“As you know, the format of Paper C has changed since 2021 due to the EQE being held online. We would like to receive your opinion about the actual format of the paper and the division of the tasks between the two parts.
Many candidates have raised objections to the time division of Paper C into two parts; in particular, having the parts of equal duration is not fair in view of the large amount of information which needs to be processed in the first part.
In addition, objections have been raised that candidates needed specialised technical knowledge and accompanying vocabulary to be able to attempt Paper C which has negatively affected the performances of some candidates due to their not having knowledge in the technical field of the paper.
We would therefore like to have your opinion on Paper C in its current format. Please respond to the following survey to assist us in our analysis of the situation.”
Many thanks in advance.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincères salutations
Education Team
epi – European Patent Institute
I loved it. Therefore, I passed.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations. And please also fil in the survey anyway.
DeleteTo what end?
DeleteIt's not just paper C. Papers A and B have also been requiring some specialist knowledge in recent years.
ReplyDeleteRead more technical books. Study for the EQE every single waking moment..
DeleteAnd the B exam is also starting to look like the C exam, where they carefully set up a lot of very likely traps around the desired solution.
DeleteAt best, you waste time going through them, but it is easy to fail by falling for just one. A and B have a negative marks system, which they refuse to change even after opinions from the Disciplinary Board that it inherently causes double penalisation.
So you start with 100 marks, and lose marks for every deviation from perfection. Unfortunately, if you do fall for one of these traps, there is no way to finish because they have not provided any ammunition for the novelty and inventive step argumentation. They are all dead-ends.
And this year in B, it it was almost impossible for someone who is not used to the chemistry legal tests to judge which arguments are the strongest. And there is no time to think or redo anything because of the amount of material and the missing 30 minutes.
When the PE was introduced, the B-exam was reduced in 2013 by 30 minutes by providing a claim set from the client. This can only save time if it is almost exactly the direction to go in. The standard advice from tutors used to be (in 2013 - 2019) 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 (unannounced) 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 to figure out the amendments, but you have no time to think, and definitely no time to correct your answer. You now have just one shot at passing.
I wonder if there are really necessary 80 pages of paper to test a candidate skills?
ReplyDeleteEQE stats are out.
ReplyDeletePaper C pass rate extremely high this year with a pass rate close to 70%
Paper D pass rate around 50%. Similar to previous years.
Papers A and B pass rate around 70-75%. On par with previous years.
Why do you cite the statistics incorrectly?
DeleteIt is easy enough to read the last line of each table, which tells you that there exists "pass", "compensable fail" and "fail". E.g., Paper D has a fail rate of ca. 51%, a compensable fail rate of ca. 10% and a pass rate of ca. 38%; which means that > 60% of the candidates received less than 50 points in Paper D.
Likewise, Paper C has a fail rate of ca. 34%, a compensable fail rate of of ca. 12% and a pass rate of ca. 54%; which means that > 45% of the candidates received less than 50 points in Paper C.
Some more thoughts on the statistics: There seems to be a nationality or language dependent component. If we take the nationals of (GB, FR, DE) and count the "fail" rate (only "fail", without "compensable fail"), we get (rounded to full percents):
DeletePaper A: (GB, FR, DE) = (11, 23, 30) % fails;
Paper B: (GB, FR, DE) = (13, 29, 28) % fails;
Paper C: (GB, FR, DE) = (18, 27, 36) % fails;
Paper D: (GB, FR, DE) = (19, 49, 57) % fails.
Now, what does this statistics mean? Is the exam simply the easiest in EN, e.g., because it has been designed specifically in EN? Or did the GB national candidates train differently from other candidates?
Concerning the language: if you compare the printable parts of Paper C, you will see that there is less black ink on every single sheet of paper of the EN version as compared to both the FR and DE versions. I.e., if you write the exams in FR or DE, you have to process more written text than if you do the exam in EN.
And finally a complaint that is specific to this year: if they highlight the number of women among the candidates in a press release, I would have at least expected one table comparing the number of men and women and their success rates (e.g., summed over all countries).
I looked at the statistics for the last few years, and they are very similar (Participants from DE and FR have a much higher failure rate than participants from GB). That's really remarkable. But what could be the reason for that? To the examiners, who all speak English better than German or French? To the amount of texts, which are less extensive in English than in German and French (but this is not very relevant for part A or B, because the time factor is not so important)?
DeleteOr are people from the UK simply smarter on average;D
Drawing conclusions just from official statistics is very difficult. That is deliberate - detailed statistics are distributed within the EQE boards and committees, but the Supervisory Board can determine exactly what is publicly released (Art. 3(5) REE). The system is set up to discourage candidates from filing appeals, to disadvantage anyone filing an appeal, and to avoid criticism. The info released gets less each year - we used to have the scores per candidate on each exam, and the marking sheets for the candidates solutions, but those have disappeared.
DeleteI prefer to look at "Pass + CF" as the true passing rate, because it closer represents the chance for a candidate to pass that particular exam. Assuming the secret marking procedure is still the same, candidates that are just failing (43-44) or at the top of the CF band (48-49) are reevaluated to see if they have been treated harshly by the marking. This is a very positive aspect of the procedure for those who benefit, but the criteria applied ("fit to practice" or the potential to be "fit to practice") are vague, vary from year to year, vary between papers, and vary even between questions on the same exam. So, there are also a lot who are not awarded any extra marks.
DeleteAssuming the secret marking procedure is still the same, there is an initial estimation of the passing rate early in the marking by the committee. If it is too low, they adapt the marking to push the rate up to a "normal level".
DeleteThere is also no normalisation applied to the results - most exam systems use this because the preparation level of candidates as a group is usually similar, particularly for first-time sitters. Based on the bell curve, the results can be shifted to compensate for an unusually difficult or unusually easy exam. In general, the top candidates should be able to get 100 marks.
The EQE has a different approach - the statistics for resitters / first-time sitters are no longer published, and the total score per candidate on each paper (I used to make the bell curves :-) are also no longer published. On most C and D papers, no candidate gets above 80 marks. But that does not mean that the passing rate is less, because the central part of the bell curve is distorted to push up those scoring in the region 40 - 60 marks.
Tutor's are interested in preparation vs. chance of passing. Whatever marking procedure is applied, well-prepared candidates should have the same chance of scoring 45 or more (effectively a pass for most candidates) every year. This is based on the statistics, the Examiner Report (which is basically the marking sheet and marking instructions used to mark the exams), and the candidates solution (which tend to be native speakers who score 75 marks or higher, but cannot be verified any more because their marking sheet is no longer published). But is also based on the individual results from candidates that you have been in contact with. You can get a good idea of someone's actual level from the questions that they ask, the way they answer questions, and the language they use in their answers.
DeleteSo, a high passing rate does not always mean that there was a greater chance of passing for an individual well-prepared candidate. Their preparation is based on extrapolation from past papers and best study practices from other candidates - if someone puts the time and effort in, with support from their employer, they should be able to have pass in 1-2 efforts. Unfortunately, the predictability of passing for ABC is getting worse. This year, there also seems to a problem with D - a lot of well-prepared candidates seem to have just failed (40 - 45 range).
UK candidates seems to perform better than their peers incl. Germany and France. Anyone know why?
ReplyDeleteThere is a way to pass these exams. Technique! I think UK candidates grasp it better.
DeleteAlso, the EQE exams are fairly predictable with practice like paper C. There is an answer and a best attack. You just need to work it out. This does come with doing many many past papers and you will spot a pattern.
The UK exams are not like the EQEs at all and alot harder.
I agree that the more past papers that you do, and the more time that you spend preparing for each exam, the more chance that you have to spot these patterns and to pass. But that is not acceptable - the time required should be reasonable and relatively constant. Otherwise, you are greatly favoring those with a lot of support (financial, moral, knowledge) from their employer, and native speakers who can pick up on the subtilities.
DeleteI have not taught many FR candidates, so I am not sure why they score lower. But my general impression is that UK nationals score at a normal "native speaker" level, and that DE nationals score lower than you would expect when comparing to other nationalities. It is not intelligence - every candidate has a technical university degree.
DeleteI have mainly taught D. Many DE nationals seem to have difficulty switching styles between their national exams (where they have to give an opinion or argue both sides using selected case law) and the EQE (where the D1 committee just wants the answer in the Guidelines and giving your own opinion is fatal).
UK nationals seem to be better at this. I think that this is due to their education system - they are used to working with fewer exact rules about what could be tested.
DE nationals seem to prefer more structure (eg flowcharts, tables, templates) to try and anticipate all possibilities before the exam, but they can have problems adapting if something unexpected comes up.
During the last years, UK nationals have been getting more of an advantage because all the exams are now drafted in English first, and then translated (often poorly) into DE & FR.
DeleteEnglish has a lot of synonyms, and words that are almost identical, but slightly different in meaning. So, it is possible to build in a lot of subtle hints about the desired answers in English. So, the text in English can be shorter than using synonyms, but it can be unclear, particularly when referring to another section.
German is a much more precise language with the verb endings, plural endings and genders etc. Look at claims in German - they are almost never unclear when referring between features.
German words also tend to be descriptive about what something is physically, whereas English tends to include a lot of synonyms with historical or cultural context.
This difference will get worse because the committees are filling the exams with more and more tricks and traps, making use of the unclarity in English.
Also, as Gabi pointed out in earlier posts, German is losing its position within the EPO and the profession as an equal language. The second language of most candidates is English, and that percentage is probably increasing.
Hi Pete,
Deletejust to be sure that we are on the same page: if you refer to German national exams using "case law", I would call that "exemplary case", just as for Paper A,B,C and D2 of the EQE. "Case law" - to my understanding - in the legal context refers to how the UK and US court systems operate to a much larger extent than the DE court system does (and maybe others, which I am ignorant of). E.g., the COMVIK approach in the EQE is "case law". And the EPO uses a lot of this type of "case law" (= promoting a decision of the board of appeal into an equivalent to a legal prescription).
Concerning your remarks from training experiences: I think that it is very helpful to point out that across different cultures, we have a very different way of taking expressions as binding or not. If candidates are made more aware that they have to "translate" the sense of what they are told in a different language, or by a person from a different country, it can help them on the long run.
DeleteAnd finally, yes, in the German national exams, we usually have to write in the "Gutachtenstil", i.e., considering situations from all angles, including pros and cons. I think that in that context, we get a training of aiming at spotting subtle inconsistencies. Unfortunately, in the EQE such subtle inconsistencies are more often than not unintended blunders of the exam design, in many cases of the DE translation. And you will be penalized instead of being rewarded if you spend any time or energy on them.
I meant that DE nationals in their national exams are mainly encouraged to cite decisions to support their answers, so the argumentation is evaluated more than the answer. I would say that this is a proper legal exam style.
DeleteThe EQE works the other way around - they set everything up for a particular answer, so you get mainly marks for providing the expected answer based on Guidelines and decisions in the Guidelines. There is no real evaluation of alternative argumentation. There is a theoretical possibility to argue something else ("candidates with good arguments were awarded marks etc."), but I have asked before at the Tutors' Meeting to the committee how many candidates provided convincing arguments, and it is usually zero or very few (from 1000 candidates!).
EN nationals are also taught in their education to use a lot of synonyms between sentences to improve readability. So, they are also more used to ignoring these differences. DE nationals (and non-native EN speakers) tend to assume that a different word was used deliberately to indicate a real difference.
DeleteThis can all be improved very easily by:
- using Simplified English for the exams
- using consistent language (fewer synonyms) unless a difference is deliberate (write the exam "boring" like a patent application)
- limiting the number of words to read
- ensure that all technical terms are translatable at an early stage of drafting
Dear Pete - This is an excellent thread. You are really going into the core aspects of EQE, which is almost impossible to quantify. Everyone should read this thread. To me, this passage resonates more:
Delete"I agree that the more past papers that you do, and the more time that you spend preparing for each exam, the more chance that you have to spot these patterns and to pass. But that is not acceptable - the time required should be reasonable and relatively constant. Otherwise, you are greatly favoring those with a lot of support (financial, moral, knowledge) from their employer, and native speakers who can pick up on the subtilities."
Thank you!
You are welcome!
DeleteThe mindset of those making the exams is also important. In the past, they were clearly pushing to pass those who were "fit to practice" or the potential to be "fit to practice". That does mean that some candidates got through with less preparation and more luck, but that is an acceptable compromise. It also used to be that if you got the correct answer, they did give you the benefit of the doubt and not fail you for minor omissions.
Unfortunately, this seems to have changed. Some of the committees seem obsessed with ensuring that no-one "unworthy" will pass. This means that many "fit to practice" candidates cannot get through, or need more than one attempt at the "EQE lottery".
This is particularly fatal for a lot of resitters. If they were already well-prepared, and still failed, it is very hard to find the motivation to study it all again. They first need to get past failing publicly (everyone knows you took the exam, everyone asks you about it).
It is horrific for anyone having to resit D, especially if they feel as if they could not have done more. I have heard comparisons with a death in the family - they first need a period of mourning to get past it.
In general, D resitters tend to get worse on D1 and better on D2 because they can use some of their practical skills when advising on D2, and the D1 knowledge is hardly used in real-life (formalities officers handle these aspects). Unfortunately, the marks available for D2 (which is basically testing the skills you are training for) are currently only 45 marks, and you have to do all the D1 questions first, so it is even more difficult than in the past for resitters to pass. On top of that, many employers will only pay for courses and books the first time, so you are really on your own.
Yes on all the accounts. The mindset of the exam framers can hardly be changed. I am sure most of them have had the support system in place and would not blame them entirely because they would certainly argue against "reducing the standards".
DeleteWhat we can do, for instance, is help each other deal with the problem of passing after successive attempts. To support others who are in similar situation with the EQE, even if the same support has been denied to self.
On a different note, with regards to paper D, from my personal experience of passing it on the third attempt (67 marks), I found establishing a study group to be the most effective way to overcome D1. This is hardly ever possible at the work place. Lot of colleagues are competing for the same thing as the trainee and there is not a lot of incentive to support each other. Only truly lucky people will be able to find someone who is genuinely interested in helping the other at the work place. Again, my experience has been the one of not to expect this from colleagues. The "role" of supervisor at work regarding training for EQE has been nothing by a joke. And I truly feel sorry for this. But I can hardly afford to sit on that problem.
The daily D questions online system established by EPO and the latest D question bank from different sources with the updated legal basis is, in my view, the answer.
The daily D questions had a forum established by a tutor and it provided the opportunity to test, every day, for 40 consecutive days, against the race of time, how many points can be scored on each of these questions.
Each of the questions were provided with the number of minutes required to answer. I clocked this time and answered the questions. Most important step of all is the honest feedback on my answers, which was given mostly by other candidates in the same boat as me, in the forum. This improved my answering techniques. I offered my feedback wherever possible as well.
On the other hand, this kind of support system is not available for re-sitters of papers A, B and C. As you mention in one of your posts above, the shame of resitting is only exaggerated by the number of people inquiring about the results after they are published. There is no escaping this. This is where I believe the support system financial, moral, knowledge from the employer comes handy. It is a grind between the successive examinations.
Could it be that the UK and EQE exams are quite similar I'm style and content
DeleteI would say that in the UK, the profession is dominated by a few big private practice firms so perhaps their training and experience along with financial support boosts the UK results. I would be interested to know how many in the UK are from big private practice firms and how many are from others.
Maybe it's an interaction of (i) the exams are originally drafted in English and then (as already stated by Pete, poorly) translated into the other official languages, which means that some of the original content of the exams is literally lost in translation, and (ii) English as a language is far less complex than DE or FR, for example, when it comes to sentence construction and even average word length.
DeleteIt is clear that this will result in an advantage for native English speakers as (i) they will be able to understand all the original subtleties needed to crack a case (subtleties that may not even be present anymore in the other language versions) and (ii) text digestion and production consume way less time when taking the exam in English. Of course, these advantages do not apply to non-native speakers who take the English exam.
This is just another aspect of the flawed EQE system. Just like the technical content of the papers will always be to some candidates' (dis)advantage due to their personal background (be it training or personal interests; e.g., being passionate about road racing bikes I personally loved this year's C paper ), there is simply no way to provide an exam that is equally challenging in three different languages.
It is impossible to 100% even out all the language and technical differences, but the exams 7-10 years ago seemed to be much more consistent (and shorter). It is also a big difference with the in-person exams when you could easily put all the drawings and claims side-by-side, and easily annotate the drawings.
DeleteI agree. But at least that is a setback that all candidates have to deal with, irrespective of language. So that should not have an impact on the pass rates of UK candidates being higher than DE and FR.
DeleteCommittees guys are just dangerous bureaucrats
DeleteIt is incorrect and unfair to label the committee guys as "dangerous bureaucrats". They are doing their absolute best to generate and mark the exams.
DeleteThe issues are due to the EQE system that they are forced to work in.
If you look at the last 20 years, UK candidates consistently outperform their peers. Its not simple because the exam is drafted in English as back in the days especially for Paper C, there were prior art in 3 different languages.
ReplyDeleteIn a paper of more than 70 page the fact that it is draft in English for a British I think that really matters, especially when you are in time pressure.
DeleteWe need to understand what the UK is doing right and try to replicate that across all European states.
ReplyDeleteThis would be great.
DeleteIt does seem as if their advantage is growing, so we can also look at things that are changing.
I still think that a major factor is that all the exams are currently drafted mainly drafted in English, and then translated into other languages at the end. It used to be that some exams were drafted in German or French.
There is also the general principle at the EQE that the longer the hand-in answer, the higher the score. English tends to be shorter than German just based on the number of words. English also does not use any letters with accents. Even a 5% advantage in typing speed can make a difference in passing rate.
A simple explanation may be that UK candidates are generally younger when they sit the EQEs (and consequentely don't have kids/brains still wired for studying after uni). From my understanding, UK students can start a PhD straight after obtaining their bachelor degree, and a PhD only takes 3-max 4 years. In many countries, a master's degree is also required and a PhD takes 5-6 years. I also think it takes longer to find a patent attorney trainee position on the continent as compared to UK. This may only be valid for life sciences/chemistry, but in the company where I work it is definitely true that my UK colleagues were on average 5 years younger than colleagues from the continent when they sat the EQEs.
ReplyDeleteInteresting points. I don't think it is so related to age, but mainly where you are in your career and other "distractions". Candidates with the highest chance of passing are those who have recently studied with no responsibility at work, no kids, no life partner, no social activities etc.
DeleteAnother factor is also the mismatch between the exams and real-life cases. When you have little experience, you can handle the black/white decision making needed based upon the Guidelines & G-decisions. But the more experience you have, the more grey areas you have seen, and the more you realise that some of the exam scoring are for aspects that are less important in real-life.
Hi, do you suggest to have more than a device ready for exam? Is it dangerous to use mac devices for exam?
ReplyDeleteI used an iMac for the 2022 main exam and passed - thus, I would not classify it as "dangerous". I was worried at that time if I could use my wireless (Bluetooth) keyboard and trackpad, but the worry was unnecessary.
DeleteThe one thing you might want to consider is that the developpers of the commercial exam software do the development for Windows and only later perform analogous adjustments for Mac OS. Thus, you may have less "fancy" functionalities if you use a Mac.
It basically boils down to how important these "fancy" functionalities are to you.
For some, it may be wise to have a spare device ready. You may not have the spare device powered on and within reach during the exam, but you can have it turned off somewhere else in the room.
DeleteIf you have a problem with your main system, you can contact the helpdesk and switch to the other system.
But this is very personal, and it is additional preparation work to make sure that both are fully up to date, and both work properly with the cameras / microphone / speakers / screens.
It is not easy have a spare device and not easy to configure your own work/office device for exam (firewall VPN etc.) cause they are managed from company.
DeleteI did't expect such a low quality and bad IT form EPO
Survey of EQE 2023 is available here: https://link.epo.org/elearning/Survey2023
ReplyDelete80% of the candidates who took the survey have felt that the time provided for paper C 2023 is either "not sufficient" or "by far not sufficient".
This further supports the issues in the epi survey.
DeleteSo, if the EQE organisation decides not to change anything, it is because they do not want to change, and they are unfortunately using the info overload as an old-fashioned candidate filter. It is not that difficult to adapt the exam by moving some of prior art etc, especially as they have had many months to do it (actually 3 years).
Also, they could very easily move 1hr from part 2 to part 1 in the exam schedule.
But as a candidate for EQE2024, you cannot rely on anything changing - hope for the best and prepare for the worst. You will just have to adapt in some way - don't try and understand the technology, just find the pieces and hand-in as much as possible during the first part. Only consider features with a clear technical effect.