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.
The basic principle 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 all expected mistakes during exam drafting, 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. 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.
- 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.
Leave a Reply