Thanks for that - now I'm in even more turmoil about this exam!!
On Sep 16, 5:43 pm, Galway10 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey ryan, here ya go! (don't suppose you have the criminal march 2009
> exam report? i got the paper but looking for the report as usually
> they are pretty helpful. )
>
> The performance of candidates for the most recent sitting of the
> Constitutional
> Law paper for the FE-I exams was broadly in line with previous
> sittings of this
> exam. Once again, there was a significant minority of students who
> performed
> very poorly and failed to pass the exam. Once again, these students
> made many of
> the same mistakes and demonstrated the same lack of skills which had
> caused
> candidates to fail this exam in previous sittings.
> There are a number of common errors which candidates should strive to
> avoid.
> The most common reason for a candidate to fail the exam is by
> providing answers
> which are irrelevant to the question asked. This tends to occur in one
> of two ways.
> Candidates either incorrectly identify the subject-matter of the
> question, or they
> correctly identify the subject-matter but then proceed to provid.e a
> lengthy
> discussion of constitutional caselaw which is not relevant to the
> question asked.
> This latter mistake was frequently made, for example, by candidates
> who chose to
> answer Question 7. Many of these candidates correctly identified that
> the question
> concerned Stuart's right to a fair trial under Article 38. 1. However,
> they then
> proceeded to devote the majority of their answer to discussing the
> many various
> aspects of the rights protected under Article 38. I, regardless of
> their relevance to
> Stuart's situation. Candidates should remember that they are being
> asked to advise
> an individual as to how constitutional law is relevant to their
> situation. They are
> not being asked to provide that individual with a lecture on
> irrelevant aspects of
> the Irish Constitution.
> A similar error was frequently made with regard to the standing of
> Linda in
> Question 5. Some students spent the majority of time discussing
> whether Linda
> had standing to challenge the measure in question. Most of these
> students
> embarked on a lengthy discussion of the SPUClLancefortlPenal Reform
> Trust
> caselaw relating to the standing of interest groups to challenge
> measures. As there
> is no suggestion that a group is involved in this case, or that Linda
> is seeking to
> take the case on behalf of another who cannot, this was irrelevant
> material for
> which candidates obtained very few marks.
> These errors reflect the wider reasons why certain candidates continue
> to fail this
> exam. Those candidates who fail generally appear to have rote-learned
> a list of
> cases and rules without any real appreciation of the relevant
> principles in the areas
> in question. They do not understand the material and they are
> accordingly unable
> to apply it to the questions asked. They are unable to identify the
> two or three
> cases that may be relevant, and to answer the question by reference to
> them.
> Instead they produce a long recitation of material, the relevance of
> which to the
> question asked is either non-existent or badly explained. These
> candidates should
> bear in mind that many students who pass do so with shorter, more
> targeted
> answers which deal directly with the question asked.
> They also tend to compound this error by rote-learning a small number
> of topics
> and answering questions on them, regardless of whether they are asked
> or not.
> Candidates should not try to identify patterns in previous exam papers
> with a view
> to identifying what is 'due to come up'. As the law develops, the
> topicality and
> importance in practice of particular areas change. The paper changes
> to reflect
> this. Furthermore, the paper is not set by reference to previous
> papers, so any
> predictions based on these are unreliable and potentially misleading.
> Many
> students appear to be relying on a common set of predictions, and
> failing the paper
> as a result.
> The general lack of understanding of some candidates was most evident
> in this
> sitting in relation to Question 5. The standard of answer for this
> question was very
> poor. This seems to have been because the facts of the case did not
> directly
> resemble any previously decided authority of the Irish courts. As a
> result,
> candidates were required to think for themselves about what material
> might be
> relevant. The vast majority of candidates were clearly unable to do
> so. Very few
> students, for example, correctly identified the potential implications
> which the
> measure in question could have for freedom of political expression, or
> the right to
> communicate. Many students answered the question by reference to the
> doctrine of
> proportionality as if it was a free-standing constitutional right.
> These candidates
> tended to indicate that the interference with Linda's constitutional
> rights had to be
> proportionate to the aim to be achieved - but then failed to specify
> what
> constitutional rights were in question. This demonstrated not only an
> inability to
> correctly identify the rights engaged, but also a fundamental lack of
> understanding
> of the doctrine of proportionality itself.
>
> On Sep 15, 12:39 pm, ryan80 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hey guys,
> > If anyone has the 2009 Const exam report would they mind uploading it?
> > Cheers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1
Study Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.ie/group/fe-1-study-group?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
