Fireball Patents

EQE 2010 Results – Statistics [1]

The EPO has published a list of EQE results this year. It makes interesting reading – a top score of 95 for D this year is pretty amazing.

I had some questions about the list – does anybody know:


– What are the significance of the …..X registration numbers ?
– How are the registration numbers assigned ?
– Can I see who is a re-sitter from the registration numbers ?
– Does a 0 score mean that an answer was handed in and marked, or that the candidate was registered for the exam and didn’t turn up (or both) ?
– There seems to be 2 blocks of numbers 1xxxxx and 2xxxxx – does this have any significance?

EQE guru

,

18 responses to “EQE 2010 Results – Statistics [1]”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have been told from somebody who should know that paper D results were so bad this year that the marking had to be massively realigned upwards. This might explain a 95 mark for someone who was well beyond the average.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I do not know for sure but my guess is that the 1xxxxx series represent resitters whereas the 2xxxxx series represent first-time sitters. Seems to be a lot more "all-parts-results" in the second category, which could support my theory. It would in deed be interesting to find out.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I has a 1xxxxxx number and sat all for first time.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I was a resitter and had a 1xxxxx number without an X.

    Reply
  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I was registered as a first time sitter for all four exams with a 2xxxxx number.I did not turn up for Paper D, and was awarded 0 marks.The 123456X numbers could perhaps be EPO X-aminers?

    Reply
  6. CasperS Avatar
    CasperS

    I just went through the results, and note the following:71 persons has sat Paper A only (3 have 2xxxxx numbers)52 persons has sat Paper B only (0 have 2xxxxx numbers)316 persons has sat Paper C only (0 have 2xxxxx numbers)135 persons has sat Paper D only (4 have 2xxxxx numbers)I think that there is a high probability that many of the 1xxxxx numbers belong to re-sitters, as it seems obscure to me that 316 persons would start their EQE experience with Paper C.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    i have re-sitted C and D and have a 1XXXXX number, but no final Xi will look this week end after my past registration numbers to see if it is the same and if it was also in 1xxxxx

    Reply
  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I am not an EPO examiner and I re-sitted A, C and D this year and my number is 13…X.

    Reply
  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Paper C resitter (and finally PASSED!!!!!), no EPO examiner, number with ….X

    Reply
  10. CasperS Avatar
    CasperS

    A bit more statistics to aid in solving the puzzle. Maybe we should just ask the EPO?136 Candidates have a 1….X number59 Candidates have a 2….X number579 Candidates have a 2….. number1397 Candidates have a 1….. numberIn 2009 the number of candidates that sat the examination in full or part was 616In 2009 the number of candidates that re-sat the examination in full or part was 1125There is a correlation between the number of first time sitters and resitters in 2009 and the 2xxxxx and 1xxxxx numbers. This additionally suggests that 1xxxxx numbers are resitters. Maybe anonymous @ August 13, 2010 10:36 AM was enrolled a previous year, but did not turn up, or cancelled the exams?Anonymous @ August 14, 2010 5:22 PM –> I cannot see any correlation between the second number 13xxxx and the number of exams resat. It fits in your case, but not for the rest.It seems that the EPO examiners X idea must be scrapped.

    Reply
  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have a 1…..X numberI registered one year, but withdrew about one or two months before and didn't sit any exams then.The next year I registered for all 4.maybe the X represents a previous withdrawal

    Reply
  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    no, it does not represent a previous withdrawal; it was not my case and I had a 1…X number.

    Reply
  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    definitely no withdraw! I withdrew last year and have no X.

    Reply
  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It seems that last digit (like X) is a control digit.For example if you read only the first 5 digit, the numbers at page 64 are the followings: 20660, 20661, 20662, 20663, 20664, etc. (in order) and the 6th digits are: 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, X.

    Reply
  15. Pete Pollard Avatar
    Pete Pollard

    It looks like you are right about it being a control digit – the 6th digit can be 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,X where X is presumably 10 (like a roman numeral)By the way, I did ask the EPO and they refused to give me any information about the results or the registration numbersNow to figure out the difference between the 1…. and 2….. number series

    Reply
  16. CasperS Avatar
    CasperS

    Yes, of course!11 control digits (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) implies a MOD11 "like" check digit system. It appears that the check digit is: 11 minus Modulus 11 of the sum of all the digits. No weighing has been used for the digits. MOD11 is described i.a. here: http://www.pgrocer.net/Cis51/mod11.htmlAll the circumstantial evidence above points in the direction that 2xxxxx series belong to first-time sitters (form 51014), and that the 1xxxxx series belong to re-sitters (form 51015).

    Reply
  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I has a 20xxxx number and sat all for first time … I passed all

    Reply
  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It would seem much simpler to assume the 1.. series was issued to a point, which was followed by the 2… series. The number stays the same for the same candidate, being issued on the first enrollment. The control digit is quite similar to the old ISBN (books) control digit. On a curious note the Portuguese Id card also had a mod11 control digit, but being wary of the reaction of quite a lot of people branded 'X', these were recalculated as 0, weakening the checksum, and defeating what was actually a fairly good idea!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *