FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

JHalpin wrote: »

Hey guys,

I failed both of mine unfortunately. Equity i knew had gone badly so wasnt expecting much but I got 43 on contract. I'm so disheartened because last October I nearly walked out of contract but finished the paper and got 42.

I do not understand how I only got 43 on this paper because I answered all 5 questions with what I thought was ease! I'm so upset and can't stop crying at my desk. I have emailed to view my scripts but don't know that will happen with Corona.

Also, I have appealed in the past and feel like I am throwing money down the toilet as they have both come back with the same mark as before.

Sorry to hear that. I got 45 in Constitution (my last exam) so I feel your pain. I say get it re-checked if you think you did better. Do a cost/benefit analysis. Yeah it's €115, but imagine you got brought up to a pass? You'd probably pay five times that not to have to sit it again!

Finally finished, passed my last 2! Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to each other on this forum, it has helped me through the most stressful days. Anyone who is not happy today - they are so tough. Failing does not make you a failure, it's just a setback that some of the most successful solicitors in the country have gone through.

I also got brought up from 42 to 50 in one of mine in the last round, so rechecks are always worth it. You get a full refund if you pass, so if you can afford it, do!


Anyone who needs anything going forward, please shoot me a message. Paying it forward due to all of the help I have received here in the last few months.

Lawgrad101 wrote: »

Do you get your money back if your re-check mark goes up?

Yes you do!

jjjjjop wrote: »

Which subject has the highest fail rate?

I would say equity

I would not go back and read the posts in the thread old FE-1 thread after that March 2017 Equity exam.....:pac:

channing90 wrote: »

I have tort and constitutional left, any tips

For Tort, first and foremost - exam grids. Learn each topic in order of frequency. Then go through all of the essay questions from the last 15 years - he repeats cycles of 20 questions word for word. I think I drafted something like 15 essays to learn off for them and got lucky when I sat it with two ridiculously obscure essays coming up that hadn't been put on the paper in like a decade.

If two or three essays come up, that's your buffer and then you just go for the problem questions that you can ad lib best on with your topics.

Constitutional - basically the same thing, but there are patterns between certain topics and frequencies of them coming up so make sure you get the groupings of those correct. If you draft and prepare 7 - 10 of the most common essay questions (interpretation/natural law is overdue now as an example), then you should get lucky with one or two questions. Then you should have enough working knowledge of the course to get the rest of the marks you need from the problem questions.

I understand this may be an unorthodox approach but it has worked for me. When you have an essay learned off and it comes up word for word, you know that's 10 - 12 marks right there. It's a nice buffer if you can get two or three of them.

Wonderstruck wrote: »

I'm FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! All 8 done!!!!

I passed Company (62%) and Criminal (64%), sitting them both for the first time!

I never have to set foot anywhere near the Red Cow ever again for the rest of my life, I'm emotional. Don't stop believing!!!

Congrats! They are brilliant results, that could win you the highest score prise for criminal?

What do the high marks be in order to win those prizes?

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

For Tort, first and foremost - exam grids. Learn each topic in order of frequency. Then go through all of the essay questions from the last 15 years - he repeats cycles of 20 questions word for word. I think I drafted something like 15 essays to learn off for them and got lucky when I sat it with two ridiculously obscure essays coming up that hadn't been put on the paper in like a decade.

If two or three essays come up, that's your buffer and then you just go for the problem questions that you can ad lib best on with your topics.

Constitutional - basically the same thing, but there are patterns between certain topics and frequencies of them coming up so make sure you get the groupings of those correct. If you draft and prepare 7 - 10 of the most common essay questions (interpretation/natural law is overdue now as an example), then you should get lucky with one or two questions. Then you should have enough working knowledge of the course to get the rest of the marks you need from the problem questions.

I understand this may be an unorthodox approach but it has worked for me. When you have an essay learned off and it comes up word for word, you know that's 10 - 12 marks right there. It's a nice buffer if you can get two or three of them.

Constitutional is very topical imho, read any newspaper articles on any big consitutuonal cases in the HC/COA/Supreme Court. That Emma O'Doherty one is one to watch!

The Law Society Library has a newsletter too with recent cases of note in it I'm not sure if it's actually aimed at qualified solicitors but I am somehow on the mailing list (hope they don't spot this and turf me off it)!

https://www.lawsociety.ie/Solicitors/Practising/Library/

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

For Tort, first and foremost - exam grids. Learn each topic in order of frequency. Then go through all of the essay questions from the last 15 years - he repeats cycles of 20 questions word for word. I think I drafted something like 15 essays to learn off for them and got lucky when I sat it with two ridiculously obscure essays coming up that hadn't been put on the paper in like a decade.

If two or three essays come up, that's your buffer and then you just go for the problem questions that you can ad lib best on with your topics.

Constitutional - basically the same thing, but there are patterns between certain topics and frequencies of them coming up so make sure you get the groupings of those correct. If you draft and prepare 7 - 10 of the most common essay questions (interpretation/natural law is overdue now as an example), then you should get lucky with one or two questions. Then you should have enough working knowledge of the course to get the rest of the marks you need from the problem questions.

I understand this may be an unorthodox approach but it has worked for me. When you have an essay learned off and it comes up word for word, you know that's 10 - 12 marks right there. It's a nice buffer if you can get two or three of them.

Thanks that’s a good insight into them, targeting essays is a good idea I think alri.

jjjjjop wrote: »

Congrats! They are brilliant results, that could win you the highest score prise for criminal?

What do the high marks be in order to win those prizes?

Thank you so much, afair I broke 70% the first time I sat Property *dusts shoulders dramatically*, no legislation with me either as the courier delivered it to a shop near my mum's house and we presumed it had been lost or stolen... :cool:

Got no prize then sadly! (I had to sit it again cos of the 3 passes rule).

To me, the prize is not sitting them again.

I agree with Hamerzan Sickles it's probably not enough for a prize. They were the 2 I dedicated he last amount of time too out of all of them, I think I had just finally got into my groove.

Like all exams it is timing, spread your time as evenly between the questions as possible and never ever ever spend too long on one question, diminishing marginal returns!

This is my first time posting in this thread as I somehow only discovered it in recent weeks! I can't believe its my first time doing these exams and I passed both of the exams I took with 71 in criminal and 65 in contract:) Unfortunately didn't get to do tort due to the cancellation but hopefully they will put a sitting for tort and eu on before October! Well done to everyone who got their results today!

Hello. Actually, the marker for Equity is in my opinion probably the fairest of all of them. Her standard is high - instead of a lot of the other subjects which just expect you to write off things you've learned, she wants you to understand the topics completely. It's very conceptual in that way. If you understand the topics, you will have no problem in passing. Equity seems a lot more difficult than it is.

Okay so the paper itself --

Usually 3 Equity questions, 4 Trusts questions and 1 notes question.

So strategically speaking -- it makes sense to cover all of the equity syllabus. It tends to be easier to learn and easier to answer on the paper. It's all shorter than the Trusts section of the syllabus. So that's 3 questions that you can easily answer... think proprietary estoppel, undue influence and specific performance, etc. All straightforward topics.

Then you want to target the notes questions. Certain notes come up time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. Learn off Satisfaction, Hastings v Bass, that other famous case that I've forgotten the name of (anyone?) I think I learned off 16 notes questions to answer.

Then, for Trusts, play it strategic again. Get an exam grid and see what comes up all the time/what is due a run. The answer is always charitable trusts. Usually you can figure out when DMC is due a run, when secret/resulting/constructive trusts are due a run, etc.

But predicting these are not the same as understanding them conceptually. You need to be able to boil down every concept to its simplest equivalent in English. Equity can seem quite dense and impenetrable but actually if you put the work in, you'll realise it's pretty straightforward and the exams are nicely designed.

Hope this helps.

Edit: if you only got 28%, you didn't have "4 really good answers", you just thought you did. I think it's pretty likely you either don't understand the fundamentals of some of the topics or you misidentified the questions you were answering. You need to work on this.

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

Hello Jenosul. Actually, the marker for Equity is in my opinion probably the fairest of all of them. Her standard is high - instead of a lot of the other subjects which just expect you to write off things you've learned, she wants you to understand the topics completely. It's very conceptual in that way. If you understand the topics, you will have no problem in passing. Equity seems a lot more difficult than it is.

Okay so the paper itself --

Usually 3 Equity questions, 4 Trusts questions and 1 notes question.

So strategically speaking -- it makes sense to cover all of the equity syllabus. It tends to be easier to learn and easier to answer on the paper. It's all shorter than the Trusts section of the syllabus. So that's 3 questions that you can easily answer... think proprietary estoppel, undue influence and specific performance, etc. All straightforward topics.

Then you want to target the notes questions. Certain notes come up time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. Learn off Satisfaction, Hastings v Bass, that other famous case that I've forgotten the name of (anyone?) I think I learned off 16 notes questions to answer.

Then, for Trusts, play it strategic again. Get an exam grid and see what comes up all the time/what is due a run. The answer is always charitable trusts. Usually you can figure out when DMC is due a run, when secret/resulting/constructive trusts are due a run, etc.

But predicting these are not the same as understanding them conceptually. You need to be able to boil down every concept to its simplest equivalent in English. Equity can seem quite dense and impenetrable but actually if you put the work in, you'll realise it's pretty straightforward and the exams are nicely designed.

Hope this helps.

Edit: if you only got 28%, you didn't have "4 really good answers", you just thought you did. I think it's pretty likely you either don't understand the fundamentals of some of the topics or you misidentified the questions you were answering. You need to work on this.

Thank you for the reply. I have no problem with what to study. Studying was not my issue. As I stated my "good answers" were that I knew all the case law from the Griffith law notes and applied it to the problem question. I think I answered two essay questions one of which as I said I was not happy with my answer but did understand the concept of the topic. The other was on undue Influence I did as the question asked and discussed the differences between the Irish approach and that of the UK. I answered 4 correctly. I understood all questions I had answered. I did charitable trusts prob question. My answer was correct and I had all the correct case law applied. I understood injunctions which was a question and had the caselaw down. I was actually happy when I finished my questions as I understood the topics easily. Perhaps would she have wanted me to actually quote academic articles? I had previously been told not to do such for problem questions. So I have still no idea how to answer these questions better? What is expected of a pass answer?

Jenosul wrote: »

Thank you for the reply. I have no problem with what to study. Studying was not my issue. As I stated my "good answers" were that I knew all the case law from the Griffith law notes and applied it to the problem question. I think I answered two essay questions one of which as I said I was not happy with my answer but did understand the concept of the topic. The other was on undue Influence I did as the question asked and discussed the differences between the Irish approach and that of the UK. I answered 4 correctly. I understood all questions I had answered. I did charitable trusts prob question. My answer was correct and I had all the correct case law applied. I understood injunctions which was a question and had the caselaw down. I was actually happy when I finished my questions as I understood the topics easily. Perhaps would she have wanted me to actually quote academic articles? I had previously been told not to do such for problem questions. So I have still no idea how to answer these questions better? What is expected of a pass answer?

Hi there, just to say that academic commentary is really not required. I'm really sorry to hear your struggle with Equity, but as @Hamerzan Sickle said, you really need to understand it. For Equity, I remembered I cross-referenced my own college notes (as the examiner was my lecturer), and got a hand on 2 different manuals (manuals where things were sometimes wrong! really important to check).

I'd say if you have friends/acquaitances that passed this round, try and see if you can compare your script to them, to see what you did differently. Did you answer the question precisely rather than throwing all you remembered, did you use the ILAC method, etc...

Fundamentally there is something to review (either the depth of your learning or your methodology during the exams, or something else you need to identify). Best of luck and don't lose hope.