Updated 14 Mar 2023
Thursday was the e-EQE A Exam (0930-1330 CET - 240 mins). Sorry, I do not have a copy available (I was not a benchmarker), but please post any comments you have. The EPO normally makes official copies of the exams available in the compendium in the week after the EQE. - I heard from many people that it was very electromechanical, similar to the old exams when there were separate EM and CH exams.
- There is a clear trend emerging of alternating exams with either very CH cases and solutions or very EM cases and solutions. This pattern seems to be in both A and B, but offset to each other. It does not seem as if they are able to make the combined technologies approach work properly.
- De facto, we seem to have moved from a system pre 2017 where EM/CH specialties were tested each year to the current system where EM/CH specialities are only tested every 2 years. It would be interesting to see how many candidates are now only passing A and B after 2 years. Unfortunately, the publicly available detailed statistics per candidate (anonomised) have been suppressed during the last few years, so it is not possible for any third party to evaluate this.
- Maybe they could announce in advance whether it will be an EM or CH flavour - that could save candidates from a lot of frustration.
- They either need to provide an exam that all competences really can pass or provide better guidance about how to prepare. I still believe that it is a better to have more generic AB exams, but we maybe have to admit that the current EQE system just cannot deliver it.
- It also means that it is pointless discussing theoretical changes to the exam syllabus if they will just produce basically the same exams in different pieces with different names.
- Because of the time pressure, there is no time to rewrite your answer or to change your mind. The only guidance you have is that if you find the supporting words / phrases for claims features, and you have a technical effect for your distinguishing features, then you are probably on the right path.
Just did A on Thurs. I found it extremely hard and super mechanical with so many features, embodiments to cover. Can you still pass paper A with 2 of the 3 embodiments included? If you wording in the spec with the specific embodiment 3, can you claw back some marks as technically, that subject matter is not completely lost.
ReplyDeleteMy claim includes sheet 2a comprise one end 3a which is not fixed to substrate. This covers embodiments 1 and 2 as description and figures states and shows this. Description of embodiment 3 does not state one end of sheet 3a is fixed or not fixed to substrate but figure show 3a is fixed to substrate but I know figures are non limiting examples of embodiments.
ReplyDeleteDescription where the device requires no wires (embodiment 2) and no adhesive (embodiment 3) is clearly stated in description and so inclusion would exclude such embodiments.
It's not clear if one 3a not fixed to substrate would be an unnecessary limitation or exclude embodiment 3 as text of embodiment does not explicitly state 3a is fixed/attached or not fixed/attached to substrate. It just says sheet 2a attaches to substrate.
In all embodiments sheet 2a attaches to substrate but one end 3a of sheet 2a is not fixed on substrate 1.
DeleteEmbodiment 3 states sheet 2a attach to substrate and is silent about the one end 3a. It probably include both options of one end 3a being fixed and not fixed on the substrate right
There's no language in the spec that says one end of 3a is fixed to substrate 1 for embodiment 3 to work (or similar)
I can see that the bandage (3rd embodiment) is silent about the first sheet having one end not fixing to substrate or one end fixing to substrate in the description. It only says the first sheet is attached to substrate but in the figure, it shows the end attach to the substrate. This really was a very subtle and minor change between the figures that it very hard to spot, especially if your eyes are not used to such detailed figures.
DeleteI see your point that the bandage is silent and could cover both options. Would this be seen as a limitation or an exclusion of the whole embodiment 3 (based on the figure showing that the end of the first sheet is attached to the substrate).
So if the bandage is silent, it can cover both option and that the figure is merely a non-limiting illustration that only shows 1 of the option of the example.
Can anyone help to explain whether it would be seen as an exclusion of embodiment or merely a limitation of the bandage (embodiment 3)
Including one end 3a of first sheet 2a that is not fixed to substrate in C1 is an unnecessary limitation as the claim with this limitation still includes a workable embodiment 3 i.e. description is silent whether 3a is fixed or not fixed on substrate so embod 3 covers both options. But it is a limitation as embodiment 3 can also work when 3a is fixed to substrate.
ReplyDeleteIt's like if you limit claim to copper, it would still work with the embodiments but it can be worked around when someone decides to use zinc. So its rather a limitation than an exclusion of embodiment 3.
Pete, the A exam was horrible horrible this year. I was so confused with all the embodiments and all the figures. Probably.failed it because I just didn't get it. In past years, there were at least some guidance in the paper as to how you construct you claim but not much of it this year. Trying to put all embodiments together was near impossible.
ReplyDeleteIt sound like the old-style when it was specialised - they expected you to formulate claims similar to a real-life situation (i.e. coming up with generic terms to cover more than 1 embodiment) instead of the expected combined style (2017 - 2022) of collecting claim phrases.
DeleteYes, that’s true. I spent a lot of time to draft claim 1 and then I didn’t have enough time to think carefully about the limitations and necessary features. I’m chemist and for me it was very difficult. I took the all 4 papers last year for the first time last year, I passed 3 papers except paper A. Last year’s paper A was also very different than the papers of 2017-2021. Now I took it second time and as a chemist struggled a lot and I hope I can pass it. I found it disappointed and unfair. It does not matter how you prepare for this exam if you don’t have an experience in EM field.
DeleteIt was super difficult this year to cover all embodiments. Maybe for EM it comes more naturally but for non-bio/chem, you have to grapple with language and then spot the very subtle changes between each of the figures, which may me miss an embodiment. It felt like you needed to use more of your own words compared to 2017 to 2021.
DeleteIs it possible to pass with 2 out of 3 embodiments covered?
ReplyDeleteYes - in the past, even under the old-style specialised exams, they have accepted more than 1 independent claim where it was difficult to find a formulation that covered them all. But it depends on how many other candidates struggled as well.
DeleteI try to do it under 1 claim but messed it up and I think I covered 2 out of the 3 embodiments. I do have the specific example of the 3rd embodiment in the specific description (albeit fairly limited) so there is basis for it.
DeleteMy biggest worry is obviously excl. an embodiment is a huge penalisation and then there are other things you are penalised for like clarity, unnecessary limitations etc... It really was difficult this year as there were alot of traps that you could easily fall into I felt.
Looks like they are aiming to push down pass rates with A/B. These papers are becoming completely out of step and character. Why? Its meant to be similar in style to recent papers and accessible to all candidates.
ReplyDelete2022 paper A was horrendous. It was quite chem heavy with product by process claims etc... Paper 2023 is equally horrendous. Far to mechanical with much difficulty covering all of the embodiments.
DeleteThe committees have always had a lot of freedom, but it seems as if all supervision has been abandoned. The C committee has refused to divide the exam into two equal pieces (I hope this year will be better, but I am worried it will be the same. The "gateway" exam was always D - once you got that, then it was just a matter of time getting the rest. But it seems as if the C committee want their exam to be the true test for fit to practice (there are a lot of candidates spending more than 2 years just trying to pass C).
DeleteAnd now the A and B committees want to be gateway exams as well. It is ridiculous - they were always the minor exams, intended to be taken after 2 years experience.
They are destroying the profession - who will be doing EQE in the future if you are looking at 3-4 years of exam taking to pass? It is not worth the effort for what you are allowed to do afterwards. It would be much better and easier just to study law. And if you are a national lawyer, you can also represent at the UPC :-).
And it is even more ridiculous when you consider that there is no permanent education for EPA's.
It's absolutely ridiculous this year paper A. It's based on old mechanical style with functional language. I really struggled. There were 5 figures to analyse and all very mechanical and lots of features the wanted to generalise. The real struggle was how to get embodiment 3 to fit with the first two embodiments.
DeleteI feel there is a distinctive shift away from the 2017 to 2021 papers. It shouldn't be like this. Candidates were told those papers will be the style and format.
It's not fair.
No - it is not. Although the pass-rates may not look so bad for the total group of candidates, it means that for individual candidates, some years exams are impossible.
DeleteAnd the standard way of compensating (being flexible about the answers handed-in) does not help when many candidates lose so much time struggling that they do not even get to the end.
They are not looking to reduce the pass rates for paper A. They are looking to make the re-sitters fail further. This has been proven through statistics. The re-sitters are discouraged from resitting, one way or another.
DeleteHi Anonymous March 13, 2023 at 3:34 PM: are you referring to an article or post? I am curious about the proof.
DeleteHi Pete, This is the Anonymous from March 13, 2023 at 3:34 PM.
Deletehttps://information.patentepi.org/2-16/thoughts-on-eqe-training/
A very thought-provoking writing from Mr Cronin. There are some statistics regarding the re-sitters.
Writing it down here as question so that its clear to see. Are I understand that figures are non-limiting examples of a working embodiment? The text of the embodiment never describes that one end of first sheet is fixed to the substrate. It is also silent on one end of the sheet not being fixed to the substrate. So to me, the text covers both options but the figure shows one end of the sheet is attached to the substrate. My understanding is that if a claim is limited to wherein "one end of sheet is not fixed to the substrate", this would still cover one option of the embodiment 3, as it still works, but not the other option.
ReplyDeleteWould this be seen as an exclusion of an embodiment or an unnecessary limitation?
It depends on how many others make the same mistake. They also can punish on A if the claims are too broad covering embodiments not presented by the inventor.
DeleteThis is usually only a problem if you are basing your novelty and inventive step solely on "one end of sheet is not fixed to the substrate",
If it is a side issue in your claims, then they may just penalise it with a minor deduction. However, if this exam is done very badly in general (a lot of different options), they may decide that it is not penalised.
I feel super frustrated with paper A over the past few years. It doesn't really matter how I prepare them anymore as they throw papers like this on the day. There is hardly any past material to help .e. 2017 to 2021 is a completely different paper to the one this year and last year.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point? I might as well turn up next year, do no prep and just sit this paper.
As I mentioned above, A & B were always the minor exams, designed to be taken with only 2 years experience. It looks like the A B committees want to make their exams as difficult to pass as D.
DeleteThe EQE system is completely off the rails - employers are not going to be send anyone to do 2 years study & 2-3 years of resitting. When I qualified (2007), the standard expectation was 1 year of intensive study, pass D and at least 2 of the others, and then do the rest in the 2nd year. It was unheard of that anyone ever had to take A & B more than twice.
My employers does not have the most patience. I had to retake A twice already and don't feel positive about this one. B is equally as bad now. Doesn't the supervisory board oversee the papers before its released. I thought there were EQE testers of these papers to make sure it's actually fair for candidates.
DeleteI think that the Supervisory Board were introduced so that the the Examination Board had more time to work on issues like passing rates, consistency and quality.
DeleteThe epi and EPO both occupy 1/2 the positions in the Supervisory Board and Examination Board, so pass on your complaints to your national epi representatives
I've seen so many version of independent claims already. This is a tricky and difficult one.
ReplyDeleteAlso realise that there is the inherent self-interest of many qualified attorneys and existing firms for the exam to be as difficult as possible. They do not need to play an active role - just not intervene and accept what is going on. This is present in many professions, but I have heard the opinion many times privately, and also at tutor meetings where the passing rate has been discussed.
ReplyDeleteAnd there is a great fear in western/northern European attorney firms about "cheaper" competition in central/eastern European states, which can be discouraged/delayed by making the exams even more difficult for non-native speakers.
It is very easy to fearmonger about the exam becoming too easy, and that too many "unqualified" candidates are passing due to technical compensation, but if these firms and national organisations are sincerely interested in preventing the profession being filled with ignorant practitioners, they should demand compulsory permanent education for EPA's.
That's interesting. In my firm at least, they offer very competitive work products to win clients. They then hire cheap trainees, use the EQE and UK exams as a barrier to suppress wages. I would say the EQE exams are having an opposite effect. By making it more difficult or favouring one specialism over the other, they are effectively shutting out people from qualifying
DeleteThe firms know we can't demand better pay as they are using EQEs as an excuse.
I worked out I get roughly the same wage if I go full time working in a supermarket at a store manager level. So why bother with all these exams. I enjoy some aspects of the job but the brnefits need to substantially outweigh the pain of constant examination. I am re-thinking.
DeleteWhen it was still EM/Chem papers, the penalty for missing an embodiment is about 15 marks. The independent claim is out of 50 marks and dependent claims were 35 marks with 15 marks for the description.
ReplyDeleteMissing an embodiment is a hefty penalty but you can still absolutely pass the paper with good marks (in the 60s). It's better than being too broad and then ending up not being novel or inventive. That is worse. I missed one embodiment but still manage to pass it. The Exam committee as far as I know will not fail candidates solely for missing an embodiment. If its a difficult paper, they almost set traps to make it easy to miss one or accidentally exclude it from your independent claim.
It depends what other errors occur but there are no double penalization allowed. Pete, is this your knowledge or interpretation too?
The EM paper back then didn't have much guidance in the text for how to claim the various embodiments but I understand that the combined papers nowadays should be giving a lot more guidance in the paper to write the claim as you have to use the words in the text, but it seems they are deviating from this again which would obviously be unfair on candidates without significant experience in the EM field.
Yes - that is correct. They make a lot of effort to avoid double penalisation of the marking. The flexibility is guided by the answers of large groups of candidates, so if there are a lot of others with the same solution, they will just accept it.
DeleteThere is always guidance in this combined technology exam. I have not seen a copy, so I have no idea how clear it was.
Based on 2019 paper, missing an embodiment is 14 marks each out of 42 marks. There are 3 embodiments so I assume they deduct roughly 30%
DeleteThe deduction depends on how "easy" it is to come up with an overarching claim.
DeleteI struggled a lot to fit 3 embodiments all under 1 claim this year, the third embodiment was very different. Many (on the other blog) drafted 2 independent claims while others didn't.
DeleteI think I missed an embodiment accidentally because I didn't see the subtle changes between the figures. The description wasn't much of a guidance to clearly state the differences between the embodiments.
Based on what you say though, missing embodiment could be penalized less harshly e.g. instead of 30% marks, it could be penalized by missing an essential feature/unnecessary limitation which would lose less marks.
I would also say that it's a little bit better for a non-mechanical candidate to deal with heavy EM paper B then to draft an entire independent claim in a heavy mechanical paper A, since for B, you need to spot the amendment but for A, you need the technical vocabulary to draft the claim which is obviously much more demanding and challenging especially if you haven't done much of it.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. You have part of the application as filed and the drawings. And if you don't understand the invention at first, you should understand after reading the cited prior art. However, the problem is that it is very easy to end up going in an unexpected direction and losing marks.
DeleteI think that the basic principles of A and B as negative mark exams is a fundamentally flawed principle, which can lead to an enhanced loss of marks. The Disciplinary Board has also commented on this. You start with 100 marks, and lose marks for every mistake. That means that they have to anticipate expected mistakes, and either added additional comments in the exam to point you away from them, or provide a route to keep getting marks after making mistakes. Unfortunately, with the combined technology exams, it is even more difficult to predict what 1000 candidates will do. Because of the time pressure (particularly on B), there is no time to rewrite your answer or change your mind. What you are often missing with an unexpected solution are similar features in the prior art for the novelty & inventive step defence, and you are often missing a clear technical effect associated with your distinguishing features.
On A, because most of the marks are for the independent and dependent claims, and only a few marks for the novelty/inventive step part in the description, you can still pass if you have an unexpected solution and if they award marks for it.
On B, it becomes almost impossible to pass because most of the marks are for argumentation, so you may have no explicit support for your amendment, no clear technical effect to use for inventive step, and there is nothing "close" in the prior art to allow for a problem-solution approach.
The problems in B are made worse by the difficulties in WISEflow of on-screen comparing claims as filed with the description as filed, and on-screen comparing amendments with the claims/application as filed.
And the problems in current B exams are made even worse by the very high time pressure. When the PE was introduced, the B-exam was reduced in 2013 by 30 minutes by providing a claim set form the client. The standard advice was not to think too much and just follow this direction, clearing up clarity and extension issues, and writing out the argumentation. Since 2021, the B committee has gone back to the old-style (< 2013) of B-exam, requiring a more thorough interpretation often deviating from the clients proposal, but without giving the 30 minutes back. So, more technical understanding is needed, but you have no time to think, and definitely no time to correct your answer. You have one-shot to pass.
For the use claim - I wrote "Use of device according to claim X-X for smoothing skin".
ReplyDeleteWould this gain any marks. I understand it has the same claim scope as method for smoothing skin using the device according to claim X-X.
Hi Pete, I want to ask you something about disclaimer. In paper A, I claimed a cosmetic method claim, defining that the method comprising applying the device on intact wrinkled skin for smoothing out the wrinkles wherein said method is not a therapeutic method. Although in the text it is described that when the device is worn in intact skin, there is only cosmetic effect, to be sure I added wherein the cosmetic method is a not a therapeutic method. Is this harmful for my claim? Or is it fine to have extra clarification to define the cosmetic method as non-therapeutic method?
ReplyDeleteI think in this case it should be fine - it does not change the scope of the claim because you are disclaiming unpatentable subject matter.
DeleteThank you!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLast year paper B, this year paper A, too mechanical, , not suitable for the candidates from both chemical and mechanical background. Last 2 years (2022&2023), paper A is different than the papers of 2017-2021. It is going to direction of more mechanical. Even the technology is understandable this year, in order to draft a proper main independent claim, experience in drafting mechanical paper is necessary. drafting mechanical and chemicals are quite different and for the candidates no experience in the field of mechanics, very difficult and time consuming to cover all three embodiments.
ReplyDeleteThey seem to have abandoned (unannounced) their own concept of combined technologies. I don't understand why they cannot make it work.
DeleteIt would be much better if they just announced 1 year in advance what the specialisation will be for A, B and C. At least then you can prepare.
Having talked with candidates from EQE2023 who are seeing the bar raised significantly for passing A, B and C in the WISEflow format, I withdraw my support for the attached changes to the syllabus by the epi. It makes no sense to discuss this when the A, B and C committees have the complete freedom to ignore their own guidelines and ignore the WISEflow limitations in place since 2021. A & B are minor exams that anyone with 2 years of experience should pass with max. 2 attempts. C should also be possible with more experience and max. 2 attempts.
ReplyDeleteNo employer is going to pay for someone to spend 4-6 years trying to qualify 1x per year while fighting random technical issues, unannounced changes in format & content, technology "mood swings" and bloated exams.
This is killing the EPA profession, and effectively shutting out non-native speakers from qualifying at all.
Please switch to the multiple-choice format originally proposed by the European Patent Office as soon as possible, similar to the Pre-Exam, but for all elements. This is hopeless and it is getting worse.
Proposed changes to EQE by epi
DeleteThanks for the contribution and support of us, non-native speakers. I wonder what the last drop was ?
DeleteIt takes the committee about 2 years to complete an exam, so these were all made from the start with the full knowledge of the limitations of WISEflow and that they must use combined technologies for AB. And all 3 exams ABC were more difficult than last year. I think D was within the normal boundaries, although D2 was maybe a bit long.
DeleteThe last drop was probably C - there was not even an attempt to reduce the reading in C-1.
They had 2 years to do it. And they are ruining so many careers of good candidates who are completely fit-to-practice, but cannot do the trick correctly on the 1 day per year that they need to perform. It used to be that only C was like that, but A and B clearly have ambitions to become like C, with a different trick needed each year.
I worry that it is going to end up like in C 2007 (pass rate 15% before correction) when the ex-chairperson of the C committee said that candidates could not pass their perfect C exam, should choose a different career.
Something else has also changed this year. I have never seen such indifference and radio silence from the EQE organisation regarding problems and the ABC exam content.
ReplyDeleteThey also now seem to assume that everyone is cheating. Maybe that is the reason for the crazy ABC exams this year ? - make them so unpredictable that no-one can prepare or figure out the correct answer.
But if they really believe everyone is cheating, they also need to be honest about it, and give the national patent organisations at least a chance to organise test centers with invigilation. Or, like in the UK, allow larger offices to host candidates with invigilation.
I help candidates prepare for future exams, but I have no idea what they are going to do next year. I also have no idea how candidates should practice ABC in general to prepare, or how to practice in WISEflow. It is no longer a test of patent attorney knowledge or skill - it has become an expensive lottery for candidates.
I heard that the EQE secretariat is refusing to pass on any emails to the Examination Board which were not submitted via the form. This puts candidates in an impossible situation. The Disciplinary Board has been very negative about candidates who do not provide details about their complaints as soon as possible, and before marking. They are basically stopping you submitting info that you may need to rely on in an appeal. At least require a written decision from the Secretariat rejecting your complaint, so that you can either appeal that decision or submit it later during an appeal.
ReplyDeleteComplaints about not being able to complain can be sent to EPO ombudsman ombuds@epo.org (don't expect miracles, but at least you will get a written response)
Alternatively, contact your national epi PEC committee contact
Alternatively, you can try to directly contact a member of the Examination Board
It is clear that there a lot of competing opinions behind the scenes, but all I am asking for is that candidates are informed well in advance what they can realistically expect. If there are plans to go back to in-person exams, this should be made known asap so that candidates can decide what is in their best interest. If non-native speakers are to be effectively blocked by requiring close to native language skills, then maybe it makes more sense for candidates to study the appropriate language than practice old exams.
ReplyDeleteEvery time a candidate fails despite adequate preparation, it is like being kicked in the head. Even after 1 failure, self-doubt starts to dominate their EQE preparation. Most attorneys are "control freaks" to a certain degree - you need to be able to keep your cases under control in spite of external influences. That makes the effect of failing much worse in some.
If candidates are facing several years of resits with random chances of passing, it might make more sense to find a part-time law degree and do that. I had a colleague who did that - it took him 5 years. However, he passed everything first time, and he said the workload was similar to a national + European training. He also had a lot more work options open to him after qualification.
The EQE system should respects candidates enough to be honest about the exams that they are preparing for.
I'm honestly lost for words at the technical level of Papers A,B and C over the last few years. I don't even understand the subject matter so it will off course affect my performance. In previous years, the subject matter is to a shaver, a dishwashers tablet, a baby monitor. These are simple subject matter that both EM and CH candidates can grasp. Trying to decrypt and understand the subject matter itself now seems like a barrier to passing.
DeleteI don't understand either, but it is clear from this year's exams that these are deliberate choices. They have had 2 years to make these exams, so they are exactly as they want them to be.
DeleteI think it is partly due to the natural tendency of committees to underestimate the difficulty of exams that they make. They forget that the exam is supposed to be passable by a candidate who has only studied 4 past exams and is seeing this case for the first time. The exams are not intended to be only passable by the committees themselves or tutors who have spent 10 years studying the exam.
It is also due to the self-interest of those who have already qualified who are in the EQE organisation and don't mind if the passing rates are low or the passing rate is low in non-native countries to the east. It is easy to find support for the position that the exam should be hard to keep out the "unqualified". But the same voices are silent about "permanent education" which would have a much bigger effect on the competence of the profession.
Hello Pete. I wanted to ask you a question about double penalization in paper A. If you have two unnecessary features in your independent claim and the inclusion of one or both of them would exclude an embodiment, would you only get penalised once for excluding an embodiment by including both of these features? Or, is it double deduction (one for each unnecessary feature that excludes the same embodiment)
ReplyDeleteIn another example, if you have two clarity points but they relate to the same clarity issue, would you also get penalised only once.
But I should add that the two features are included in 2 of the 3 embodiments.
DeleteIn principle, the marking should be done to avoid double punishment as much as possible, so that a single error should only be punished once. But I have seen exams where the punishment is higher for an error because it has two different legal effects.
DeleteIt also depends on how many others also had the same error. There have also been A exams where they accepted answers that did not cover all embodiments.
Thanks Pete. If that single error excludes 1 embodiment, then another error that excludes the same embodiment would not be punished again? (If i understood your comments correctly). In past papers, excluding an embodiment is between 15 to 20 marks so it would seem harsh to double the punishment for excluding 1 embodiment. I found this year paper extremely difficult to cover all embodiments and made some accidental errors under time pressure. I did find much guidance from the spec for an overall claim language which is usually the case for Paper A.
DeleteI did NOT find much guidance for an overall claim language in the client letter this year... I should say
DeleteIt used to happen regularly on the EM exam that it was very difficult for "specialists" to cover all the embodiments, so they were lenient with the deductions.
DeleteWith the combined technologies, there will be very many who did not manage to cover all embodiments, so they will be very lenient.
I have also heard a rumor that there is hostility between the EPO and epi members of the EQE organisation, which is affecting the quality of the exams being made and the conduct of the exam.
ReplyDeleteI hope that this is not true - candidates should not be the victim of internal politics.
That's terrible. The exams this year and ever since eEQE were introduced have been deviating from previous papers. It's meant to be kept in the same format as other papers but I have to strongly disagree that this is the case now
DeleteNew message from EQE secretariat dated 26.04.23
ReplyDeleteDear candidate,
please be informed that the deadline for enrolment to the pre-examination 2024 has been extended until 30 June 2023. The results for the pre-examination 2023 will be available in mid-May.
Hi Pete - I filed a complaint about paper A (using the required form and in time) but never heard any more about it. It's not a particularly severe matter, but I was surprised not to receive any response. In your experience, is this normal? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteIn general, they will only look at it if you are failing. If they consider it and award marks, they are supposed to indicate this on your exam results. They also supposed to indicate that they checked it and awarded no marks, so that you can decide the basis for any appeal.
DeleteThat’s a relief to know, thank you!
Delete