Preparation:
Prior to the case study, I searched and searched for information. EPSO, understandably enough provides very little information about it, and the only examples they provide are aimed at AD5. Thinking that I was insufficiently prepared, I ended up buying an online seminar recording. The recording was very good and well prepared, and I certainly learned some things I hadn't thought of myself; that said - it was aimed more for AD5 / AD7 rather than AST3. Perhaps I would have considered the money better spent if they had pointed out the possible differences between the AD / AST case studies.
I am not going to give away the "secrets" of these paid webinars, otherwise this blog would probably be removed pretty quickly. However, here is the information I gleaned for free from the internet / common sense:
- Do try to get a good night's sleep before the exam and eat a good breakfast even if your nerves are affecting your appetite!
- Make sure you understand the mission or question, every word counts.
- Try to take notes while you are reading... and my personal advice: set yourself a limited amount of time to (at least skim) read all documents so that you have a good overview.
- Structure the report / answers very clearly. Bear in mind that you can't underline or make anything bold...
- Try to keep the "helicopter perspective": don't get lost in details.
- Try to remain calm, there's a lot to do and very little time. Breathe.
See EU Bookshop: http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/bundles/the-eu-explained-cbsciep2OwkgkAAAE.xjhtLxJz/
Since I expected more of an AD style scenario in the exam, I overdid the study or research on EU hot topics (environment, EU enlargement, providing jobs, etc) - not to say that this isn't useful, but again - absolutely not relevant for this AST3 exam. Normally the case study is domain specific, however we were informed that it would be on a "general EU topic".
I was doing the case study in French so I revised plenty of vocabulary - especially phrase "connectors", and how and when to use them: http://www2b.ac-lille.fr/weblettres/tice/b2ilettres/lettre_argum/outil_connecteurs_logiques.pdf
I also read as much as possible (regular books, articles, etc) in French so as to increase my comprehension and reading speed.
The test centre:
I went to a test centre in Eschborn in Frankfurt, but I assume they are all similar. The people in the test centre are thorough, professional and friendly.
- Do arrive early as advised, there is a lot of security protocol to go through.
- You can not bring anything at all into the room, you have to prove you have empty pockets and will be screened with a security wand.
- You will be given an erasable board, markers, and board wipe. Alas, no paper or pens.
- Make sure you go to the toilet beforehand, as if you need to go out in the middle of the exam - it will cost you a lot of time. The security procedures will be repeated before they let you back in.
The interface:
- Do not expect a big screen, although this possibly changes from centre to centre, my screen was very small. This was a significant factor for me, as the space on screen was too limited to have several windows (the documents) open at once.
- As mentioned above, there is no facility for underlining, or changing the font in any way (bold, italics, colour, size, etc).
- There is no copy/paste between documents, however you can copy/paste within the text box itself.
The case study:
The mission was to write a report on the organisation of a conference: the aspects to be considered, your recommendations, and to suggest a calender plan of action. The topic was not difficult, the difficulty lay in the volume of documents and array of information to be filtered / dealt with in such a limited time frame.
- According to what I "heard", I expected only 6-8 documents - there were 12 (mostly emails, regulations and an article), as well as the mission itself, abbreviations and a "welcome note". I think the "6-8 documents" advice is aimed for the AD exams, in this case the documents are probably more complex and longer.
- Some of the documents (perhaps 2) were not so relevant for the purposes of the report.
- Relevant information regarding each aspect was to be found in several documents, which meant a lot of flitting around from one document to another: difficult to do on this interface.
What I learned:
I recognise the case study was a good learning experience - and underlined for me certain weaknesses that need to be worked on! In light of this, my only advice is:
- If your AST3 case study is on a "general EU topic", just ensure you understand the basics of how the EU functions. I think going into detail is more beneficial for "domain specific" AD case studies.
- Be prepared for any number of documents, there is no golden rule.
- If I were to do this again; I would have set myself 15-20 minutes to skim the documents. I would have briefly noted which document contained what information... and if time allowed, type the information / fact and source directly into the text field. The reason I say this is because with 20 minutes to go, I was opening all documents in a desperate search for the nugget of information I read half and hour previously... and then had to close 12 boxes to get back to the text field.
- If you realise you are running out of time, take a moment to reassess where you are and what is left to be done. If you know you are not going to complete it as planned, at least get down the structure and basic intentions. It is important to answer all the questions in the mission.
- If, like me, you think too much before writing anything....and therefore take too long to get your point down on paper; perhaps spend the week prior to the exam practicing writing exercises: getting it down, and honing it afterwards. Also practice taking notes - give yourself 5 minutes to read an article and take notes while reading.
- We are all so used searching for advice on the internet, unfortunately we forget that you can not trust everything you read or hear - so take any advice with a grain of salt (including this!).
Best of luck...
