So... I had my law exams a few days ago and if I was going to give you a one word of summary of each, it would be: Brillinat, crap and craptacular. Oh, I can't resist. Blow by blow account of each here we come!
Paper 1: You have 45 minutes to do 1 question (3 parts) of a choice of two. This paper, I think I aced! I had a great, straight up question on the advantages and disadvantages of "ADR" followed by another simple, impossible to misinterpret question on the effects of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 on the Civil Justice system. That paper went brilliantly... and totally lulled me into a false sense of security!
Paper 2: You have 1 hour 30 minutes to answer two questions from a choice of six. *engaging rant mode*
Every single, damn question on that paper was either on a really, narrow a topic that was practically impossible to stretch a full 15 marks out of or was drowning in legalese so you could barely understand the question. None of my favourite topics were on there: Bail, magistrates, statutory interpretation, Woolf reforms or the jury. Pretty unlucky - probably makes up for paper 1.
In the end, I had to wade through a dodgey 10 mark question on equity to get to a straight forward advantages/disadvantages question on precedent. With the dodgey 10 mark question, I just wrote reams - going for quantity over quality. And then tackled a (comparitively) OK question on the Crown Prosecution service, but I wouldn't say it was one of my best areas... I don't think I put in enough detail. In heinseit, I could have done the questions on EU law, but the questions were on quite narrow sections of the syllabus - not much scope for picking up a whole 15 marks.
Ugh. But things got worse on paper 3: 45 minutes to answer 1 question - no choice. At first glance, it's on statutory interpretation - Woo! Actually looking at the questions: WTF? The questions were joined with the Human Rights Act 1998 and just worded so crazily, I think I got the complete wrong end of the stick on the first one, 5 marks down the drain already. Which means I could only possibly get a low B if I got perfect marks on the other three questions.
And I think it's safe to say that's not gonna happen. My arguement had no flow, whatsoever in any of the questions on that paper. It didn't help that I was kinda gutted over Paper 2, so I wasn't thinking particulaly clearly. If I had to guess at what I got on the papers, it would be: A, B/A, D/E. And that's not the only thing that's bringing me down right now.
I would go and wallow in self pity, but I did that Tuesday and, frankly, it's over rated.