FE1 Challenge the Rules

R146 wrote:

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.â€

Interesting! I wonder should i call and ask if there is a way students can put in proposals of some sort. Most importantly a more friendly set timetable with a day between all exams or perhaps spread over 3 weeks. Whatever is most workable.Like the poor guys sitting EU today and equity tomorrow should be a day between exams. And i will stress again if you are trying to get the magic three and fail the third one by 3percent surely if you have to sit all three again you should at least only have to pay for the one u failed on the next attempt. So much effort and money and hard work to get good results in two and lose everything over two percent. Not having to pay again for this two would be a massive compromise.

Yes but it is evidence they do listen. Like they did change the rule of having to sit four and pass three a few years back. If anyone recalls you had to sit four which led to loads of people paying for a fourth and not turning up. So they can be reasonable. If there are planned changes then some input from students I am sure would be welcomed! I don't know how people would think that the students sitting the FE1's have no power at all, of course we do! Obviously in numbers. There is absolutely no harm in getting word into the law society of some feedback students have, which are within reason of course. No matter what you cannot keep everyone happy.
But I would propose people coming forward with some suggestions on here.
For example (and of course I am open to any other better suggestions) regarding the timetables, below is examples of changes I have in mind.
NOTE to previous posters. This is not about a sense of entitlement, it is about making the exams more accessible to those working full-time or have other stresses in life, at present they are more student friendly!
1. Exam papers - to change the format so you can purchase say Constitution questions with exams reports in one booklet or having the reports and questions in one booklet for each sitting - we are paying for these so I don't think it is an unreasonable request.
2. I note people would love feedback on their papers as I would too, but I don't think this would work there are too many people sitting the exams for an examiner to give feedback on every single individual (open to correction). In saying that I did read a poster suggesting the law society perhaps have a workshop day where maybe examiners can do a talk re exams. Considering there has been repetitive comments about how frustrated it is for them to be reading "learnt off" answers and essays.
3. If a student sits three exams, passes two exams and fails the third exam (within a 3 to 5 percent mark?) so the student has showed capability to some extent that student is exempt from paying to sit the passed two exams on the next sitting only! So the student needs to still sit the 3 exams but is forfeited from paying for all 3 again so the student only pays for the failed exam in the next sitting. This lessens the financial burden on students. I don't think the minimum sit 3 exams rule will be abolished.  The reason for this is to make it challenging. Or if it were to go and students could sit one exam or two at a time they would need to make the exams more academically challenging. If you could sit one of the current exams as one per sitting it would open a massive floodgate (I think) of applicants which would lead to too many trainee solicitors and not enough jobs.
4. Exam timetable - to be a set timetable with days between exams or spread out over three weeks.
Example timetable - set of 8 exams put in two sittings 
Week 1 - 4 subjects - evenly spread out somewhat
Week 3 - remaining 4 subjects
**A week between exams would cut out students who have genuinely worked very hard and due falling ill or an unexpected personal circumstance if student could not sit a particular subject it allows an option of perhaps signing on for an additional topic in week 3 as there is space in between. The most common problem I am seeing is where a student has worked very hard for the exams and sit two and for some reason or other due to circs outside their control cannot sit the 3rd which leads to failing the full sitting and repaying. That is 3 to 4 months of hard work and money down the drain!
I certainly wouldn't expect all of the above to change but even for the LS to meet 1 or 2 of the above recommendations to allow the exams be more accessible particularly to those in full-time employment.

Wow point taken. Some people are very angry today. Not sure why you are spending your time in a thread you clearly don't support. This isnt a debate nor is this a personal thing. You are totally entitled to your opinion but it appears to bother you that people are not of the same opinion. So you have come on to shove your opinion down our throats in a sarcastic tone.

Asking for better exams papers and possible change of timetable really didn't warrant the reply from you above.

Good luck in your exams, I guess we won't put your name down for the petition, should it happen.

Mod
Veg 2017 this is a thread for discussion. Each poster is entitled to express a POV subject to normal debating conventions

Two things;

Requiring a BCL/LLB degree to sit the exams is unfair and exclusionary on non-law graduates. (Disclaimer, I only have a specialised LLM)

Secondly, you can view scripts as per Nowak v DPC... Although if persons here are unaware of that judgement whilst being aspiring lawyers and exam candidates then perhaps a different career is worth investigating... :P

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Isn't there a preliminary exams for your first point? I have friends who sat the fe1s one with a psychology degree and one with a business degree about four years ago) unless that has changed, wasnt aware of that. Yes I am aware of that case and we can now view the script under gdpr as your exam script is personal data. I think the guys were referring to previous sittings being told they cant view I assume and/or not getting feedback on failed papers is what i took from previous comments.

Anyone with any university degree can sit the FE1s, regardless of what the degree is in. A few years back, most of the incoming PPC1 class apparently didn't have a law-based degree. Don't know the proportion now, but you don't need a law degree.

In fact, you don't need any degree at all, as long as you pass the Preliminary Exam. That's what that's for.

Requiring a BCL/LLB degree to sit the exams is unfair and exclusionary on non-law graduates. (Disclaimer, I only have a specialised LLM)

Perhaps the posters understanding is that we are trying to exclude non-Law graduates from sitting the exams.
That’s definitely not what I am trying to achieve.

Teamhrach wrote: »

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

NOTE to previous posters. This is not about a sense of entitlement, it is about making the exams more accessible to those working full-time or have other stresses in life, at present they are more student friendly!

Agreed. Ordinarily, people with extenuating circumstances get by perfectly okay in their full-time jobs or in full-time study but if you add in the FE-1s, it is significantly harder to get 3/3. I have my 3 but some of the comments here are very flippant and don't take into account that some of our peers have had horrendous experiences and really, we should be rooting for them rather than disregarding! I'm completely against special treatment/exemptions but I am for less burdensome rules for everyone.

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

1. Exam papers - purchase say Constitution questions with exams reports in one booklet or having the reports and questions in one booklet for each sitting.

Agreed. These are floating around online already but it would be good to have up-to-date access to them easily if not doing a prep course

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

3. If a student sits three exams, passes two exams and fails the third exam (within a 3 to 5 percent mark?) so the student has showed capability to some extent that student is exempt from paying to sit the passed two exams on the next sitting only! So the student needs to still sit the 3 exams but is forfeited from paying for all 3 again so the student only pays for the failed exam in the next sitting. This lessens the financial burden on students. I don't think the minimum sit 3 exams rule will be abolished.  The reason for this is to make it challenging. Or if it were to go and students could sit one exam or two at a time they would need to make the exams more academically challenging. If you could sit one of the current exams as one per sitting it would open a massive floodgate (I think) of applicants which would lead to too many trainee solicitors and not enough jobs.

I think you’re on the right track rather than looking for unfair compensation/exemptions but it’s so hard to know in relation to this! I think sit 3, pass 2 and you get to keep the 2 you’ve passed if you don’t fall below a certain percentage in the one you’ve failed? It’s hard to put a number on that though. You should do a google quiz or survey monkey on these points!

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

4. Exam timetable - to be a set timetable with days between exams or spread out over three weeks.
Example timetable - set of 8 exams put in two sittings
Week 1 - 4 subjects - evenly spread out somewhat
Week 3 - remaining 4 subjects

Agreed on the set timetable, definitely.
I'd actually hate the exams to drag out for longer haha but I do understand where you're coming from The Law Soc might have to hire the hotel and furniture for the middle week though.

I'd much prefer additional venues for future candidates (hoping I get my remainder before that turn in events would come about!)

@Teamhrach
Thanks  a mill for your reply. You're right my bad, I see independent colleges do an exam booklets similar to what I suggested above. Although no idea what the LS are thinking with the current format.
Timetable - good point this is it there can be reasons the LS cannot change but may be able to provide a better set timetable if such suggestions were put forward. ie, EU really should be have a day between exams not the day before Equity. Surely there is a better timetable to suit all.
I am a little shocked with the lack of empathy from some people. I am not even included in that category re people with extenuating circumstances but I have witnessed it. I really have and it is awful to see someone who is /would be probably a more capable solicitor than most give up due to family incidents/financial pressures and unable to keep going for these reasons. For them to read comments like "maybe you should just give up if you cannot do it" would be soul destroying. They need our and the law society's support. Look at the likes of Trinity college now rolling access programmes for people form more disadvantaged backgrounds. There should be something the LS can offer to people in a more disadvantaged background.
I will give you a real circumstance for those who think it is about self entitlement:
Student A - lives at home. Works in a legal assistant job takes six weeks off (unpaid) for the fe1s. Which is quite common in the large firms as these roles are post-graduate roles and not permanent jobs.  Parents pay for all the prep courses and additional exam prep days and of course student does not need to worry financially re time off.
Student B - lives at home. Works as full-time paralegal/admin position in a permanent role. Not in a financial position to take 6 weeks off nor can they as the job is a permanent role not a post-graduate job. Student B has a sick family member who they have a lot of responsibility for outside of work hours.
Student A who had 6 weeks off no financial burdens and no work pressures- results - four exams - failed one and passed three (literally by a percent all three were like 51, 50 and 53 percent)
Student B - attempted the exams first time but pulled out due to sick relative outside her control (who does not live in Dublin so the cost of accommodation is a huge added pressure). She decided to attempt again.
Got 68 and 66 in two exams. Her family member took a bad turn and fell ill for the 3rd she spent two days in the hospital with the parent before the 3rd and 4th exam. She was not in a position to sit the 3rd exam so sat the fourth with no pre-cram or study leading up the exam and got 48 percent! This is whilst having worked fulltime up until the exams looking after a sick parent.
Student b is clearly more than capable. Surely in these circumstances student B could at least have the opportunity to not have to pay for those two exams again!! Or ok and pushing it have got the third on merit.....2 percent all that work for 2 percent and all that money.
Student B is from a more less advantaged background and has shown more strength and courage than many sitting them but due to the system in force gives up because how soul destroying would it be to go through that. Months of hard work and absolutely no social life. Bear in mind the cost of the exam and a couple of 100 euro for hotels and food for the exams that this person needs to fork out again 5 months later in the hope and pray that the family member doesn't fall ill. She gave up in the end felt it wasn't for her because what she was up against was students who did not have these circs and the system is set up in a way that probably suits those more with a wealthier and more advantaged background.
I will probably be lynched for saying the above but I have seen 3 similar stories like this and it sickens me. It is a backwards system and a little change would go along way. So please for those who are saying re self entitled don't jump to assume you really do not know what battle anyone else is facing.
I totally agree these exams should be tough but the money the LS is making surely it is not much to ask for a small compromise regarding timetables, exam reports etc. Also I for one would fully support a colleague or another student sitting the fe1s in the above circs to have more support from the LS, which is more than justified. Obviously these cases would be few and far between and the student would have to prove themselves but I just cannot help but feel for those people that do pull out because it is not within their control.

Leraf wrote: »

Isnt the point of the exams getting to Blackhall.  As such, my biggest point of concern is the fact that Blackhall starts in September and the exams are in October.  If you fail your last exam in March, you have two more sittings to complete and irrespective of which sitting you pass in you have to wait.  I would look for the second sitting dates to be changed so that every year you have two chances to pass and get to Blackhall.  

The day between each exam is a great idea but it does not suit everyone, especially those in work or those travelling from far away and having to fork out for hotels.  I think a set timetable every year is best.  You can choose to do your first four with a one day break in between if you wish.

The fees for a recheck are astronomical.  Whatever about the fee for the actual exam, I can agree with that but the recheck should be at most half the exam fee.  It should be an actual recheck, not just a totting up for the sums.

I am not sure about the sit three pass three to continue rule.  It is frustrating for anyone to pass one or two and have to start at the beginning but the rule is there, I believe, to act as a slowing mechanism so that Blackhall is not flooded with people (or so I have heard) but also to ensure that the people sitting these exams can get the job done under immense pressure.  That is the job at the end of the day.  I don't see them changing the rule and, while I get everyone's point,I am not sure of what benefit it will be to people.

I do agree with the above. It is there for a reason. I think there should be some flexibility somewhat as per my suggestion above. If a student sits and does extremely well and fails the third under bad circs due to something extenuating surely they should be forfeited from paying for the two exams again. If they have to re-sit fair enough but pay again I think it is unfair. If a student sits all three and fails and doesn't go well in any with no extenuating circs fair enough to pay again.
Edit to above: I also should have stated in fairness to the LS they do have a support programme somewhat regarding those from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, it currently does not really meet the above situation. Another suggestion if the above were not workable is that in such situation if a student proves themselves capable in the first 2 exams and due to the 3rd exam not being sat or failed in "particular circs" that they have an opportunity to perhaps resit that subject "obviously a different paper" after the results? It would lessen a financial burden of both costs of accom and payment of exams.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The Law Society FE1 exams double up with the Blackhall exams

When they had the Blackhall intake in Cork the FE1s were available there.

I dont think any regional exam centre is going to happen.

The reality is that the rules have been the same for 20 years and we have all been through it.

A petition is a waste of time.

I think you'd be putting your energies to better use studying. Exams are supposed to be hard. That's the point of an exam. You either know the material or you do not.

In my experience most people fail because they gamble on topics and leave stuff out. That's no ones fault but your own.

The rules haven't been the same though. Up until a couple of years back you use to have to sit four exams and pay for four exams but pass three. The LS changed this rule as a lot of students were paying for the fourth exam and turning up signing their name and leaving.  And yes there use to be an exam centre (I believe in Cork?) and they changed it.
 I am sure the LS can be flexible but without any feedback from candidates how are they to know. Particularly now it has been mentioned in the law gazette that they are reviewing the exam procedure so it would be an ideal time for candidates to give feedback.
Absolutely, if you don't put in the work and take gambles with what you cover you won't get the result but that isn't really what we are discussing here (well sorry not that I saw any comments stating this). You cannot skip the hard work end of and it should be hard work.  
Yeah I guess, tt doesn't necessarily have to be a petition for the above, that might be a more extreme action. However, you may have not been involved in a petitions for a worthwhile cause but they are never a waste of time no matter what the outcome. At least people are trying. Some people are happy to sit back in situations and some people aren't. I have signed plenty of petitions before that were for worthwhile causes and some didn't have the outcome expected and some did but god loves a trier

p.s anyone who has sent me a pm I will come back with an e-mail or info to discuss for going forward. thanks

Hi all

I hope everyone is relaxing after a stressful few weeks:) It is so reassuring to know that a lot of other people are frustrated!

I definitely agree that change is needed!It would be brilliant if 2H1 law graduates like myself and no doubt many others on here were exempt but I can't see that happening and that is fair enough but the main changes I would like to see are:

1. The pass 3. This is ridiculous. I passed Property in March but had to do it again this time. Was delighted with Property and Constitutional this time but Contract was very tough half of the course didn't come up and in Equity a lot of people started leaving at 10.15 it was also tough. So if I pass Property and Constitutional brilliant but will have to do them again!How is this fair!If we pass an exam we should be able to bank them.

2. The pass rate increased to 50%. A pass rate in a university is 40%.

3. If they insist on us repeating exams we have already passed then they shouldn't charge us to resit them. It is expensive enough as it is!

4. Viewing exam scripts. We should be able to view them for free. Surely this is a breach of fair procedures.

It is also worth noting that no solicitor knows everything off my heart- they will often have to check something out and revert yet we are being expected to know everything, bearing in mind that this is only to get into Blackhall.

Also there are a lot of solicitors who never had to do the FE1s brilliant solicitors. It doesn't make them any less of a solicitor because they haven't done them.

I also don't accept that a lot of people take a gamble. I covered all the courses for each subject studying non-stop doing questions etc but it is impossible to remember everything bearing in mind that we are all tired and the papers are all over a 2 week period.

All we want is a bit of fairness and one would think the Law Society would be delighted to get people into the profession but that doesn't seem to be the case!

Any further developments in this regard?

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

@jensul no there isn't at this moment. When i called the LC i was informed the whole process is under review having had complaints from the bigger firms. So just waiting to see if any further developments.

Can you elaborate on the 'complaints from the bigger firms'? Do you know what they complained about?

Jenosul wrote: »

At least bigger firms are backing reform.

Unless they're objecting to the reforms recently proposed by the Society's Future of Solicitor Education Review Group, and arguing for the retention of the status quo!