Good luck for the EQEs!

The IPKat would like to wish all those taking the European qualifying examinations, which are being held over the next few days, the very best of luck. Just remember: there is only one true answer, which is one the examiners want to see.  Do your best at guessing what this is and you should be fine. 

(right: a traditional lucky Japanese cat, available to buy here)

For tips on what to take with you, there are some helpful (and some not so helpful) suggestions here.  
Good luck for the EQEs! Good luck for the EQEs! Reviewed by David Pearce on Monday, March 02, 2009 Rating: 5


  1. I should like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed in this post: good luck!

  2. I agree with the original sentiment - good luck to all EQE candidates. Give it your best.

    However, there appears to be a little bitterness coming through in this post, which I find deconstructive and negative, and which in my view does the profession no favours. If the original poster is annoyed with the EQE administrators, perhaps he ought to show a bit more dignity and keep it to himself. No examination system is perfect, and in my experience having passed the EQE a couple of years ago, real life practice is much harder.

    I really like this blog for the useful factual information it provides, and am very grateful for it too. One small request - please keep it that way - professional.

  3. The Decision of the Disciplinary Board of Appeal regarding the 2007 EQE Paper C
    (see epi information 4/2008, 134)
    appears to support David's somewhat cynical remark.

  4. I can't agree. Whilst there appears little doubt that EQE Paper C 2007 was less than perfect, one must bear in mind that it is only one paper out of many. David's post gives a broader impression, albeit I accept it may have been a tongue-in-cheek comment.

    My previous point questions the benefit of bringing EQE Paper C 2007 to everyone's attention again.

    Not only is it a bit of a waste of time for those reading the post, but it may detract from the relatively high-standard of qualification which we have in Europe, and which is respected worldwide.

  5. The question at issue has nothing to do with the quality of the paper. Instead the decision focuses on a problematic point of behaviour of the Examination Board:
    (The fact that all the examination committees awarded no points when
    candidates failed to select the „right“ starting document….)
    Exactly this point appears to be raised by David. All those with at least some experience in the matter know that rarely there is just one “right” document. In so far there cannot be a waste of time and in particular not for those in the Examination Board, to read both the comment in the epi Journal and the decision itself.
    That does not mean that the Examination Board does not have my deepest respect. It does a remarkably good job! However, professionalism also demands a responsible attitude and when errors are made they should be recognised and measures should be taken to avoid their repetition.
    A last remark as to the high standard of qualification: without sufficient training most candidates would fail the exam. Experience shows that the training in Great Britain is of an exceptional high standard which, in may opinion, is clearly one of the reason for the high success rate of the British candidates. In view of the long training, refusing candidates having only a BSC grade makes no sense.

  6. It's funny how these little throwaway comments get taken. I was actually thinking of paper B, which in my view is a much clearer case of there being only one correct answer in the minds of the examiners. The marking schedule is largely geared towards losing marks depending on how far away one gets from the ideal answer given in the schedule.

    As for the first and third anonymouse, my suggestion is that you ought perhaps to lighten up a bit. Dignity is fine, but pomposity is slightly less appealing. And if you think my initial comment was a waste of time, why bother wasting further time expressing your views on it? Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

  7. In view of the long training, refusing candidates having only a BSC grade makes no sense.

    I don't think there are any plans to refuse BSC grades? As far as I understand, the plan is actually to shorten the current period of 6 years to a mere 4 years for BSC grades.

    Regarding the mentioning of Paper C 2007, I believe it is very clear now to everyone concerned that the Examination Board got it wrong in that case. There is no question anymore that there is no single "right" solution. On the other hand, it does make sense that there is a single "best" solution if the paper was so designed (and they're all designed like that).

    (Btw, imho the Examination Board for Paper C 2007 was terribly wrong in considering that Annex 2 was a "first application" for claims 1 and 7. The test for "same subject-matter" is not a novelty test.)

  8. Ah, this old thread has, among other things, some very interesting comments on the Paper C 2007 A2-issue. Apparently the Examination Board simply did not understand G 2/98.

  9. First and third anonymouse here. Point taken David, I'll stop being a pompous mouse. Apologies. Keep up the good work.

  10. By way of a progress report, here is my stab at claim 1 for today's paper B (E/M):

    1. A roof tile (1) comprising a transparent cover (3) and a solar collector (5), the solar collector (5) comprising a metal plate (7) and a fluid-tight passageway (9) for a fluid, characterised in that the metal plate (7) is arranged between the fluid-tight passageway (9) and the transparent cover (3) in such a way that heat can be transferred from the metal plate (7) to the fluid.

    I just hope it's close enough to the 'correct' answer this time. Anyone who didn't sit the paper today will just have to wait to see what the question was!

    And, by the way, apology gratefully accepted, Mr no-longer-pompous anonymouse.

  11. A related point that keeps coming up, which the IPKat cannot confirm for certain, is how many of those on the EQE Examination Committe have actually sat and passed the exams they are setting and marking. It would be nice to know that they have all passed the same test that they expect others to pass. After all, it would be a bit disturbing if university examination papers (say) were set by people with only honorary degrees, would it not?"

    The answer can be found in art. 25(6) of the new regulation.
    Art. 25(6): The Examination Committees’ members appointed prior to the entry into force of this Regulation shall be deemed to fulfil the requirements of Article 7(5) of this Regulation.

    This confirms that at least a considerable percentage of the members of the EQE committee have not passed the EQE. Otherwise they would not need such a clause.

  12. David,

    That claim is almost identical to my amendment and those of several others I spoke to.

    Whether that's a good thing or not is of course up to the Examiners!


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.