Today is the first day of the online EQE (eEQE), following on from Monday's online pre-EQE . Unfortunately, it seems that things have not begun well. Reports have reached this Kat that some candidates experienced significant issues with the online system during the first session of Paper D today.
The EQE Examination Secretariat has chosen to carry out the European exams using a more advanced online set-up than that used by the PEB last year for the UK patent exams (which, in the end, turned out to be nothing more than a Zoom chat room for candidates and invigilators (IPKat)). The EPO is instead using the WISEflow system in combination with the "LockDown browser". The online proctoring system for the eEQE combines human and software based invigilation. As usual, Delta Patents has done a sterling job of keeping candidates informed in the run up to the European examinations.
 |
| eEQE candidate |
The EQE papers are supposed to be provided to candidates at the start of each exam as a PDF in the three EPO official languages (English, French and German). Unfortunately, at the start of Paper D today, a number of candidates taking the exam in the UK report that they were only able to access the German version of the paper. It is unclear how quickly this issue was rectified. Candidates report that accessing the correct paper required a page refresh, but that they were only told this by their invigilator half an hour into the exam time. Only 10 minutes extra time was then apparently added to compensate for the 30 minute delay. Unsurprisingly, candidates complained to the invigilator that more time should be added.
With only 20 minutes of the exam left to go, candidates report that an announcement was given extending the examination time by 30 minutes. Unfortunately, there was a further glitch in the system meaning that some candidates reportedly did not even receive the extra time (or were even randomly kicked off the system during the extra 20 minutes). Despite the lengthened exam time, scheduled breaks between the parts of Paper D were not extended, giving candidates limited time to recover from this rather chaotic start to the full day of examinations.
It is as of yet unclear how many candidates were unable to access the question paper in the appropriate language, or how long it took for all candidates to receive the correct paper. There will undoubtedly be calls for the Examination Secretariat to compensate those affected.
Let's hope the EPO are able to sort out some of these teething problems by tomorrow's exam. At the very least, it seems that better communication from invigilators might help to alleviate some of the stress experienced by candidates during the course of the exam itself.
Good luck everyone in the remaining exams!
UPDATE (2 March 2021): A reminder to candidates wishing to file a complaint about the exam should do this on the same day as the exam (OJ EPO 2021, A13):
"11. If a candidate wants to file a complaint concerning the conduct of the pre-examination or the main examination, they must do so as soon as possible (at the latest by the end of the day on which the examination was taken) by emailing it together with a written statement of the facts to the Examination Secretariat (helpdesk@eqe.org).
39. Any disruptions during the examination for which candidates are not responsible or which are beyond their control must be reported to the Examination Secretariat within 24 hours of the end of the relevant examination (via email to helpdesk@eqe.org)"
UPDATE (3 March 2021): The EPO has released a brief statement about the disruption to Paper D:
"The Examination Board of the EQE is aware of a situation that affected paper D1.1. The Examination Board guarantees that the marking process will be conducted so that no candidate will be disadvantaged because of that."
Reviewed by Rose Hughes
on
Tuesday, March 02, 2021
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
It sounds suspiciously like some people didn't log in and familiarise themselves with the system beforehand. However, happy to be corrected!
ReplyDeleteI'll happily correct you then. Despite practicing with the system ahead of time, only the German paper was made available to candidates at the start of the exam. Initially, even refreshing didn't allow candidates to access the other language of papers. And it wasn't just a few, it was ALL candidates. Only after the EQE secretariat had resolved the issue on their end could we refresh and see the English or French papers.
DeleteCandidates do care about these exams, a lot, so have put in a lot of time to familiarising ourselves with the system. To just assume we'd not is frankly insulting and very presumptuous. This was not a candidate-side issue, but an EPO-side issue.
Not the case, I had done 3 mocks and I can tell you that the option to choose the English or French version of the paper was not provided as in the previous mock exams. The only pdf available was the German version. After complaining I was told to refresh the browser and it solved the problem. £0 min extra time was added to compensate for the incidence.
DeleteThe EPO have reported that 50% of the candidates offered the opportunity to test the system did not do so. You can be as insulted as you like by my comment but the statistics show that not all candidates tested the system, or have the same view as you.
DeleteAnonymous of 15:12
A system wide error the EPO had to give us 30 extra minutes for on the fly, and you think it's because candidates didn't practice? The button to get the English version of the paper literally wasn't there.
DeleteYou're clearly just a bored troll. You might want to actually speak to some candidates before being so judgemental.
As per the comment above, consider yourself corrected.
DeleteEven if 50% of candidates did not test the systems beforehand (and you offer no evidence for that claim), it's nonetheless a completely irrelevant point. As Rose has has highlighted in her article, the issue experienced by candidates today was the result of "glitches" (i.e. human error) on the part of the eEQE organisers, who failed to make the paper available in anything other than German for the first 30 minutes of the exam.
Whilst it's understandable that some technical issues may arise, such as the well reported problems associated with some external webcams (see, for instance, the corresponding Delta Patents blog post), the organisers of the eEQE should at least be capable of releasing the correct papers at the correct start times for each exam. This kind of basic error is not really acceptable, and serves only to disadvantage candidates, either directly or indirectly.
Perhaps consider making fewer sneering comments trying to troll candidates who, by and large, are doing their upmost to adapt to exceptional and difficult circumstances.
A comment on the statement "50% of all candidates did not test the system". From my understanding, this was said on the webinar of 11 Feb, i.e. well before the actual exam. I had also not tested the system on 11 Feb the reason for this being that I was still waiting for my web cam to arrive (I was a bit late in ordering one since the EPO had stated that we would be getting more info on the technical requirements for the webcam) and I wanted to test the system with my final setup, which was possible until 28th Feb. I have attended the 3 mock exams. Further, it may very well be that if you tested but did not hand in the paper for the mock (such that it would be available later on), this is not counted as "tested". This is all irrelevant to the problems that occurred during the D exam but still wanted to write this down as all of us have spent so much time in attending mock exams, webinars, reading 90 page documents on wiseflow etc... i also felt that this comment was very unfair.
DeleteIt isn't very nice just to say that we didn't test the system in advance. I did all the Mocks. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. I only wrote my answers in the Mock 1 software. I did it all, and I had the problem - I NEVER had such a problem before. Sorry, that isn't very nice just to say that some people didn't test it. I did it all. And I didn't get the English until 30 min in, AFTER I got the added time, it disappeared again. I complained, but I got kicked out of the system at 11 am.
DeleteIf only I had myself familiarized with the system beforehand, the browser would've not kicked me out 30 min early. Darn it!
DeleteSome webcam glitches were also reported in the pre-EQE yesterday, though it seems that these weren't serious: http://saltedpatent.blogspot.com/2021/03/e-eqe-pre-exam-2021-scanned-copy-and.html?_sm_au_=iVV3DvqFw7MvN44HLHtGHKQ3T6M04
ReplyDeleteGerman Candidates get 2 hours, English and French candidates get 1h30 - 1h45 while in a state of acute stress.. possibly in the worst nightmare scenario you can imagine for an exam... yeh that's completely fair.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention being 1000th in the queue waiting for someone to help while all this is going on
DeleteThis happened to me in mock II for Paper C. I was sure I'd done everything the same as in Mock I, but after logging in and out several times (which I could only do because we had the invigilator password for the mock) it eventually came up in English. I told myself it was just the panic of the mock that made me miss the button, but it must have been this glitch.
ReplyDeleteIt is so horrible that this happened today and I don't know how they can fairly compensate candidates when German speakers were not affected in the first place AND had extra time.
Let's hope it is sorted for the rest of the week.
I confirm, I tested the system with the 3 mocks and there always was the choice of pdf in en, fr or de. But this morning, no you only had the exam in de. For me, it was 10min lost and a high stress level before they told me to refresh the browser. Fingers crossed that this will be the only and last problem for this e-eqe session!
ReplyDeleteIt seems the three rounds of mock exams were not attended by the epo/eqe/wiseflow.
ReplyDeleteGreat start to the day followed by various further technical problems
I propose to group together to get real compensation for this totally unacceptable situation. To obtain fair compensation I propose to all candidates to join the LinkedIn group : NEVERAGAINEQE
ReplyDeleteIn addition to Delta Patents, Pete Pollard of the Salted Patent blog did a sterling job in keeping us informed and providing practical tips.
ReplyDeleteThe results that the EQE secretariat will issue from paper D's invigilation should not be admitted due to the differentiated treatment that has been given to candidates. If this is not possible, the members of the EQE secretariat need to be fired. Also, their ability to represent before or work for the EPO should be removed for two years (one for each year in which the affected candidates were not given the ability to do the EQE). If two years is too much, then one year. During this removal period, they should not receive any pay and the possibility of joining the EQE secretariat should never be available for them again.
ReplyDeleteYeah, why not hang them while we are at it... I did paper D and was affected by the bug too. But hey, there is one person that did a mistake with a computer and, yes, it sucks. But this kind of mistakes happens to everyone. May be you should chill out a bit.
DeleteMaking mistakes is a part of life. The first time ever that these exams were online, there were bound to be mistakes. I'm confident that there will be some form of semi-reasonable compensation.
DeleteHow could they screw up so completely? I mean it is so much that have to work in order to make this eEQE working, and they manage not to distribute the questions at the start of the exam. This must surely be the absolutely easiest part of the whole circus.
ReplyDeleteIt is up to the EQE to show that this disastrous problem occurred despite all due care required by the serious circumstances that an exam is...
DeleteI think this is what happened. At the start of the exam, the paper was only available in German for everyone. The chat instantly became overloaded. I believe at 9:36 they might have uploaded the English and French version. There is what the internal message system in Wiseflow (not chat) stated and asking candidates to refresh. However I believe there was a second mistake, in that this message was only received once the refresh was done. The message was received at 10.00 after refreshing. The end was first extended with 10 min, then at around 10.50, a further 20 min was added. For Germans, the exam was probably a breeze. For others, a bit stressful.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with bashing people working at the EQE secretariat. The first culprit is actually the person sitting at the head of the EPO. For many reasons, which I will not dwell on presently, this person wants an absolute digitalisation of the EPO whatever it might cost. See what happened with OP in form of ViCos whether the parties agree or not after the pandemic.
ReplyDeleteThe decision to skip the EQE in 2020 was taken quite early in the year. The decision of changing the procedure to an e-EQE was taken around mid-year. It took until the end of the year to give candidates a first opportunity to test the system. The last test was one week before the exam. All the ingredients for a disaster were present. And the disaster occurred.
I would have thought that when the decision was taken to go over to an e-EQE, the necessary means should be ready. Nothing like this happened.
The candidates and tutors had barely the possibility to prepare for the new form of the EQE in which parts were cut in two. This needs a review of the teaching methods, and as a tutor I would have wished to know about this change much earlier.
When it is claimed that the e-EQE is equivalent to the paper EQE, it is a gross exaggeration. If WiseFlow would give the same possibilities to process a text like Word, I could agree, but this is by far not the case.
The fear of possible cheating has pushed the EQE secretariat and Board into a frenzy of measures. And the candidates suffer in an unnecessary manner.
Rather than sending the EPO - and epi people - having contributed to the disaster away, I would rather send them to sit the papers three weeks running. This might make them think twice on what they have done to the candidates, and forces them to adopt a better system.
The EQE is difficult enough and it did not need the system to increase the difficulty.
In the famous videoconference of 11th February it was made clear that a return to a paper EQE is out of question. Let’s hope that the e-EQE 2022 will be better prepared and a system allowing a clear equivalence with a paper EQE will be chosen.
I feel deeply sorry for this year’s candidates and can only encourage them to stay steady and complain in the form required.
That an organisation likes the EPO is unable to organise correctly a very important exam is symptomatic of the deliquescence the office undergoes in the last years. People having not a clue of the actual work done decide on the policies which should be applied. And the AC is simply gaping.
Are you suggesting that the EPO has rushed to implement a digitalised solution without properly planning, preparing and testing the necessary systems (never mind putting relevant safeguards in place)? Who would have thought it?
DeleteI would not stick my tongue in my cheek but rather at all the incompetent EPO would be managers!
DeleteI wonder if they will consider that they took all due care to ensure the smooth running of the exams.
DeleteThe EQE tells candidates to start preparation early. But a first view of the platform was only available the day before Christmas... and that version did not have the major Alt-Tab flaws... so yes, they rushed. There was and is one good reason: COVID. But if you need to rush, you need to provide all necessary resources to be able to reach the required care and robustness. That was tried, vit the events show it did not work out good enough. 1500-2500 candidates per paper are too many to serves as Guinee pigs for a proven immature system (proven by Mock 2 and 3)
DeleteI was affected by this, and it certainly added a lot stress, and led to a worse performance for me personally. I immediately contacted the ZenDesk invigilator, only to see that I was position ~600 in the queue, and with these numbers dropping rather slowly. So I tried starting with the German paper, somehow, constantly checking the ZenDesk chat status. After a 30 min or I was told to refresh, which fixed the issue. I was already majorly stressed by that time, way more than I should be, and that lasted for the rest of the paper. The time extension was communicated later, randomly via the Wiseflow system, with no further explanation. The break to D2 was cut short.
ReplyDeleteWith no fault of my own (I participated in all Mock exams, read all instructions, took part in all video sessions) I had worse exam conditions a) than others and b) as I should have expected. Some people may deal better with such a situation, but for me it triggered some major panic, which I couldn't really get rid of during the rest of the exam.
I look forward to retaking D in 2022.
I'd characterise the issues as teething problems. Before biting me, please read my full comment.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, CLEARLY candidates have been affected, and I am in no way diminishing the very valid feelings that candidates will have regarding these technical issues and their impact on the exam(s).
However, the EQE board will likely take measures to compensate those affected, and that they acknowledge the impact on candidates (especially in terms of morale). What these measures are remains to be seen, but there are many very valid ways to normalize marks, and with the increased data they have through WISEflow they could do some very clever things to make sure that people sitting the paper in FR or EN are not disadvantaged compared to our DE speaking colleagues, statistically speaking.
I sat paper A today, and I must say that the system worked very well today (though admiteddly, others may have had issues). I can see a future where this system is the norm for the EQEs and that the majority are happy with it. Until then, the EQE board will surely take feedback, investigate, and iterate upon the current system until arriving at an acceptable solution.
Expecting perfection from each other (and that goes both ways) is unhealthy. Show me a perfect exam system anywhere in the world. As long as both sides respect each other, and equity is assured for all, then I think it will work out okay. Until then, I hope candidates will be kind to the humans at the other end of the e-mail address, and that the EQE board will be open minded in their analysis of their own performance, and how they can assure equity for all candidates.
Message from the Examination Board (3 Mar 2021)
DeleteThe Examination Board of the EQE is aware of a situation that affected paper D1.1. The Examination Board guarantees that the marking process will be conducted so that no candidate will be disadvantaged because of that.
Well there we go, be interesting to see if they make use of the data to help EN and FR. Can't seem them penalizing DE! I would like to see them look generally to see if DI-2 and DII were affected, statistically, for FR and EN speakers too! If there is a clear anomaly happening then they can correct it. If not then at least they can say they looked.
It would indeed be unreasonable to expect perfection. Competence, however, could reasonably have been expected.
DeleteThe evidence points to inadequacies with regard to the planning, preparation and/or testing of the relevant (digital) systems. The result seems to be a chaotic mixture of (wildly) different experiences for different candidates. In such circumstances, it is impossible to devise (post hoc) a marking system that ensures a level playing field between all candidates. The best that can be hoped for are generalised adjustments that might be fair to some ... but certainly not to all.
To describe such an outcome as representing mere "teething problems" is frankly astonishing. Moreover, it appears to be an attempt to absolve those responsible of any blame. Either way, minimising the consequences in such a manner is a guaranteed way of ensuring that no one learns the right lessons from this episode.
Anon 3 Mar 14:08
DeleteYou say that "with the increased data they have through WISEflow they could do some very clever things to make sure that people sitting the paper in FR or EN are not disadvantaged compared to our DE speaking colleagues, statistically speaking".
Well, perhaps you might want to consider the experience of English students in 2020 and the conclusions reached regarding the unfairness inherent in using algorithms to "adjust" grades:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/20/world/europe/uk-england-grading-algorithm.html
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/13/england-a-level-downgrades-hit-pupils-from-disadvantaged-areas-hardest
Why would they use algorithms? They themselves could also look at the data, and I trust they will. AI never leads to fairness!
DeleteAnon,
DeleteWho said anything about AI? I was simply referring to the possibility (raised by you) of using mathematical / statistical techniques to "adjust" scores.
The problems with such approaches include the facts that: (1) by necessity, they make assumptions that will not be true for all candidates; (2) they are generalised approaches that do not take into account the very specific circumstances of each candidate; (3) they cannot account for the possibility of unexpected variations between different candidates (in the same country, in different countries or in different years).
Therefore, quite justifiably, English school students in 2020 felt that statistical adjustments to their exam scores did not adequately reflect their individual abilities. I do not see how things could be any different for the EQEs.
The mock sessions were there to iron out any possible teething problems. That is what they are good for!
ReplyDeleteBut when you start mocks barely two months before the actual exam and furthermore not for all papers, then you necessarily end up in disaster.
Coming up less than two months from the exam with the information that some papers will be cut in two is also something which is not acceptable.
What is at stake here are not teething problems, it is the shear improvisation of the whole e-EQE following an order de mufti from the 10th floor.
I am convinced that the people sitting in the EQE secretariat/board have done what they could, but in view of the time constraints it was not enough.
Why was it necessary to schedule the exam at the same moment as in the past? A shift of a month or two would have helped, but no, that would be too simple. That the results would have been delayed a bit could is not a reason good enough in view of the exceptional circumstances.
it shame because the events yesterday affected my performance today. I was so anxious about the system that it did take away my concentration and focus for today. I'm not making excuses but the reality is I massively panicked yesterday, couldn't settle (sleep) last night and it has affected my performance today for Paper A. A system that is flawed affect your confidence, focus and trust in it.
ReplyDeleteI cannot help but this has really affected me so far this week. I hope to recover a bit for the rest of the exams.
The EPO really needed to take into account the tremendous amount of time and effort candidates have put into complying with all the admin burden placed on them leading up to the exam. There was so much changes/chopping/testing that no one really got a decent run of revision. Everyone I knew were merely trying to keep up with update after update. Then the disaster happened on Tuesday which ultimately has a knock on effect for the rest of the week.
ReplyDeleteThere is alot of confusing around some of the text on key features of the invention in paper A today, perhaps the text was badly worded/not clear. See Deltapatents Paper A blog.
ReplyDeleteThere were question numbering errors in paper D yesterday (although minor) along with the language issue.
It gives the impression that checks were not adequately done or things were missed this time round.
This refresh business. I attended the online sessions, I did the mocks, I read the Salted Patent, and I just did not know that we could refresh to fix it. HELLO? I waited 30 minutes in the queue to be told that. Why could they not have sent a systemwide message telling us to refresh? when my counter suddenly eliminated the 30 extra minutes, and I reported it AGAIN, why couldn't they have just said refresh again? What a mess.
ReplyDeleteWhat is required is not perfection, but a system which works and does take candidates for a ride. Every wish of the Grand Mufti will be scrupulously carried out with anticipatory obedience!
ReplyDeleteThe EPO has dramatically failed, but those responsible for the failures will remain in place as they belong to the happy few which are not constantly bashed by the would be managers of the EPO.
And after the present head of the EPO who will come?
The one who will finish digging EPO's grave?
Further, faster, higher but in the end a bloody nose is waiting.
On one point Mao was right when he said that the fish starts stinking from the head.
I experienced the same with paper A yesterday - I had completed all 3 mock exam tests without issue & was comfortable with the system. Printed additional info in English, then entered the flowlock & only had the German version available. I clicked on assignment button & refresh several times & spoke to Zendesk lots - 30 mins passed while invigilators tried to resolve- I suggested exiting using invigilator password, clicking on the language icon before re-entering- & this seemed to work as I then had English (no idea if this is what resolved the situation). When I requested more time, the invigilators refused to give me 30 mins back. The most stressful exam of my life.
ReplyDeleteLet’s not even start talking about Paper B, which did not meet any of the necessary standards. Errors (e.g. non highlighted amendments, reference signs) , contradictory, unclear ( both in terminology and in the client’s express wishes which you had to partly run counter to) combined with an unusual richness in issues to be dealt with (they upped the level waaaaay to much) and add to that by the limitations of Wiseflow (only one editable A4 can be seen, pdf cannot be highlighted) compounded by the choice of the EQE to it allow printing of the most critical parts of the paper.
ReplyDelete(Side by side comparison of original vs suggested amended claims was made very difficult to spot unannounced amendments)
Just to add, deltapatents have said paper B was very difficult, to the point that even their experienced attorneys and tutors cannot work out what is expected, and even amongst themselves have completely different answers. Bear in mind as well that conclusion was reached after 5 days of deliberation not 3 hours like the trainees had in the exam.
DeleteHow on earth is this acceptable?
Regarding the first part of D (DI-1), I have tested all mock sessions - not all were a big success in fact big issues - and I am familiar with the refresh option. At the moment I noticed the missing EN-version, I refreshed the screen without luck. Contacting help via Zendesk, showed that already >720 candidates were in the queue. The missing EN-version issue happened before with a colleague. So, the committee was aware that such an issue could happen.
ReplyDeleteEPO declares that the eEQE was a great success before the feedback from candidates has even closed for submissions....hmm....
ReplyDeletePaper C was worse than Paper B. The splitting, lack of adaptation and information overload (+50%, +20%, +30% pages compared to 2017, 2018, 2019, respectively) made paper C impossible.
ReplyDeleteThe opinion of Delta Patent’s Jelle Hoekstra on their C-Blog: “I understand that for everybody including the C committee it has been a tough time. But, I have the clear impression that the committee only has cut the claims into two parts and supplied the client's letter in two parts. No adaptation of the claims or prior art seems to have happened. The paper was, in my view, excessively long and for some candidates not on the technically easy side. A short overview. C 2017: 26 pages; 2018: 33 pages; 2019: 30 pages. Here 2021: 39 pages.
It is expected in all exams that candidates can reasonably efficient discard irrelevant information. Lets say that half of the text is irrelevant. Here for the first part, you got all information and much more than normal where then only 25% is relevant. Then it would have been nice/reasonable if you could have easily discarded one or two annexes as irrelevant for the first part. But, no. As you indicate for the elastomer the information is very confusing if you have not seen claim 6.
Clearly, with minimal effort the committee could have done something. E.g. put claim 6(1) as claim 4 in the first part. To allow for some time for the additional, the novelty attacks on A3 could have been simplified. Better would have been to simply remove the elastomer or its composition for the spacer.
Clearly, this exam was a bad start for an online exam.”
Well, the D1-1 disruption has been the most apparent among the drawbacks of eEQE, but - at least in my opinion - there are many more problems. First, the split C-paper, with almost no time to properly go through the prior art, with the consequent risk of overlooking important information. Having most of the relevant documents just on screen is really confusing and does all but determine a time saving for candidates. The papers, especially B, C and D1, were definitely too long for the allowed amount of time. I believe those last aspects are even worse than the D1-1 disruption at the beginning, since they deprived a properly-prepared candidate of drafting a proper answer (also with a decent phrasing).
ReplyDeleteMy impression is that the D1-1 default was merely one of the several incovenience of EQE2021. I have never seen so many issues in a paper B while practicing, let alone such a nightmare of paper C. As mentioned in a comment above, no one would ever asked for perfection. Something better working and more balanced with respect to the available time, however, should have been the minimum. The split paper C was really a major prejudice: I got confused, I did not have enough time and could not go through the documents properly (and neither finish the paper). I will surely file a complaint, and hope everyone who faced major issues also will. I believe it is pretty fair to let them know, that things went all but fine.
ReplyDelete