LawNotes123 wrote: » I don't mean to be rude, but if you just regurgitated a script from a previous year would you not have struggled to answer the question asked?
FE1new wrote: » Any tips for Tort? I felt okay before but after results today I'm lost and the reports aren't great .
Lovestolisten wrote: » I just sent a big ranting email to the LS. I’m just so fed up for the entire money racket. I have sat these exams 5 times now, The first 3 times I sat and passed Property 3 times but had to keep paying and passing to get the lucky three passes. Then they changed the rules , I carried my passes forward but now it seems absolutely impossible to pass the remaining subjects. Each time I’m literally 3%,5% away from passing , paying for rechecks and no change. This time around I actually had a full answer booklet from a script that passed by 68% and I learned it off to a T and 37% ... how is that ?? How ?? I don’t care what anyone says , it’s all geared to keep failing enough people that the cash flow continues, and the market is controlled. It’s absolutely nothing got to do with learning or ability. I passed Criminal 51% back at the start with 1 week of study .. Now 2 sittings of Equity , prep courses and a Law Degree but I keep getting 45%, I’m sure people will think , I need to study more but how can a script that passed a topic last year by 68% only get 37% this year ?????
FE1Hopefully1 wrote: » Did you do a prep course ? I think definitely for tort you would need to do one as college notes just might not be up to scratch and they expect better understanding and application than college But also I think just read the exam papers and wrap your head around what exactly is being asked It’s a very confusing subject tbh
FE1new wrote: » I was considering it yeah but they are so expensive! Its madness that we have to pay for a course to pass. If I wasn't so far down the path I would consider stopping.
neon123 wrote: » The best tip I know of for Equity is to only answer what has been asked and noting else. I'd imagine there is a tendency for people to write all they know on a particular topic, and perhaps do this for most of their Qs, and come out of the exam thinking that the sheer volume of stuff written must guarantee a pass. The examiner has called this out in past reports and it seems to me that even if you include all the correct case law and principles she will penalise you heavily for writing anything that is superfluous. Having said that I'm not sure how copying an almost first class paper results in fail mark. Someone mentioned earlier there is a new examiner for that topic so maybe he has completely different standards, but there is something amiss about that. Were all 5 of your Q's from that paper or just some?
Lovestolisten wrote: » If you look back at questions, that are all the same. Word for word. Like I said , I’ve had a few sittings of these exams and each year the questions are identical. I took the Griffith prep course and you get a question and sample answer book , that shows no new questions have come up in years.
LawLearnin wrote: » I had registered for the Griffith one alright but annoyingly had no time to actually watch the lectures or read the manual (I work full-time in an unrelated field and it has been horrendously busy this past 12+ months). I did go through exam papers/examiners reports closer to the sitting alright, but found i'd been able to understand what they were on about and how things fit after going through the Nutshells first.
Lovestolisten wrote: » I’m trying to stress , I’m not naively whinging about failing , I’m frustrated at the lack of clarity on what is required to pass. I’m almost all exams I’ve attempted over the years I have some idea how it went and I’m usually always within a ballpark with results but these FE1’s are mental. Each time I sit an exam regardless of the mountain of study I put in the results are so inconsistent.
LawLearnin wrote: » used one of those Round Hall Nutshells and felt it gave me a great understanding of both the general area of Tort and also key cases.
neon123 wrote: » Does anyone have any insight into how fairly Constitutional is marked?
Dropin wrote: » Could anyone who passed Criminal tell me if its necessary to know what section in a specific piece legislation the relevant information comes from? Or can I just state the Legislation and leave out the section? Seems like it would save a lot of brain space.
Rubeth wrote: » I wrote 4 exams. My second time. Failed again... with 46% all of them .the exact same percentage....
FE1new wrote: » Yes you will need to know the sections for example Assault is covered under Section 2, 3 and 4 of the Non Fatal Offences Against a Person Act 1997 and you need to be able to identify which one is the correct one.
JayFE1 wrote: » Absolutely delighted. I got 54 in Company and 61 in Constitutional. That’s the FE1s done for me and I’m off to Blackhall. A massive congratulations to those who have passed today! I’ve failed two FE1s myself before so I understand how others may feel tonight but don’t stress about it. Use the negativity in a positive way. Use that feeling of deflation today as a motivational tool for the future. Laugh about it and promise yourselves it won’t happen again. Adversity is just an opportunity to break down, rebuild and come back stronger. Even the best field marshals lose battles but the focus is always to win the war! If there’s anything I can do to help - advice or materials or whatever then I’ll do my best to help!
Dropin wrote: » Thank you just starting it now and thought I could cut some corners..
DavidX90 wrote: » Ursula Connolly's Tort nutshell is probably the best one in that series. Amazing lecturer too!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1c2638d40c8423fc1a2b2b1a2a01a3b9.svg)
