completion of the second year of an Irish law degree programme.”

Jimdtug1

able1 wrote: »

You see, when people use the word "snowflake" in the context you used it in, it's usually done with the intention of shutting up debate. It's hardly snowflake of people to want change? Society would be stuck in the stone age otherwise. It's about an organisation with a 100% monopoly needing to be open to change. Look at the legal system in England. It's far more open, different ways of entering the system, more open to change and a heck of a lot more flexible than the LS is here. It's colleges that provide the LPC (PPC equivalent) rather than the LS and no entrance exams needed, just a qualifying law degree.

I don't think anyone is arguing to make the exams less academically rigorous. I certainly wouldn't be. But is the 3/3 really based on making it more restrictive? People can attempt these exams a million times if they want. Hardly restrictive. More of a time wasting exercise than anything for those who have already passed 2/3 and shown competentcy in those 2/3. It just looks like a money grab by the LS. All 8 are stand alone. None depend on the other. If they did, you'd have to pass all 8 the first time. It just doesn't make sense when you consider the fact that people (once 3 are passed) can then sit as few as they want each year. Is that academically challenging?

Change can be good and sometimes it really is needed. What's happening here is people throwing around different ideas and thrashing it out to see how it could be logistically made easier, not academically.

It was not intended in the slightest to shut down an argument. It is just my opinion that this whole thread has a pretentious/entitled undertone to it.

People wanting change for obvious social injustices are of course a good thing, but a small subsection of society wanting change to make their exams easier hardly constitutes a ground breaking movement.
Anyway I fully believe the only reason the majority of people on this thread would want a change would be to make their own path to becoming a solicitor easier. The idea that it is some noble gesture to stop the tyranny of the Law Society is laughable.

As for the exams themselves reducing the 3/4 requirement would of course make them easier to pass. It's the single biggest reason people fail.

Also people arguing that we are getting a rough ride now because these exams didn't exist 25 yrs ago is again laughable. Back then about 85% of the population couldn't afford to go to university. Think about that. How many people on this thread are in a much more privileged position than their parents ever could have been in but are still finding ways to complain about the injustice of it all.