Monday, 24 March 2014

Pre-Exam 2014 statististics

24 March 2013: the results are in EQE Pre-Exam statistics

Some figures:
- Participants:  648 (14 did not turn up)
- Passes:        555 (70-100 marks);   85.7%
- Fails:              93 (up to 70 marks); 14,3 %
- Average:         80 marks
- Highest score: 98 marks
No participant scored full marks.

Here's how the marks are distributed:

How does this compare to last year's result:
- Participants:  643
- Passes:        641 (50-100 marks)
- Fails:               2 (up to 50 marks)
- Average:         81 marks

This year the pass threshold changed from 50 to 70 marks.
Had the threshold remained at 50, 11 candidates would have failed the exam and the pass rate would have been 98.3%. 
This only marginally differs from 2013. 
Thus the 2014 Pre-exam seems to be of a same complexity as 2013; the big difference being the pass threshold.


  1. For further training, see our EQE blog via the top left tab on this page.
    First courses preparing for main D start next week, March 31, in Eindhoven - late enrolment still possible (until Friday March 28)!

  2. Two candidates failed the Pre-Exam 2013. One of them resat the Pre-Exam this year, and obtained 89 marks - so, it appears like (s)he took the exam serious this year and after a serious preparation now passed with a good score. The other candidate's exam registration number does not show up in this year's list...

    Of the 390 Pre-Exam 2012 candidates, 5 failed (scores 37, 40, 45, 48, 49). Of these, two candidates resat the Pre-Exam in 2013 and then passed as they scored more than the pass level of 50 that was applicable at that time -- they would however have failed if the pass level would have been at 70 (they scored 53 and 63 marks): I expect that these two candidates will not have passed the D-paper this year... The other three did not show up on the results list of this year's exam (?!)...

  3. Today, the Examiner's report was published on the EQE website.

    It gives the following answers:

    Q.1: F, T, T, T;
    Q.2: F, F, T, F;
    Q.3: F, T, T, F;
    Q.4: F, F, T, T;
    Q.5: F, F, T, F;
    Q.6: T, F, F, F;
    Q.7: F, F, F, T;
    Q.8: F, T, T, T;
    Q.9: T, T, F, T;
    Q.10: F, F, F, T.

    Q.11: T, T, T, T;
    Q.12: F, F, F, F;
    Q.13: T, T, F, T;
    Q.14: F, T, F, T;
    Q.15: F, F, F, F;
    Q.16: T, F, T, T;
    Q.17: T, F, T, F;
    Q.18: F, F, F, F;
    Q.19: F, F, F, F;
    Q.20: T, F, F, F;

    and differs from our answers for statement 10.4, 18.4 and 20.2.

    We would thus have obtained a score of 94 marks - not too bad!

    We must admit that 7 candidates scored higher in the Pre-Exam itself (one scored 98; 6 scored 96), and another 24 candidates also 94 marks.
    It would be interesting if those (1+6+24=31) candidates would share with us, and with our blog readers, which statements they had different from the Examiner's report, and to exchange our views on those! Please comment!

    Statement 10.4 is discussed in the comments to our legal post -
    Statements 18.4 and 20.2 are discussed in the comments to our claims analysis post -

    Feel invited to contribute to the discussion to these threads!

  4. See also the discussion on the threat "Discussion of answers in Examiner's Report for Pre-Exam 2014 - 10.4, 18.4 and 20.2?" on