PEB (seems to) confirm that candidates will not be disqualified for writing during the time allocated for screen breaks and upload time
Last week on IPKat we reported the release of further information for pre-EQE and EQE candidates (IPKat: EQE 2021: Further details on examination timings and paper format released). In addition to making the exams online for the first time, the EQE organisers have taken the surprising decision to also change the format of some of the exam papers so as to include enforced long breaks. The EQE FAQ have since been updated and can be read here.
The release of the EQE information understandably prompted many comments from concerned candidates on both IPKat and DeltaPatent's EQE blog. The IPKat post also received comments from Sarah Boxall, Chief Examiner for the UK patent exams. Sarah Boxall had previously used the IPKat comments to provide further examination information to candidates for the UK patent exams (IPKat here). Unfortunately, in the latest instance, Sarah Boxall's comments heightened as opposed to alleviating candidate anxiety. In response to candidates' criticisms of the new EQE structure, Sarah Boxall commented that "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".
 |
| Distracted from Xmas EQE revision |
The resulting backlash has now prompted the PEB to release a new statement. The PEB states that it "would like to reaffirm its position with regard screen breaks and the time taken to upload documents during the 2020 Qualifying Examinations, which have been subject to discussion on social media" [Merpel wonders why the PEB is so coy about naming IPKat?]. The PEB goes on to confirm that "[t]here was never any intention to penalise candidates who did not take screen breaks or who used the full time allowance to upload documents". For a statement directed at patent attorneys, this phrasing is unfortunately ambiguous. However, I think we can generously construe the PEB's meaning to be that candidates will not be penalised for continuing to work on their examination script during the time allotted for screen breaks and uploading. Given the likelihood that the vast majority of candidates did not religiously abide by the allotted screen break and upload timings, this (apparent) confirmation from the PEB will come as a relief to many.
However, the incident last week prompted again many of the criticisms previously levelled at the PEB, including lack of transparency and a refusal to listen to candidates' concerns. The Honorary Secretary of the CIPA Informals, Joel Briscoe, has now offered to collate these comments so as to feed them into the appropriate official CIPA channels. Joel will also be meeting Sarah Boxall next week to discuss the questions and issues that have been raised. If you have any further comments for Joel in advance of this meeting, please send them to joel.briscoe@hglaw.com.
This Kat looks forward to hearing the outcome of these discussions, and we will be reporting them here on IPKat. In the meantime, please keep comments polite!
Reviewed by Rose Hughes
on
Friday, December 11, 2020
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Asking ourselves ‘Y’ – Are shape marks shaping complex products’ aftermarkets?](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHwE0es_m0lzJpedp0KFtKOYBne_M3YPJ-qwQxiY_YMkHffLAAXkSW9F-pjQFKsy5kJJ-VWScQQkuEVb5-BxnDv10XIMAbYhvgzBSQadD1gdTiIjg9-Oj9Iekll-C3Ca9I76uI3Hh5nCI4QyLosLSNev9VzLq9lF1jM86ungheEDOBKLzGTbE3yw/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Flat rates supported by clauses on universality of repertoire in contracts between CMOs and users are anti-competitive, says Spanish Competition Authority](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpBg7o3d7DPzH4YqNz3DUV5J5_sS4P7X7ZznFNETyQlLe0gonaSi3eE_jdjHD_aIjbPKhgpvUrkg6tPprYQYdwDGiyuWIXty9BOUlc07wUVbjDxI1bHoVxZA0ZCC9HBPjLXQwUioBSd9e9n-Z3uCeJ9UUgEvtJHLo1AllR20HGJETFdKoovxLBMw/s72-c/images.png)
Posts
Its a relief for many have the additional stresses loaded onto candidates from the chief examiner.
ReplyDeleteMy concern is whether candidates this year are treated fairly and with the right considerations. Its clear that PEB has the ability to change whatever they want after the exams has taken place. They had to retreat (rightfully) from the possibility of disqualifying candidates unfairly.
But what else can be changed without notifying candidates. Will marking now be stricter/harsher as a result of this retreat, or will candidates get penalised for other things. I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to mark much more harshly.
As many have commented, faith in fairness and consideration from PEB has seriously been affected.
I agree with your concerns. I feel that they will now look even harder at scripts and be much harsher to fail candidates.
DeleteI do welcome the quick statement from CIPA, but these statements should never have been needed in the first place. Please can someone in CIPA prevent PEB acting like this again towards candidates. Its unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteThis statement was only necessary to clear up unfounded, panic inducing, comments made by a member of PEB on this blog. The comments made contradict the information provided by PEB themselves. Are any steps being taken by PEB to ensure misinformation is not spread in this manner again?
ReplyDeleteMeow, meow (yawn)...meow, here goes:
ReplyDeleteFirstly, why hasn't PEB addressed the fact that the Chief Examiner is communicating about the UK Exams on an EQE-related post? Her communication was clearly inappropriate such that it warranted an official response to rectify it. In other words, if the response to rectify needed to be communicated via an official channel then shouldn't all information that belongs to an official communication be kept to an official channel? Also, an apology was missing together with a statement to reflect that this would not happen again! If the blog hadn't erupted, would anything have been done? The result has been unnecessary anxiety for UK candidates, and a discussion that should have been about the more relevant EQE changes.
The Chief Examiner has just wasted everyone's time, and this should not be tolerated as it is certainly not within the characteristics of what a person in such a position of responsibility should be advocating.
Secondly, "to be fair to Sarah" is an overstatement. Let's revisit what she posted:
"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."
It is not far-fetched to construe "the matter is being considered by the PEB Governance Board" to mean the matter of disqualification. Despite responses to her comment including from named individuals, there was no attempt to clarify, rather further confusing posts followed.
According to the statement issued today:
"[t]here was never ANY INTENTION to penalise candidates who did not take screen breaks or who used the full time allowance to upload documents"
So either there was never any intention or there was "a need but without intention" for THE MATTER TO BE DISCUSSED by the PEB Governance.
So, meow, which is it?! Meow.
Thirdly, the response does not refer to IPKat when it should have. This was a mistake, as clearly all UK Candidates will now quickly need to become familiar with the communication channels being adopted by the Chief Examiner. That way, in future, we can all become smarter cats and start searching for unrelated blog-posts to read up on the Chief Examiner's latest comments relating to UK exams.
Me last week: "The UK Exams went well! EQEs should learn from the smoothness of the PEB"
Me this week: "Oh yeah, it's PEB, and CIPA...should have known better, they're clawful".
(Yawn)...meow
"Also, an apology was missing together with a statement to reflect that this would not happen again!"
DeleteI'll wager it won't happen again. Despite the PEB's ostensible indifference, Sarah will be feeling foolish.
Thanks to Merpel for flagging up the PEB response and its poor wording.
ReplyDeleteAs Merpel notes, the PEB's statement doesn't expressly acknowledge or clarify/retract the Chief Examiner's comments. That is presumably deliberate, and is in itself disappointing. It again paints the PEB as stubborn, antagonistic and opaque, rather than responsive, objective and transparent.
Frankly not offering an apology to the many candidates indicates arrogance and a lack of leadership to accept when you got things wrong. If Sarah as the chief examiner holds her hands up and offers and apology, it will go some way.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know what displicinary procedures PEB or CIPA has in place. This needs to be publically published.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear what are the displicinary procedures are for candidates but when PEB Examiners steps out of line, no one knows what are the displicinary procedures are.
An apology would be good from the Chief Examiner. Everyone makes mistakes but it is important to admit to it and learn from it.
ReplyDeleteDemanding apologies and possible removal of Sarah from her function is completely ridiculous and also arrogant. In the run-up to PEB exams, she was very active trying to answer questions, sometimes quite extensively when everything was still changing.
ReplyDeleteDo you prefer silence?
It is their job to figure out what is acceptable and what is not so that the conditions are the same for all candidates. I interpreted her statement as something they were looking at, but they still have to decide where the limit is. And then decide whether they will apply a punishment or change something for next year. You assume your interpretation of the rules is correct - you should also realise that you could be wrong.
It is easy to criticise exams, thinking you can do much better. I always encourage the critics, once qualified, to get involved and "improve" the exams. Most of them will not bother. And those that do realise how difficult it is to produce exams that are unambiguous to several hundred people (EQE is even worse - they have to be unambiguous in three languages). As well as having unambiguous instructions.
So how many critics will get involved and spend large chunks of their free time doing it?
That is a good point - there are a lot of candidates who are not posting. They may think it unfair because they followed the spirit of the rules, taking breaks and stopping writing, but not being able to finish.
DeleteThe rules and enforcement create a level playing field for all candidates. But it is hard if you are building the amphitheatre at the same time ;-)
Considering that Sarah has given bad advice on numerous occasions (e.g. page orientation), silence from Sarah would be preferable.
DeleteCandidates should be able to get accurate, up-to-date, information through the official channels and not have to rely on the comments section of a blog.
Sarah - is that you?
DeleteJust in case of any ambiguity, although I'm not sure there was much, commenters' criticisms of the PEB and/or Sarah does not concern ambiguity. That much can be gleaned from the absence of a single critical mention of ambiguity in any of the comments to the recent posts.
DeleteOn the whole, my reading of the criticism of PEB is: (a) that it sets exams that don't appear to have the sole objective of testing fitness to practice, and indeed appear to have the objective, and certainly the effect, of unduly limiting access to the profession; and (b) is opaque and antagonistic, and moreover is run by people with a clear conflict of interest in acting as gatekeeper to the register.
As to Sarah's behaviour - Sarah, Chief Examiner of the PEB, on an informal blog topic relating to EQE exams, having nothing to do with PEB exams, strongly inferred that the PEB considered that candidates following PEB's regulations and guidelines for the recent exams had cheated, and that the PEB was contemplating disciplinary action. Any suggestion that behaviour is appropriate is, unambiguously, nonsense. So save the violin.
Graver Tank, I'm afraid your comments will not gain much traction here. Sarah Boxall's comments have been appalling. To say otherwise is to wilfully misread them. The PEB rules in relation to the breaks were entirely clear and not at all ambiguous. To say that they are open to interpretation is frankly incorrect.
ReplyDeleteYes, she was very active trying to answer questions and that is commendable indeed. But does that mean she has not made a hash of things? She has made a mistake and the right thing to do would be to apologise. To say that "demanding apologies" is arrogant is sheer arrogance in itself. Do you believe that all conduct by the PEB is above reproach?
Sarah has also said that how much time candidates take has no bearing on whether they pass or fail. If that is correct, what is the need to have an insanely time-pressured FD4? Which is presumably set / approved by Sarah herself? It makes no sense. Moreover, for the same reasons, what is the need to worry whether candidates took an extra 15 mins to complete the papers online?
Do you know why the vast majority of attorneys who qualify want nothing to do with the PEB? It is because of the poor reputation PEB has. Who in their right mind would want to be associated with an organisation that is incompetent, lacks transparency, shows no willingness to modernise and to top it all, is incredibly arrogant?
I agree that demanding removal is unwarranted.
ReplyDeleteI have volunteered in the past and it is largely a thankless task. So hats off to Sarah and associates for getting the exams running during a very trying year.
I am qualified so have no skin in the game. I understand the need to treat all candidates equally. However, I am concerned that it's seemingly under consideration to retroactively interpret the rules to insist that time allocated for printing, scanning, and screen breaks, should have been used for only those purposes. Take the example of screen breaks. Assuming a candidate did use the time for screen breaks, how could you even prove they did not think about the exam question. (I assume this is the rationale behind the EPO's approach in not letting you return to answer pre screen break.) This has the potential to get very messy. Given 2020 has been trying for all, wouldn't the best solution be to tighten up the rules for 2021? At worse, compensate the candidates who did "adhere" to the rules rather than punish those that did "not".
As and aside, you would be hard pressed to find a plausible argument that the PEB rules as they were written are the same as the EPO's proposed rules, which is seemingly what you suggesting by reference to wrongly interpreting the rules.
Finally, focusing on whether a critic could to do better does nothing to address the criticism itself. Assuming also that critics are not qualified is at best irrelevant and at worst patronising, and once again sidesteps the criticism.
If the exams don't require "improvement", what is the point of the Mercer Review? Perhaps it is just to appease all those unqualified critics out there who think they know better. Respect is not a two way street.
The age old defence can be summarised as one of the following (but never said together): if you are fit to practise, you will pass the exams; if you pass the exams, you are fit to practise.
ReplyDeleteIt is circular reasoning at its finest that conveniently avoids defining what fit to practice means and any debate as to how the exams in the current format are determinative.
No, I am not Sarah and I do not knw her personally. But I have been involved in teaching and making exams and evaluation tests for many years.
ReplyDeleteI agree there are many issues with the UK Exams - hopefully, the move to online will be the catalyst. But as legal professionals, you know the info on blogs in not necessarily accurate, final and official.
The PEB has to take decisions, which will be "fair" to most and "unfair" to some. I hope also that they are very lenient this year because of all the chaos.
But the starting points must be the official instructions, and not blogs (whoever is posting). And the patchwork of applicable health and safety regulations.
So then, Graver Tank, if we cannot rely on information provided by the Chief Examiner on an unofficial blog, what is the point in providing information in such a way? In your earlier comment you asked if silence is preferable. The answer to that is a resounding yes if the information that is being provided is unhelpful or downright incorrect, as we have seen.
DeleteStrange - everyone else has to admit their mistakes. But you will not admit yours by relying on such info. From the instructions for Candidates: "In the event that you make a Special Consideration request or apply for an Enquiry about Results, or your script is reviewed as part of a Malpractice Investigation, you will not be able to support any case you might wish to make on the basis that you relied on information about the examinations from sources other than PEB, such as internet blogs or posts on social media."
DeleteGraver Tank - Sarah Boxall is PEB Chief Examiner, as she has expressly asserted in her IPKat posts on numerous occasions. How could information Sarah supplies be said to be "from sources other than PEB"? Surely information from the PEB Chief Examiner is as much "information from PEB" as it is possible to be? If we can't trust the Chief Examiner, who can we trust?
DeleteMore generally, what is the point you are trying to make in your posts? Your argumentation would appear to suggest that you are not a patent attorney. If that is correct, your opinions aren't a valid or useful contribution to the debate. If on the other hand you are a patent attorney, that would probably demonstrate the exams not to be a useful test for fitness/ability to practice.
Umm.. I'm not sure I understand you, and I don't think you have understood the main issue here. Most candidates learnt early on not to rely on Sarah Boxall's pre-exam comments after they found out that they were incorrect. As for the main point of contention - her comments which implied that candidates may be subject to disqualification for following PEB guidelines - I don't think anyone is relying on them. Most are just really irritated at the thoughtlessness, particularly as they were made by the Chief Examiner. I really don't think this is too hard to understand. The extract you have pasted above is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. What exactly would you like me/us to apologise for?
DeleteStepping aside from the PEB and looking at the wider examination programme, I do think there are too many exams and the burden on candidates in recent times have been mighty. Yes, there were those who had to do alot of exams before but I honestly don't think the exams have helped me developed into a better attorney. Probably a discussion for the wider community.
ReplyDeleteSo we've gone from the official PEB guidelines saying you can use a screen break as you wish, to unsubstantiated comments on blog suggesting you would be disqualified for doing so, to an opaque statement from PEB neither confirming or denying either route. Glad we've cleared that up then....
ReplyDeleteThere is now an apology from Sarah Boxall issued on the PEB general communications page.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad Sarah Boxall has apologised. Rightly so. Lets put this matter behind us all.
DeleteSarah has now offered an apology. It shouldn't happen but I've accepted it and considered this matter closed.
DeleteI'm not sure I entirely understand PEB's statement as a chief examiner of PEB must surely be related to PEB. Anyway - matter closed for me.
An apology from Sarah is received and accepted.
DeleteI'm more concerned about the disconnection between the PEB GB board and the PEB examiners. There doesn't seem to be much communication as evidently shown here where Sarah did not know what the PEB exam guidelines were. In future, there needs to be better co-ordination and communication. There has been enormous damage and distrust between candidates (attorneys) and the PEB out of this unfortunate episode.
An apology from Sarah is a good start in recovering the relationship between PEB and the wider trainee/attorneys profession.
Hats off for the apology, and we can go back to the pre-existing and more global issues with the UK system. I sincerely hope PEB will not disrupt the EQEs with the sort of drama, which we have seen in previous years including poor timing of controversial announcements. Let's hope the 2020 papers are examined to a reasonable standard without said controversy. This year has already been hard, the shift to online exams a significant but necessary change which brought with it uncertainty affecting preparations - let's hope for some simplicity where it can be afforded.
ReplyDelete"Congratulations" with your pyrrhic victory - now no-one knowledgeable will comment at all. Thankfully, it is clear that no-one will be penalised. But surely a better outcome would be improvement in the communication?
ReplyDeleteIf it is the apology that you value most, you might need to self-reflect on why. The patent world attracts a lot of people focussed on being right, never admitting mistakes or being wrong, never admitting that they cannot do something. Assumes that they will never lose a case. But that can (and frequently does) lead to a burnout in the future.
Yes, I am a patent attorney of many years who is still learning, frequently makes mistakes, and has lost a few cases :-)
Graver Tank, once again you have spectacularly missed the point. You have already said that it is ridiculous to "demand" an apology from Sarah. So presumably, the criticism in your post above in relation to the inability to admit mistakes is directed to candidates and qualified attorneys. Literally no one is arguing this point in any way. For the last time, what everyone is riled up about is the Chief Examiner making irresponsible statements (and not as a one off). And why is this a pyrrhic victory? You think now we will not get any communication from the PEB? As others have said above, no information is preferable to misinformation.
DeleteRegarding your earlier comment that you have been "involved in teaching and making exams and evaluation tests for many years" I do hope you are not referring to PEB exams.
I'm not inclined to be quite as generous as some other commenters regarding Sarah's apology. It came late, only following an unprecedented level of criticism, and appeared reluctant in its tone. And if Sarah's suggestion that the PEB were intending to discipline candidates had been correct, presumably the PEB would not have been willing to forgo such discipline just by candidates apologising?
ReplyDeleteSarah has shown herself repeatedly to be unfit to be involved in PEB exams - she has poor judgement and appears to typify the stubborn, arrogant, and jobsworth attitude of the PEB. It appears almost a bad joke that she's involved in P6 infringement and validity exams, given her clear ineptitude at assessing infringement.
Sarah on IPKat blog on Friday, 4 December 2020 at 10:16:00 GMT: "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."
ReplyDeleteSarah in her apology of 16 December: "As a Marking Examiner I have a view on the impact that the additional time may have on results and will be making these known to the Governance Board."
Presumably Sarah will be making known her views that the additional time is unlikely to have had any impact on the results.