The EPO has released the first detailed information for candidates on the arrangements for the online pre-EQE and EQE next year. Full details can be read here. The examinations are scheduled to take place the week of 1 March 2021.
The online exams will be taken using the dramatically named "LockDown browser", which candidates are being advised to log in to 20 minutes before the exam.
 |
| Lockdown kitten |
A consequence of including the breaks is that the longer exams will last many hours. Papers C and D, for example, will be 6 hours. On the plus side, Papers A and B will be on separate days. Taking the exam online also thankfully means that candidates in the UK can at least be confident that full Artic gear will not be needed to survive the frozen conditions of the examination venue (as was the case in a legendary EQE year). For all papers (including papers A and B) candidates will also be permitted unscheduled breaks that are incorporated into the full examination time.
Documents for printing will be made available 10 minutes before the start of each exam. Only certain documents may be printed (e.g. the claims and the description for Paper B, but not the client letter). Oddly, Paper C will also be split into two parts. It is unclear to this Kat how an opposition paper could be split in this way. We await further information on this. For Paper C, candidates will be permitted to print all parts of the paper except the claims (why not the claims?).
Thankfully, the EQE is not a closed book exam, and thus there is no need for invigilators to check candidates rooms for banned items before the exam, as was supposed to be the case in the online UK exams. The UK approach was not, in any case, entirely successful. During the FD4/P6 examination, for example, an invigilator accidently locked candidates out of Zoom Room 3. Candidates were only able to join the Zoom meeting shortly before the exam, leaving no time for room sweeps.
The organisers of the EQE will have the benefit of being able to learn from the experiences of the PEB online exams (the result of the candidate survey for which we await). Candidates will undoubtedly have many questions about how the online EQE will work. Whilst the latest examination information stresses that the syllabi of the exams will remain the same, the new timings will take practise, and the hope is that the examination secretariat will provide example papers for candidates at the earliest opportunity.
A discussion on the new exam information can be found over on DeltaPatents.
Reviewed by Rose Hughes
on
Thursday, December 03, 2020
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
I feel the EPO changes are completely confusing and causes more stress for candidates.
ReplyDeleteHow can anyone do DII online without printing off the document and nnotating it.
For paper C, it makes no sense to give 3 hours to attack the first few claims where the first few hours of the paper heavily relies on reading the documents. You don't start any attacks until you are about 2.5 hours in.
No breaks for A and B. Why? But plenty of breaks for preEQE even though its the same time length.
The PEB caused significant stress and anxiety in the lead up to the October exam with poor communication and ridiculous suggestions. I think eventually the exam on the day was fine. I have no doubt that the poor communication leading up to the exam would have a huge impact on candidates on the day.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is clear the EPO has not learnt from PEB and are going the same way. Poor ideas that are not practical and create max stress leading up the the March exams.
Yes this is true. There is no doubt that the candidates preparation for PEB exams were heavily affected leading up to the exam day itself. I can't believe the EQEs are going the same way. It creates so much uncertainty and will undoubtedly affect candidates preparation and ultimately their performance on the day of the exam.
DeleteThese things have huge impact and I urge the EPO to clarify quickly.
Presumably a new format is being planned for Paper C, otherwise the break in the middle does not make sense if it cuts off access to any pre-break work.
ReplyDeleteIf this is the case, it would have been helpful for the EPO to provide some details of the new format, in order to avoid creating unnecessary alarm and confusion.
The restrictions on printing do not seem to make sense at all.
The issue the PEB had and the EQE's have is that a bespoke system needs to be devised and written and answers cannot be magicked out of the air while it is not known what the system can and can't do. As a result, the EQEs find themselves in exactly the same situation as the PEB. Therefore, if you demand information early, be prepared for it to be vague possibly confusing and to change as the exam dates get nearer.
ReplyDeleteThe EQE have had best part of a years notice of the need to develop an online format for the exams. I don’t believe it’s that difficult, magic or no magic.
Delete‘Demand information early’ - are you having a laugh, it’s 3 months until the exams, 21 months since the last exams, and as noted above, almost a year since the EQE knew they would have to implement this - surely you’re on the wind-up?
Critical information about the exams is released 3 months before the exams. I don't think anyone would consider this "early".
DeleteI do think printing restrictions needs further review. I hope you can understand that candidates also needs clarity as soon as possible. In previous years, candidates known for certainty how the exam works and therefore they didn't need to worry as much as this year's candidates of how the process is going to play out. I hope you can see that there are added worries and stress for this year's candidates due to the uncertainty of the process. I also hope that candidates see the PEB and EPO have a difficult job of finding a solution. EPO had more time so shouldn't be leaving things to the last minute in my view.
DeleteThere is a broader question in that the PEB and the EPO should have modernised their exam process and move online in the last few years. Many other professions have done so successful and in that sense, the patent profession have been slow and behind the curve.
We are only forced to change due to a pandemic. I hope that the profession going forward can adopt to changes & modernise the exams more quickly in future rather than being reactive.
I think future exams changes/progress should also consider candidates perspective. Maybe we can have a student representative on the PEB board.
DeleteFrom a candidates point of view, we need clarity ASAP and as early as possible so we know what to prepare. Chopping and changing things in the last 2 months won't go down well with candidates.
Sarah, it appears you are suggesting that becasue the candidates were demanding information, which in my opinion is an entirely legitimate response to something so important, this is the reason why the information was vague, confusing, and changed. I don't think this is an acceptable thing to say. Candidates demanded the information because we had none at all to go off. The fact that some of the information that was decided by the PEB to be released was contradictory, vague, and used confusing language is not the candidates fault.
DeleteAs I understand it, the fact the information changed so close to the exam is because the PEB spent a large amount of the time talking to a proctoring software provider, whose system could only accomodate a maximum of two hours at a time, meaning candidates would have to leave the exam environment and log back in. Clearly this wasnt acceptable and the PEB made the right choice in not choosing that system and defaulted to the 'zoom invigilation' that ultamitely worked well. However, I don't understand how the failure to recognise this short coming has anything to do with the candidates. Let's not forget, the candidates didn't know the latter, and just witnessed a massive change in direction very late in the game, it appears to me that it was the failure of effective communication from the PEB that caused much of the frustration.
When considering some of the issues cnadidates had around certain parts of the released FAQs in particular, such as the instruction to email the PEB if one's internet went down or for firms to provide clean laptops for the exam, which all came after the above change in proctoring software decision, appeared to be rushed and not fully considered responses.
Really, what we expect as candidates is good communication regarding the state of decisions and correct, accurate, clear, concise information when it is released (ironically, this is somewhat reminiscent of the skills a patent attorney is expected to have - therefore maybe candidates should be appluaded for scrutinising the PEBs released information?).
Regards,
Joel David Briscoe,
Hon. Sec. of the Informals.
Joel - the proctoring issue was a real frustration. The PEB recommended zoom in April but IPREG insisted on proctoring. As a result, the PEB had a way shortened timeframe to get everything in place. I think the EQE folks have been waiting to see how the PEB exams went before starting looking at their (much greater) issues.
DeleteI fully agree that clear information as early as possible is vital. Certainly, information provided over time had to evolve as the limitations of what could be achieved in the timeframe were realised. I suspect the EQE's are suffering from the same.
I would love to see a student rep on the PEB GB but even I, as Chief Examiner, am not allowed to be part of the GB which frustrates the bejeezers out of me!
"I fully agree that clear information as early as possible is vital. Certainly, information provided over time had to evolve as the limitations of what could be achieved in the timeframe were realised. I suspect the EQE's are suffering from the same."
DeleteSarah, in case you missed the subtlety, most of the criticism in these comments is not directed at the EQE, it is aimed at you for your outrageous, and strange, initial posts.
Candidates should also be aware that the EQE's are taking learnings from what did not go so well with the PEB exams, namely candidates not taking screen breaks and using that time and the upload time to continue writing when the actual exam time had finished, i.e. writing beyond the time allocated for the exam. Such behaviour would result in disqualification in an exam hall and the matter is being considered by the PEB Governance Board this month.
ReplyDeleteI fully expect and will be strongly recommending that the PEB makes sure these things are not able to occur in 2021, in line with the EQEs. If you bend any system too far it is bound to come back at you.
Ok so according to you everyone in say FD4 spent 5h45 minutes writing instead of 5h.
DeleteIf someone passes in 5h45 but would fail in 5h, then surely this is reflective of a rubbish test?
If on the other hand the test is good then the same people should pass or fail no matter how long the time was. In this case the people who worked through their breaks got no real advantage.
Furthermore i would be interested to know what evidence you have of this, possible zoom recordings? because an invigilator staring at a candidate to notice when they were taking their breaks etc is a breach of the invigilation guidelines.
You have essentially called a majority of UK candidates cheats.
DeletePlease have some respect.
People did a lot of preparation for these exams, in the middle of a pandemic, often with other (e.g. childcare) responsibilities. For you to belittle the achievements they may obtain is disguishting.
Hi Sarah
DeleteI would like to refer you to the 2020 Qualifying Examination Essential Information For Candidates (Published 30 September 2020), and also to your comments reproduced in the IPKat article of 27.09.20. It appears that you are either "in the know" or had a role in preparing the 2020 Information for Candidates document referenced above. Either way, as I'm sure you're aware, the document states at Item 2 that candidates may take "several short (screen breaks), one longer break, or none".
I'd hesitate to say that taking no screen breaks is "bending the system", as it was in fact completely within the rules.
Thanks
Am I correct in thinking that your objection is that candidates had approx 5% extra time. In the context of a fitness to practice assessment, why do you find that so objectionable?
DeleteSarah Boxall, the only rules worth making are ones which can be enforced. If PEB rules in respect of the breaks were unclear, then I'm afraid you do not have a leg to stand on. Complaining now that candidates did not take screen breaks, etc is a bit pointless and frankly shows poor form. But somehow this will come as no surprise to anyone given how badly run the exams have been for a long time. I read an implied threat in your statement that the PEB governance board is looking into this matter. Good luck trying to penalise candidates who allegedly broke your unclear rules.
DeleteIt sounds and appears like a significant number of candidates may be disqualified this year.
Delete"Within the total examination times, you can manage how you use your time as you wish. For example, you can take several short screen breaks, one longer break, or none."
DeletePEB Essential Information for Candidates taking PEB QEs in 2020 - Page 2 (Section 2, Examination Times)
This is one of the issues and criticism of PEB, they keep changing and moving the goalpost after the exams have taken place. Where does it says in the rules that no taking any screen breaks is a disqualification. I did take some screen breaks but I'm not sure I've stopped writing for 5 minutes each hour. I may have looked somewhere else for 2-3 mins whilst sitting in the chair - I didn't time my screen breaks as I took it when I needed it. But to change the rules after the game is played to fit with some sort of criteria is not right.
DeleteSounds like PEB are worried too many people have passed the exams!
DeleteI know a way around this - increase the pass rate to 70%! (I hope no one reading this is going to suffer from a sarcasm detection failure).
DeleteObviously I meant the pass mark!
DeleteHi Sarah,
DeleteAgain I am disappointed with your choice of language. Can you clarify if the PEB governance board are reviewing candidates' exam scripts and assessing whether or not they are going to be disqualified based on their using of the additional time for screen breaks and printing? This was noted as completely permissible in the FAQ update from the PEB on dated 30th September 2020.
The bend of the system implies that the system is immoveable, not subject to change, and must remain 'as is'. The PEB has the power, provided it's ok with IPReg, to make the system what it desires - the remit should be exclusively to create, 'fit for practice exams'.
In future may I suggest, based on the previous issues surrounding effective communication from the PEB (as I have discussed in a comment above), the comments of the IPKat articles are not the best place to be making such statements, especially around such sensitive subject-matter.
Joel David Briscoe,
Hon. Sec. of the Informals
Very concerning that PEB are contemplating disqualifying candidates who followed PEBs own guidelines. Seems like there might be a consumer rights issue if they decided to go ahead with it.
DeleteI do not believe that this is the right forum for the Chief Examiner to be posting such comments. The fact that the PEB is even considering this issue should be formally communicated using appropriate channels to all candidates. I would expect a bit more professionalism from someone in the IP profession. Also, raising this issue only poorly reflects on the PEB itself, given that it completely contradicts the PEB's earlier communication which explicitly states that candidates can manage their time as they wish.
DeleteBoth the comments from Sarah Boxall are cretinous.
ReplyDeleteThere has been a year to prepare for devising a system for candidates to sit the EQEs, so in what sense is this information "early". Why do we need a "bespoke system" anyway? Surely there are existing systems out there (e.g. the one used by the PEB, which was quite good in the end). In any case, the changes to paper C are surely a choice the exam board has made, not a inevitable consequence of the system
The comments about the PEB exams and screen breaks are a disgrace. We were told candidates were free to use the total time allocated as they saw fit. How can candidates then be penalised for allocating their time according to the PEB's view of what would be appropriate?
I note that we/our firms pays to do these exams. Some of the people involved in setting/marking the exams seem to think they are doing us some favour.
Dear Sarah,
ReplyDelete"Such behaviour would result in disqualification in an exam hall and the matter is being considered by the PEB Governance Board this month."
Do you have a point? Probably. However, you just made 99% of all trainees stressed for no reason. Comments like these, after exams, when nothing can be changed is extremely helpful. Especially, during pandemic which is kinda stressful on its own.
I sincerely hope you are having a better evening than me.
Thanks
Simon
Agree with Simon above. Many of the trainees who sat the PEB exams are also preparing for the EQEs. To now have to worry if they are going to be disqualified because of your (yes, your, Sarah) fault is beyond the pale. There is form for this sort of behaviour however - remember the time the PEB released results right before trainees were due to take the EQEs?
DeleteOMG - this is so stressful. Now I've been told that my UK exams might get disqualified. I genuinely did it within the allocated time, I probably spent a bit more time reading the script - making sure I marked up sections clearly in the script for example before converting to pdf and uploading it. Is this considered cheating?
ReplyDelete"Do you have a point?" - no she doesn't. Just another PEB bigwig lording it over everyone.
ReplyDeleteI can somewhat get behind the enforced breaks and the division of papers C & D (though clarification on how C will now work really should have been included in the same FAQ).
ReplyDeleteWhat really gets me is the printing restrictions - candidates need to be able to mark up an exam paper in a way they are familiar with so that its efficient. There is no time in the EQE's to be struggling to simply mark up your paper ready to answer, or for using unfamiliar technology. On that note, will mark up functionality even be provided within the Lockdown Browser? Again this is something that really should have been mentioned.
My concern is not, because the default settings for Lockdown Browser seem absolutely horrific from a patent exam perspective. Not least: "Assessments are displayed full-screen and cannot be minimized" (are we going to be unable to view the paper and our answers at the same time?); and "Copying and pasting anything to or from an assessment is prevented" (so we have to write out claims from the paper? and can we even copy anything from a previous answer?).
All this sort of information really should have been included at the same time as the current announcenment - in my mind there are no excuses for not being able to answer these basic questions.
The decision of holding the EQE 2021 in electronic form has been taken in July 2020. As such this was already late, but it is adding insult to injury not to know yet what the system will look like.
ReplyDeleteWe just know that some papers, C and D in particular will be cut like sausages.
For D it can be understandable as we have two clear parts D1 and D2, but the liberty for the candidates to start with D1 or D2 has gone.
For C we just know it will be cut in two parts allegedly independent. The bare minimum would be to tell candidates and trainers on the basis of an old C paper what it could look like. But this is probably asking too much.
Officially we do not even know that there will be split screen with on the one side a pdf version of the paper and on the other side a simple text editor with copy/paste. Different fonts, highlighting will most probably not be possible. This is not a full replacement of what can be done on paper.
It is also not foreseen that the EQE trainers will have access to the system. How on Earth will they be in a position to train and advise their candidates?
2021 candidates are taken as guinea pigs and this is a disgrace.
Hi Everyone,
ReplyDeleteShould anyone wish to provide constructive feedback on the comments above, or any other comments for that matter, please email me at joel.briscoe@hglaw.com - I will collate some common themes and provide feedback through the right channels at CIPA.
ATB,
Joel David Briscoe
Hon. Sec. of the Informals.
Will our comments to your email be raised to CIPA anonymously. Obviously, they should be respectful but there are some concerns that have been raised here.
DeleteThanks Joel. Could you ask for express clarification on whether Sarah Boxall's inferring that candidates who worked throughout the examination time without breaks did so in breach of the examination rules, is an accurate reflection of PEB's position. If not, could you request that Sarah, as Chief Examiner of PEB, clarify/retract her comments.
DeleteThanks Joel - I'm also slightly upset about the comments, having spent alot of effort and time into my preparation during these very difficult times. Everyone had their own struggles through the pandemic but fo me, my other half was made redundant in the summer so I had a lot on coupled with many changes throughout the summer on the exam process. These things do have a negative impact on the exam itself (it certainly affected my exam preparations) and I only ask that PEB actually take into account and show an appreciation of how hard it is to prepare and sit the exams this year from a candidate perspective.
DeleteAnon,
DeleteAny wishes to be kept anonymous will be respected by me.
ATB,
Joel
Hey all.
ReplyDeleteObviously the above comments on possible disqualification are not what anyone needs to hear, they're going to cause a lot of unnesscessary stress and anxiety, and are clearly incorrect based on the information provided to all candidates before the UK exams. As Joel has said, feel free to pass on comments to him.
However, I would say that if you have felt the need to anonymise your comments, and wouldn't be happy with them being associated with your name, then maybe they're innaproriate. Let's try keep discussion respectful :)
I would say feeling the need to anonomise ones comment is a healthy approach to protecting ones data in this digital age where personal information is shared perhaps a little too freely.
DeleteLooks to me like the moderators here have done a good job keeping any blatantly inflamatory verbiage out of this thread (yes there's the odd stronger worded comment), and Joel (or anyone else for that matter) should be confident taking any of the comments above, anonymous or not, to the proper channels essentially verbatim.
The fact that people feel the need to anonymise comments is probably more a reflection of a serious lack of faith in the PEB as an examination board. I expect that commenters', probably justified, concerns are that the PEB may discriminate against candidates during awarding of examination marks, based on negative comments posted here.
DeleteIt may be of interest to candidates and the PEB alike that I am in the process of filing a complaint with the competition and markets authority regarding the way that the PEB, on behalf of IPREG, on behalf of CIPA, on behalf of CIPA members, who are predominately patent attorneys, appear to be using the exams to unduly restrict access to the profession. The CMA do actually appear to have teeth, and will hopefully investigate.
You should probably also include how PAMIA only insures UK patent attorneys - https://www.pamia.co.uk/insurance-cover/ and not European patent attorneys working in the UK.
DeleteYes i would just add that i use anon to prevent PEB bias, not because i dont want to be associated with my comments.
DeleteI think this is justified. The PEB has serious problems answering any critisms. As is discussed on a previous thread. I asked the PEB how it was acceptable that half the marks in the 2019 FD4 paper were based on legal topics not discussed in the syllabus. I did this anonymously because, as discussed above, i feared a retribution attack.
PEB changes their "policy" to explicitly state they would not respond to annoymous questions. I know this becuase the way back machine had a copy of the website a few weeks before the email and it didn't mention this at all.
If the PEB would change "policy" to avoid any scrutiny, then what else are they capable of...
"I expect that commenters', probably justified, concerns are that the PEB may discriminate against candidates during awarding of examination marks, based on negative comments posted here."
DeleteDefinitely justified given the conduct of PEB in recent years: the deliberate lack of transparency over awarding, hostility towards candidates raising legitimate concerns and now the implication we're all cheats. They've shown contempt towards candidates for years frankly.
I appreciate that some people post annoymously to avoid a specific incidents during exams being recognised etc.
DeleteThe main point of my post was that we know what has been said is wrong, but masses on masses on anonymised digital insults in response are benefitial to noone, least not from a mental health perspective.
More generally 'be kind'.
I don't agree Jonathan.
DeleteAs noted above, many people only feel able to post anonymously. And I think that the 'masses' of comments to which you refer: (a) assist other candidates in knowing that they are not the only one's feeling the same way, and are not as the PEB always insist, incompetent and unprepared; and (b) demonstrate to the PEB that a large number of people are extremely irritated with their practice.
I think the majority of comments here have been respectful. There are strong comments on both sides which is to be expected with such an important topic. We shouldn't let a very minor few comments that is unfairly targeted at Sarah on a personal level distract the fact that many have very legitimate concerns in the way PEB and/or IPREG conduct their business. I think that should be ok for members to challenge policies, views and conduct as this ensure accountability.
DeleteWe have a fantastic system in the UK to ensure people in power are held accountable. The governments gets it daily with parliament, parliament is held responsible by the press and to some extent, the press is held accountable to the people via through OFCOM.
Scrutiny, as long as it is fair and reasonable like the majority of the posts here, should be welcomed by any organisation. Anonymous comments have the same value as those with names and we shouldn't ignore comments from anonymous if done in a reasonable and respectful way (even if it is strongly worded and we may not agree with it).
"You should probably also include how PAMIA only insures UK patent attorneys - https://www.pamia.co.uk/insurance-cover/ and not European patent attorneys working in the UK".
DeleteThere are other insurance companies out there. There also appears to be a lack of competition in this area too.
To the person filing a complaint with the CMA - it would be great if you could keep us updated. Either via IPKat or Informals? Thanks!
Delete"You should probably also include how PAMIA only insures UK patent attorneys - https://www.pamia.co.uk/insurance-cover/ and not European patent attorneys working in the UK"
DeleteI will work that into the submission. I know from first-hand experience that this is a genuine bar to competition in the market, inasmuch that many clients will insist that their providers hold professional liability insurance. And from experience, as has been noted, suitable insurance for providers other than registered patent attorneys seems impossible, or at least much more difficult/expensive, to obtain.
"To the person filing a complaint with the CMA - it would be great if you could keep us updated. Either via IPKat or Informals? Thanks!"
I will do. I am intending to file the complaint early Jan 2021.
Replying to BA and above: I agree. The best way for people to get their (anonymous or otherwise) voices heard is to put them to Joel as above. My main concern was people posting abusive comments (some of which have now been removed) and hiding behind the anon - I don't think this is acceptable.
Delete"The best way for people to get their (anonymous or otherwise) voices heard is to put them to Joel as above."
DeleteAgain Jonathan, I disagree.
The PEB have demonstrated year after year that they are not willing to take constructive comments/criticism on board and change their practice. Why would they when the high failure rates in the exams have nothing to do with the perfect examinations, and are entirely the fault of incompetent and unprepared candidates?
I agree it is a good idea Joel submitting collective feedback to CIPA/PEB. But I don't agree it's the best way for voices to be heard. Chances are that PEB/CIPA will ignore such submissions.
I'm of the view that the best way for voices to be heard is by airing on a publicly accessible forum, which we already know is actively monitored by senior PEB figures.
And in my view Sarah's comments, on top of the PEBs treatment of candidates generally, deserve a very strong rebuke.
I think that Sarah's employer should consider how Sarah's comments and conduct, not just on this post but on previous posts also, are likely to negatively affect their firm's future recruitment of attorneys.
Kudos to Joel, first foundations honary sec in my time to actually reach out and create a channel for feedback about exams instead of letting everything pass by and leaving every person for themselves. In my opinion the informals should concentrate on this as a primary aim, rather than that 'wacky patent' of the month rubbish.
DeleteAnon,
Delete"Chances are that PEB/CIPA will ignore such submissions."
Don't forget, the Hon. Sec. has a seat on the CIPA council. In my section of the next meeting (unfortunately not until January now) most of my time will now be dedicated to this issue. The PEB and CIPA are independent, but the PEB is still accountable to the profession, CIPA, and IPReg. If 2/3 of those parties are not happy with the PEB, serious change will come - or at least that's my naive position on the matter. Luckily, I have 9 months left as Hon. Sec., that's 9 more council meetings, 9 more chances to effect real change.
I am also a member of the Education Committee of CIPA, who is currently reviewing the Mercer Review. After this post (and when I get to the bottom of the thread) I will be writing an email to the rest of Ed. Comm. to encourage them to come and read these threads and comments. The Mercer Review, albeit nearly a year old, has already had to take stock of the online exams so this will certainly be a part of that discussion.
-[tongue in cheek] and the wacky patents are great, we disagree there.
Joel.
Thanks for your efforts Joel (you replied to my comment above), they are appreciated, and I really hope something will come out of this. Could you keep us updated, perhaps by another IPKat post?
DeleteYeah - thanks for your efforts, Joel.
DeleteThanks Joel for representing the trainees on this issue so well - its not that candidates don't want to engage. Many candidates want PEB to modernise and have a fair process but many do feel really frustrated by the current exam process which is in my view outdated and does not reflect the modern day work/life balances and professional practices. Further, it is apparent from this blog that PEB GB can just change their own guidelines after the exam has taken. What else can they change and what have they changed in the past without notifying candidates or other relevant stakeholders? How can we trust that governance is fair for this year's candidates taking into account the global pandemic. There seems to be a real lack of transparency & accountability in that they can change whatever they want at any time. It seems that candidates voice don't matter.
DeleteAs an example, candidates have been asking to do the exams online for years now and it only took a pandemic for the exams to be held online. Yes, it was at short notice but other professions have clearly adapted to online a long time ago (such as accountants) so many of these problems could have really been ironed out even before the pandemic hit.
The voices of candidates I feel needs to be more valued and recognised at CIPA/PEB. After all, it is run for trainees to pass so they should have a say in it as well as attorneys.
Replying to Jonathan. I do agree with you. I know this subject is an emotional subject because it affects our professional and personal lives but we can be respectful. Although I don't agree with Sarah's comments and there is no doubt that the comments has caused alot of anxiety, I do feel that she has the right to portray her views. Candidates can absolutely disagree with her (including me - though I'm not a candidate).
DeleteFundamentally, it is clear that the exam process needs to change because something is broken and it is not working for many members of the profession.
I do welcome the debates here on IPKAT as I think it is very useful for candidates, attorneys to discuss such important topics like exams. IPKAT are doing a good job at bringing this to the forefront of many people in the profession.
ReplyDeleteDebates and opinions should always be respectful. This goes both ways.
This a walking PR disaster for the PEB.
ReplyDeleteThe shame is, after the Exams nearly all of the candidates thought the PEB did a great job (irrespective of the issues with the actual exams themselves). See the delta patents blog where people are positively championing the solution provided by the PEB. Given how frosty relations have been between anyone that has done exams in the last 10 years and the PEB, this is no mean feat.
For a chief examiner to say these comments is horrible. if you suspect someone of cheating the correct procedure is to collect evidence, report your findings and let the suspected party contest it. NOT publish unsubstantiated claims on an online forum.
I would just add that the PEB are not being entirely fair with their own guidelines either. Trainees were told explicitly that computer problems are not a grounds for extenuating circumstances, but i've been told by my trainee that some larger firms reported word crashing to the PEB and apparently those candidates are getting extenuating circumstances. What happens to the people that followed the guidelines and didn't report word crashing because it was not a ground for extenuating circumstances?
Furthermore, from the examn i invigilated i don't think it is fair to say people used their scanning time to write. Most people were twiddling them thumbs/eating their food in the last 15 minutes of the exam. As someone pointed out, i didn't stare at candidates to know when they taking their break so i cannot testify to that.
Absolutely agree re the PR point. I agree that the PEB had just about regained a small amount of respect from some candidates for reasonably successfully running the 2020 PEB exams.
DeleteSarah Boxall seems to be a liability for the PEB.
"Such behaviour would result in disqualification in an exam hall and the matter is being considered by the PEB Governance Board this month."
ReplyDeleteI'm interested that this is the criteria for deciding whether or not behaviour in a virtual exam could be sufficient for disqualification. Having my laptop with me, scanning annotated figures with my phone, and bringing a print out of the exam regulations would all have seen me disqualified "in an exam hall".
Surely the only reasonable criteria is whether or not the regulations provided were followed - and as many people above have noted - the regulations allowed for no screen breaks to be taken. What's the alternative reading of that regulation - we were supposed to stare at our screens but not write anything down for those minutes?
For the record, I would seriously hope the PEB GB will not disqualify candidates as that would be disproportionate, and that will be my recommendation. The PEB wording did indeed say use the time as you wish, although it did also say how long (optional) screen breaks were as well as the time allocated for download/upload. My view is the wording was not clear. The decision on how to deal with the extra time is out of my hands and all I can do is put a recommendation from the Examining team before the PEB GB.
ReplyDeleteFinals candidates are usually a pass or fail regardless of the time taken because they either do or don't demonstrate that they know what they are doing. However, the upshot of this is that, next year, I suspect timings will be far stricter.
by the way this is from me
Delete"Finals candidates are usually a pass or fail regardless of the time taken"
DeleteSarah, your comment regarding timing is at odds with the comments regarding time pressure of dozens/hundreds of candidates. You are probably wrong!
But if you were right, then your apparent objection to candidates having extra time for the exam is nonsensical.
It seems like IPREG is the real problem here (reading in between the lines) in getting changes done and making sure PEB adapts to a more modern, flexible and considerate organisation that is able to provide a fit set of assessments for candidates. Just to be clear, IPREG needs to up its game and modernise too.
DeleteThe wording was entirely clear. The PEB wording literally gave an example where no breaks were taken "For example, you can take several short screen breaks, one longer break, or none." To say that the wording was not clear is quite simply not true.
DeleteSarah, do you genuinely not see a problem with your initial comments from yesterday?
DeleteFrankly, the only real solution to this mess it to disband the PEB and move to coursework (or another alternative) for some of the papers. Yes, yes I hear some saying that university lecturers are not best placed to comment on practical matters such as infringement and validity. But clearly, neither is the PEB with its highly variable quality of exam papers and examiners.
It is ridiculous to claim that the wording was unclear.
DeleteAnd beyond that, however clear or not the wording was in relation to number of breaks, if your intention was that the breaks must be strictly used as breaks (and failure to use these breaks as such would result in disqualification!), perhaps that should have appeared explicitly in the ten page document containing essential information for candidates.
"Finals candidates are usually a pass or fail regardless of the time taken because they either do or don't demonstrate that they know what they are doing."
DeleteFunny you should say that, Sarah. Please explain the need for the highly time pressured P6 then. A significant proportion of the candidates would pass P6 if they had more time / less material to deal with in the allocated time. Candidates and qualified attorneys have been shouting about this from the rooftops for ages. Why, as Chief Examiner, have you chosen to ignore this? Presumably this falls within your remit rather than PEB's?
Why do I get the feeling that you are going to ignore this comment?
Just in case anyone needs to rely on the Essential Information for candidates and it "magically disappears", it has been stored on the Internet Archive here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201204101836/https://www.cipa.org.uk/_resources/assets/attachment/full/0/300966.pdf
ReplyDeletePlease think of the demographic of candidates.
ReplyDeleteThey are mostly 20-30 in house shares/single bed flats/ small houses with young families.
Revision for exams has been harder because of the challenges of revising while the family is running around the house/because you are working and revising on your bed/living room. However candidates put in a big shift and prepared for the exams. Furthermore, people have been working longer hours in general (as is shown by basically every study) and there is no escape, some people haven't seen their families in over a year.
Most candidates will now sit EQE. The same challenges with revision and work discussed above remain. They have just been told that possibly the hardest paper has changed format, but not told how. And it appears they will not be able to practice the new format before the exam.
This is already a considerable amount of stress.
They have now been told by the chief examiner that they are about to be disqualified from exams they sat a month and a half ago because they didnt explicitly declare when they were having a screen break.
This profession is toxic.
I couldn't agree me. This toxic exam culture environment all the time does no one any good. Candidates are always stressed out and unhappy - struggling to balance young family lives/social life with work (which if you are in your 20s is the best time to be social).
DeleteFirms end up paying alot of money for training courses etc... only to see unhappy candidates leave or change careers. Sometimes it is for other reasons but a significant portion is no doubt down to the exam demands and the selfishness you need to possess to isolate yourselves for months away from your family to do the exams.
Experience counts a lot and actually, clients welcome inter-related personal skills and experience above all other things. Yes, there needs to be a level to ensure clients are in safe hands but I think the exams are overburdening the trainee professionals. Recent years only seen an increase in exams such as pre-EQEs and litigation course. This idea that someone will go out straight away and open up their own practice to harm others is nonsense. Its time to change the exam exam and more exam culture!
Learn to do the job by doing it.
Didn't the PEB recently introduce new candidate numbers as there were complaints that some examiners were able to identify candidates from their exam numbers (which were unchanged for many years) and discriminate against them? This is what we are dealing with here. It is almost foolhardy to do away with anonymity.
DeleteYes, experience counts, even pre-qualification experience. Firms should take this into consideration when making salary offers. I'd say the smarter ones do, rather than looking at how many years post qualification experience you have and determining the salary solely on that.
One particular gripe is with P6. There are partners in private practice on record saying things like P6 acts as a good filter to weed out people who are simply not good enough to qualify as patent attorneys. This statement is up there with the kind of statements made by the PEB and Chief Examiner - wrong on many levels and displays a lack of critical thinking one would expect in a partner. However, I am heartened to see that many qualified attorneys are also now vocal in criticising P6.
For a post on the EQEs, (it's not "EQE's"!!), this has turned into quite a PEB bashing fest. Unfortunately deservedly so.
There are definitely strong arguments for "learning the job by doing it". Many have in the past touted coursework based assessments and I think its a neat idea to go about. You certainly don't need the amount of exams presently around now to prove that you can do the job.
DeleteHi Sarah, Just so you know, most people didn't even want the scanning time. See previous threads where people asked for word versions of the claims so they didn't have to scan any documents. But it was the PEB that didn't provide this, feels harsh to blame the need to scan on the candidates now.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Contrary to the comments above, I am actually on the side of the candidates and truly hope that the on-line exam environment provides a better opportunity for candidates to shine and pass. I would love to see pass rates go up.
DeleteI did specifically ask for the claims to be included in the answer document but it was just not possible this year. Fingers crossed for next year ....
Hope this helps.
I don't think candidates will have a problem with stricter time enforced on screen breaks or time given for uploading - but it needs to be made clear to them ASAP, not a few weeks before the exam. These things kept changing leading up to the exam. I spent a significant portion of my preparation time reading up on guidelines and trying to understand the changes rather than learning for the actual exam (FD1 in my case). I can sense that the same way is going to happen for the EQEs.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, the PEBX system worked really well in the end and it should be offered again next year. There are some changes I like to see with PEBX such as the ability to save your script automatically and give you a 10 minute warning before the exam finishes. If the system is offered again as it is in 2020 then I would use it again for next year.
It seems worth mentioning that the front of FD4 explicitly stated that the total time allowed was 5 hours 45 minutes. Nowhere on the front of the paper did it mention that you could only use 5 hours of that time to write in and that you must stop writing once you had written for 5 hours.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that emerges from the comments in this thread (and in previous articles about the qualifying exams) is that nobody on the outside seems to have a clear understanding of how, exactly, responsibility for decision-making on the content/format/timings of the PEB exams is divided between the PEB and IPREG. It might be helpful if this could be set out clearly by one or both organisations.
ReplyDeleteAs it is, an overwhelming impression is created of an opaque and Byzantine system in which accountability is lost and the proper channels for constructive feedback by candidates and their employers are completely unclear. Hence the understandable frustration of so many candidates in these comments.
Such a lack of accountability and transparency also characterises the processes underlying the EQE.
We all understand that the extraordinary circumstances this year have made a shift in the format of the exams necessary, at relatively short notice. Where both the PEB/IPREG and the EQE Secretariat seem to have fallen short is on being open and honest with candidates from an early stage and seeking their "buy-in" to the new format. Instead we get a drip-feed of constantly-changing details which appear out of nowhere (in the case of the EQE, apparently including a complete and so far unexplained change in the structure of Paper C), compounding the stress that everyone is already under.
A former Chief Examiner (and current Examiner?) coming on an unofficial blog and spreading rumours (substantiated or not) about exam papers being "considered" for candidates using time they were explicitly told they were allowed to use frankly says a lot about the system, the profession and the kind of people setting these exams. Further, "bending the system", what an embarrassing comment.
ReplyDeleteHave you no compassion for candidates Sarah?
I will be submitting a complaint, not anonymously, to the PEB about this. I encourage others to do the same.
Unfortunately Sarah has form when it comes to spreading unhelpful information on this blog. Your complaint may also want to include Sarah's comments at the bottom of this article - https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/09/uk-patent-exams-candidates-trial-of.html - where she erroneously encouraged candidates to put their pages in landscape form.
DeleteI should probably clarify I don't think all, indeed hopefully most, Examiners are of this nature.
DeleteAnd yes, cheers, I note there is form!
Well done Liam. Absolutely agree with your comments. Your posting openly is admirable. Unfortunately I still don't feel able to post other than anonymously, but will be submitting a complaint formally to PEB as you have suggested.
DeleteI applaud your bravery Liam but the fear of retribution from PEB (alot of attorneys are at partner level or high up in in-house organisations are with PEB) is keeping me back as anonymous.
DeleteI will be submitting some compliants but for the whole PEB GB process and PEB practices which appears to be changing the landscape all the time. In way, If Sarah hadn't notified us about the potential discussions on disqualification due to screen breaks, many candidates would be in the dark about this. There is a lack of transparency and accountability that is deeply uncomfortable and my trust on PEB examinations has eroded even further.
I need to have a look-see who is on the PEB governance board. According to Sarah Boxall these are the true villains - all ills of the PEB are entirely their fault and nothing to do with her.
DeleteI would add that its the drip-feed of information 1-3 months before the exam and that is what happened with PEB exams - significant changes a few weeks before the exam. More consideration is clearly required as to how these things are communicated and when. I accept that PEB had less time but there is no excuse for the EPO.
ReplyDeleteAs for the EQEs, you are asking candidates to fundamentally change their technique 2-3 months before their exam. There is still very little detail on the changes. I too would feel aggrieved especially if I already had to wait for almost 2 years to do them.
So, to summarise, the (unofficial?) position of a (current?) PEB examiner is that candidates' performance is usually "regardless of the time taken" - so from that point of view it's surely immaterial whether or not the break time was used for writing. At the same time, using the break time for writing is now apparently being looked into as potential malpractice; and this is *despite* instructions which clearly ("directly and unambiguously"!) stated that a decision on whether and how to use the break time was up to the candidate.
ReplyDeleteA couple of questions:
a) if time taken over the exam has no impact on pass/fail performance, how can it be ascertained whether candidates used the "break time" for writing? In other words, how is the PEB GB going to flag potential cases of "malpractice" for investigation if these cannot be determined from pass/fail rates?
b) if there is no link between "pass"/"fail" performance and timing, what is the justification for "stricter" enforcement of timings next year?
c) who signed off on the wording of the instructions to candidates?
d) what is the basis on which the PEB GB now apparently feels empowered to disregard those instructions and instead to review papers as though a *different* set of instructions had been given?
"(current?) PEB examiner"
DeleteCurrent Chief Examiner, as Sarah rudely and unnecessarily pointed out to Rose Hughes over on: https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/09/uk-patent-exams-questions-and-answers.html
Having read the comments from Sarah, it is difficult to be confident that the exams are marked objectively. Surely the longer you have, the more marks you can pick up? Or is it that exams are being passed/failed on the subjective criteria of whether the examiner considers the candidate to be safe to practice...
DeleteI agree. How can anyone have faith in how the exams are marked if someone who plays an important role in marking the exams is suggesting taking action against trainees for them FOLLLOWING THE EXAM REGULATIONS.
DeleteSarah Boxall is clearly is not fit to have any role in marking the exams. She either didn't read or does not care about the essential information that was provided to candidates. In either, case this is not acceptable.
I am paying for a service from PEB. They are not providing a service commensurate with the costs. Qualified attorneys and firms should be kicking up a massive fuss about this, because nobody at PEB seems to care how the conduct of the likes of Boxall adversely affects trainees.
We need someone independent to conduct a review of PEB (e.g. not Chris Mercer - conflict of interest anyone?).
Enough is enough!
Sorry but why would Chris Mercer have a conflict?
DeleteBecause he runs training courses for the exam.
DeleteAlso, as someone who has been on his training course, it seems that he is entirely unsuitable for reviewing the exam. As, at least when I took the course, it didn't seem like he'd updated his knowledge to reflect the new format of exam. If claim 1 is novel, no need to analyse the dependent claims etc.
Because Chris Mercer probably stands to make one of the biggest personal financial gains from so many failing in the current exam system. I'm happy to be proved wrong but I would like to see a full account in the Mercer review stating how much he does financially derive from his work on JDD et al.
DeleteI think PEB needs to clarify its position on this matter (publicly and formally).
ReplyDeleteI think this year's candidates have had a rougher time. It is not easy doing the exams online. I suspect there will be more errors in scripts because it is much harder to spot mistakes on a computer screen.
ReplyDeletePEB should be considering this along with the disruption during the summer months rather heaping more stress on candidates by the suggestion of bending the system.
Most of the comments seem to relate to the British exam.
ReplyDeleteSo far as I know, the whole blog is about the EQE.
Are we all on the same topic? It does not help candidates to the EQE 2021 to discuss the British exams of 2020!
It is truly ludicrous that the possibly of disqualifications be mentioned (for following the PEB's own Essential Information for Candidates, which explicitly states that candidates could choose not to take a rest break - it is not the candidates fault if PEB wrote something that states the opposite of what they intended - candidates are required to follow the rules, not second-guess the intentions of PEB) by the chief examiner in anything other than an official communication. This is not helpful "information" to publish in the comments of a blog post, and just causes stress for the candidates
ReplyDeleteIt hurts when it appears that candidates are being accused of cheating. I've never cheated all my life. The PEB GB needs to look at it self. Appearing to label candidates as cheats when they followed the rules (which was set very late by the way) is unacceptable. Many as posted here have described of a difficult and disruptive exam preparation this year. It was super hard to balance everything and get to grips with a new system with only weeks before the exam itself.
ReplyDeleteThe post by the chief examiner is not right. No wonder there is a breakdown in trust and relationship between trainees and the PEB.
As far as I can see, most candidates have been really fair to PEB, given them the benefit of the doubt in getting PEBX working. Candidates have followed the rules, praised the PEBX when it was right thing to do. We have shown respect to PEB but it seems PEB has shown no respect back.
Even when this post was about trying to help EQEs, PEB cannot help but take a dig at candidates.
Lack of transparency. What else have they decided against candidates this year.
Candidates exam preparation for PEB and likewise for EQE have been and shall be affected by the significant changes. This needs to be taken into account and it is only fair to do so.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I want to be party to a profession that is so inconsiderate to its own members. The patent profession doesn't have a great reputation as it is and the comments from PEB doesn't help whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteNo details yet on what the EQE will exactly require or collect and store.
ReplyDeleteMy worry is that this is a lot of sensitive information that they are collecting. I do not wish to alarm people, but you should be aware in our profession that patent attorneys, patent offices, attorney firms and patent departments are actively targeted by hackers because we work with a lot of confidential information.
I would not recommend doing the exam on a work PC or laptop because of the access that needs to be granted. I am not saying that the LockDown Browser or similar supplied by the EQE is not to be trusted, but these programs sometimes leave settings or leave something open that could be exploited. Talk to your IT specialist - it is better to have a PC with no internal network access at all that has not been used to access any external sites.
There is also a huge amount of sensitive data being stored both before and during the exam about all the participants. Luckily in the EU they have to be clear on their collection and retaining policies.
Most of what you written here Ned, I agree with it. However, candidates are heavily burden with IT requirements and other measures just to sit the exams.
DeleteWe are placing too much burden on candidates. It was a similar thing with PEB (although they eventually stripped back some of the requirements). So we need to be careful NOT to saddle candidates to adhere to requirements after requirements.
Not all candidates can work at home e.g. small children at home. I don't know what is the perfect solution is but I do not agree with increasing the burden on candidates and also the EQEs needs to ensure that personal data are not collected.
I wish the PEB examiners and the PEB GB actually sat the exam this October. They would see a constant changing of rules whilst balancing home and work life at home and also having to prepare for exams that no one can be sure it would go ahead.
DeletePlease see that 2020 was a horrible year to take the exams. The preparation time was badly affected by so many factors not least the very late changes and guidelines.
Other organisations have recognised the difficulty in taking exams this year and have taken them into account such as university exams, A levels and GCSE and many more.
PEB should seriously take this summer into account and understand the disruption many candidates have felt this year.
If the chief examiner has a concern about candidates cheating, it should be raised appropriately and actually before any marking has taken place. Candidates has the right to explain if there are concerns.
My concern now is that rules are being changed whilst marking is underway which is completely unfair.
@bobby, that was the point I was making. In normal years , candidates only had to study and turn up to take the exam. They now have to worry about all the IT, and it is all adding extra stress.
DeleteThe EQE committees present it as simply logging in on a computer at home (or anywhere) and taking the exam. They are slowly shifting all the burdens of organisation, environment and materials to the candidates.
3 months to go: there is no demo available, not allowing printing has been announced, and some papers are being split. Who knows what will be in the next communication.
Major changes should have been postponed until 2022 to give candidates the opportunity to work with it and to see if the timings are adequate.
I would like to know who (outside the examination committees) tested the A and B papers to see whether they could be done just as quickly digitally as with a paper copy. And the C with the extra 30 minutes. And the D2 with the extra 15 minutes.
And it worrying to see from the PEB that certain behaviors may be considered afterwards as cheating. There should be a lot a latitude on all sides this year with such changes until we all get used to it - the vast majority of candidates will not attempt to cheat in any way. It is not unusual to use every minute that you can to work on your answer.
The post by the chief examiner just shows us how confused the members of PEB are amongst themselves with its own rules and guidelines. How are candidates expect to know/understand when PEB are themselves utterly confused about their own guidelines.
ReplyDeleteIs Sarah Bloxall intending to clarify her comments suggesting candidates will fail for utilizing the additional exam time in the manner that they were advised to? Or should candidates just await their disqualification in March?
ReplyDeleteIt seems utterly irresponsible to add to the anxieties already experienced by each trainee this year by suggesting that, because PEB appears to be unhappy with how they themselves set out the rules, candidates may be disqualified.
ReplyDeleteIf the intention was for the breaks to be mandatory, a system should have been set up that enforces them. And if they wanted candidates to hand in their exams after the "normal" period, they should have clarified that if the whole 20 minutes for printing and scanning are not used, the exam should be submitted early.
I appreciate that PEB is not happy with the conduct of candidates, but the solution is not to blame candidates. Instead, they should reflect on their communication and do better next time.
Given the mental health toll this year has taken on everyone, especially candidates, I find the comments by the chief examiner irresponsible and deeply concerning.
CIPA should intervene, and PEB clarify their position, asap.
They have absolutely no right to be unhappy with the conduct of candidates frankly. The guidelines were perfectly clear: "you can take several short screen breaks, one longer break, or none". And no indication to the contrary that that would not be permitted (let alone, could result is disqualification). It is totally dishonest of PEB to be even considering disqualification on those grounds.
DeleteThe fact that the PEB has chosen to cause further distress to candidates on the topic of a non-PEB exam speaks volumes about the lack of thought and utility behind a body that lacks transparency and modernisation. I don't doubt that CIPA will again come to its aid citing the usual threats and virtual trolling that gets thrown at examiners. While I am not at all condoning verbal abuse, CIPA has for far too long shunned the mental stresses of training in this profession in the UK and failed to address the fundamental issues at the PEB which is at the core of the valid complaints presented here.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I don't expect anything to change.
After what I thought was a good job carried out by the PEB in simplifying the exam conditions this year, the PEB (via the Chief Examiner, no less!) has reverted back to its usual shenanigans.
ReplyDeleteExam papers which do not assess fitness to practice, (at least some) incompetent examiners, inconsistent marking schemes which, frankly, are sometimes poor quality, tendency to push back any criticism (however constructive), ignoring the recommendations of an external review which highlighted multiple failures, commissioning another review without any consideration as to conflict when putting Chris Mercer in charge (presumably in the hope that he will exonerate the PEB completely?) to now threatening to disqualify candidates (on an unofficial blog, mind you) FOR FOLLOWING PEB RULES! What is more, the Chief Examiner herself has acknowledged that the amount of time taken to complete a paper has no correlation to whether candidates pass or fail. So why do examiners keep banging on about time management? Sarah Boxall, it is time for you to step down.
I am ashamed to be part of a profession that puts up with this.
Hi Joel (if you are still reading) please can you feed back on the PEB the metal strain and how disruption of the exam preparations this year leading up to the exams. I get the impression PEB/CIPA has failed to understand and grasp this nature.
ReplyDeleteMany factors have been involved that has an impact this year including; moving to work from home, some having small children, some forced to look after older members of their family, some having to move back into a larger home/sharing with others, being furloughed, made redundant, lack of training and supervision, constant changing of examination process, lack of clarity of the exam guidelines, late changes to the exam processes, burden of complying with IT requirements, admin burden of printing, scanning etc... on the exam day itself, moving towards online exams, the PEBX test that had no invigilators so we couldn't iron out the issues on the day of the exam itself.
I'm sure there are many more additional factors this year compared to a normal year.
Any idea as to when we can expect to see the Mercer Review? It has been over a year now and the last I heard (I think on this blog) was that it was due to be released in October. Why is it taking so long? Appreciate we've all had to deal with the pandemic but all comments regarding the review were to be submitted in Feb, i.e. before lockdown. Surely 10 months to digest them and come up with recommendations are enough?
ReplyDeleteI too would like to know. The review was launched in response to the 2018 fiasco, and since then candidates have had to sit the 2019 and 2020 papers without the benefit of the system being reviewed. Surely we cannot let the system persist until 2021?
DeleteRecap - Chief Examiner posts on IPKat on a discussion about EQEs information relating to a discussion this month for candidates being disqualified for working through screen breaks, which is unacceptable in her eyes.
ReplyDeleteWell, as pointed out by my colleagues:
"Within the total examination times, you can manage how you use your time as you wish. For example, you can take several short screen breaks, one longer break, or none."
PEB Essential Information for Candidates taking PEB QEs in 2020 - Page 2 (Section 2, Examination Times)
So it seems that this would in face be "acceptable" behaviour unless it's "too early" and the rules are to be decided retrospectively and in contrary to the actual rules that were issued?
Therefore, the actual "unacceptable behaviour", is for the Chief Examiner to make such a comment.
If PEB do decide as per Sarah's comment, then the above quote from the Guidelines is sufficient to claim against it.
If the PEB don't decide this, then Sarah needs to go, she needs to step down, for her unacceptable behaviour.
As for the EQEs, what a blunder! Why over-do it? There are already some necessary changes, why make further changes?
Both the EQEs and Sarah have something in common, incredibly bad timing and unacceptable behaviour.
Good luck trainees, let's try to get involved in future and make some changes ourselves - so we can help future trainees. One of us can become Chief Examiner and disqualify Sarah for her unacceptable behaviour.
And if there is any confusion about what was meant by the total examination time, Appendix 3 of the PEB Essential Information for Candidates helpfully defines it for you - total examination time includes "screen breaks, printing, scanning, PDF-ing saving and uploading".
DeleteFor Sarah to say that the wording is "not clear" is rather odd.
[sarcasm on] copy/paste from the assessment to the answer is only only allowed during the first 3.5 minutes and the last 7.5 minutes of each exam part. No more than 256 characters each time, except on Thursday at high tide in Helsinki when you can do it for 512 characters. Unless screen breaks are being enforced, of course [sarcasm off]
ReplyDeleteI am concerned that PEB will be much harsher this year. They have already suggested to penalise candidates for working through screen breaks even though it was perfectly fine to do so according to their own guidelines. They don't really have a leg to stand on this so are they going to find other ways to mark candidates. They could easily change the mark scheme of FD1 for example to make it harder for candidates to gain marks or being ridiculously strict on sticking to the mark scheme "word for word".
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of other ways PEB can mark candidates down without letting us know. How can we trust this. How can we trust the intentions of PEB.
PEB have now issued a statement. I think they need to clarify their comments. "There was never any intention to penalise candidates...". Will they further confirm (via a formal statement) that they are not going to be disqualifying candidates on the grounds that candidates did not take screen breaks?
ReplyDeleteHi Everyone,
ReplyDeleteI have been receiving a number of emails with all your comments, thoughts and complaints since I asked you all to do so in the comments section. Thank you. I hope you all trust me to do the right thing and get to the bottom of this.
On that note, I wanted to let you all know that Sarah Boxall (PEB Chief Examiner) and I have agree to sit down and talk through the comments, questions and issues that have been raised, next week. From this discussion, I will write up a sort of Q&A and publish that both on here and the yellowsheet blog. Sarah and I have been in contact this week over email and we want this discussion to be as open as possible.
In the meantime, yesterday, the PEB Governance Board released a statement reaffirming their position that “it was never the intention to penalise candidates who did not take screen breaks or who used the full time allowance to upload documents.” So I hope that offers you all as much peace of mind as did it for me. I don't think this goes far enough just yet, so I am working on getting a more concrete answer.
Watch this space. All the best,
Joel David Briscoe
Hon. Sec. of the Informals
Hello, For the record, I would seriously hope the PEB GB will not disqualify candidates as that would be disproportionate, and that will be my recommendation. The PEB wording did indeed say use the time as you wish, although it did also say how long (optional) screen breaks were as well as the time allocated for download/upload. My view is the wording was not clear. The decision on how to deal with the extra time is out of my hands and all I can do is put a recommendation from the Examining team before the PEB GB.
ReplyDeleteFinals candidates are usually a pass or fail regardless of the time taken because they either do or don't demonstrate that they know what they are doing. However, the upshot of this is that, next year, I suspect timings will be far stricter.
From: propose day images
happy valentines day images