missindigo123 wrote: » The law society recommend these courses on their webpage so I think they either need to discuss the course more with the law society or frankly stop recommending them.
Troels Hartmann wrote: » I'd add a note of caution here before anyone writes to the LS: 1) I'm not sure if I would openly ask for a resit. From the LS perspective that might sound like a cheeky request from a crowd of people who have had a bad exam, and (let's face it) it's a long shot. 2) I'd steer well clear of mentioning prep courses or manuals. Bear in mind that all of them are conducted totally separately from the LS and have nothing to do with them and are therefore not any kind of official indication of the syllabus or likely content of the exam. If you're writing to them, focus on the syllabus syllabus syllabus syllabus, and secondly the appalling and confusing drafting of some of the questions. I suppose we need to be realistic here. While a resit would be nice, the best we might be able to hope for is some kind of drastically lenient marking scheme to take account of all of this. Just when we thought the stress was over!!
FeDespair wrote: » So what happens next? Write letters to the lady mentioned? .
lawbear wrote: » LawCQ91 wrote: » Mine is all packed up , not going to look at it again ;( but recall It's the one on the charter, something about double jeopardy on EU criminal law and one about art 47 of the charter, The one on criminal law one is definitely not on the syllabus .. To be honest I didn't know what the art 47 is it asking . Did anyone else attempt the charter question? I didnt have a clue what it was really asking but i remembered studying something on the charter, how the judiciary played a huge role in developing it, art 7 then with lisbon, how eu is influenced by ECHR and threw in Art 260 about pecuniary fines and that ....probaby completely wrong but I was desperate...rattled my brain to throw sometging down Yeah, I wrote a bit on the Article 47 question. I mentioned Article 263, UPA v Council (AG Jacobs) in terms of denying people an effective remedy. Good shout on Art 260. I knew topic well but it was all so rushed it never occurred to me to add that!
LawCQ91 wrote: » Mine is all packed up , not going to look at it again ;( but recall It's the one on the charter, something about double jeopardy on EU criminal law and one about art 47 of the charter, The one on criminal law one is definitely not on the syllabus .. To be honest I didn't know what the art 47 is it asking . Did anyone else attempt the charter question? I didnt have a clue what it was really asking but i remembered studying something on the charter, how the judiciary played a huge role in developing it, art 7 then with lisbon, how eu is influenced by ECHR and threw in Art 260 about pecuniary fines and that ....probaby completely wrong but I was desperate...rattled my brain to throw sometging down
chops018 wrote: » When I did EU there was a question on EU Criminal Law and I remember everyone giving out about it coming up. EU Criminal Law was a module in my Masters so I was able to give the question a go. There is nearly a whole treaty or section of a treaty on criminal law in Blackstones. I don't think I had any case law, and if I did it was only one case. I think I just talked about EAW, cross border policies, EUROPOL, the treaties, how criminal law took ages to develop. I suppose those who have never studied it before, and if it wasn't on the syllabus, couldn't even attempt that question though.
genuinely55 wrote: » Haven't been able to read through all the posts but definitely get the jist. That paper was poorly drafted and contained multiple questions clearly beyond the scope of the FE1s. Those of you who rattled out 3.5 rubbish answers will probably pass but I was among those who couldn't even take a stab at that. Is there consensus on the best way of making our voices heard to the law society? Just so everyone is clear on what to do.
LawCQ91 wrote: » Someone posted earlier that they were going to email their lecturers from a prep course? What course did they do?
sunshine and showers wrote: » And Jen pointed put that her manual says the euro and monetary stuff is beyond the scope of the FE1s. That makes that Pringle question dodgy.
LawCQ91 wrote: » Mine is all packed up , not going to look at it again ;( but recall It's the one on the charter, something about double jeopardy on EU criminal law and one about art 47 of the charter, The one on criminal law one is definitely not on the syllabus .. To be honest I didn't know what the art 47 is it asking ..
Pepp1989 wrote: » I haven't been able (mentally) to look at the paper again or think about it. What questions were the ones that weren't on the syllabus? My only memory of the exam is reading the problem questions over and over and just going 'what? Read it again'.
LawCQ91 wrote: » There is at least one question that's not on the syllabus there is no way you could prepare for unless you had done your masters or PHD in it !! Then there is another question which you can 'argue' is someway related to the syllabus but it's really not..
notabasicb wrote: » Were there Qs not on the syllabus or was it just a very tough paper which focused on discrete areas?
Arcturus2112 wrote: » Also, I think Paula Sheedy is head of examinations in the Law Society. Her email is [email]p.sheedy{at}lawsociety.ie[/email]
jenspondolik wrote: » [email]fe1section{at}lawsociety.ie[/email]
Lily Belle wrote: » I agree guys. If anything is to be done we need to do it fast. Not that I think it'll make a difference. But it's unacceptable, I had three other exams that allowed me to apply my knowledge. This exam made me feel inferior and has set my career back a year and is showing the law society to be as money grabbing as they've always been made out to be. Why is it that the exams are being set at a harder level in all subjects as the years progress? I've had a few drinks now and feeling slightly william Wallace about it all. Strongly worded email being drafted on the bus home tomorrow (no idea where to send it though?!).
lawbear wrote: » I would definitely be on board for some sort of petition, but if we are going to take action we eould need to act fast, long before results come out. I didnt prepare for eu as well as i prepared for my other four (I passed 3 in my last sitting) but i prepared a good bit nonetheless and i would have been able to answer the past papers alot more comfortably. There is absolutely no need for the questions to be structured the way they are...aside from content...i find there extremely badly worded the problem questions.
southcounty wrote: » I'm putting pen to paper tomorrow and writing a letter too. Screw this we study for months on end and pay enough between hotels and transport as well the exam fees and then to go in and have questions come up on topics that aren't even the syllabus and casenotes on cases so fresh from the ecj there not even on the EU website yet!! I would strongly urge everyone who feels an injustice was done today to also write a letter or an email, and keep a copy of it!! The more people that speak out the better they can't ignore us all!! At the very least we deserve a resit even though it's not ideal but a lot of people,including myself, put in a damn lot of work to get to blackhall this year!! They don't realise it's peoples lives they are messing with. I am going to try and find out which authority at the law society these letters should be sent to and I will post it here ASAP for people who want to follow suit.
