Thoughts on the EU Case Study

The EU case study is a written examination used in EPSO competitions to assess a candidate's ability to analyze a given problem, interpret a set of documents, and produce well-reasoned recommendations. The case study simulates a real-world scenario within an EU context, requiring candidates to assume a professional role—often within a European Commission unit—and tackle tasks that reflect the complexities of policy-making and administration within the EU. The case study tests various competencies, including critical thinking, problem-solving, and written communication.

The format has undergone significant changes, particularly with the abolition of the Assessment Centre.

In the earlier format, candidates were presented with all relevant documents and tasks on the day of the exam, requiring them to quickly absorb information and respond within a set time, typically 90m.

The current format, however, allows candidates to receive the case file approximately two weeks in advance. This shift has changed the nature of the exam: while the allotted exam time has been reduced to 45m, the expectation for depth of understanding and familiarity with the material has increased.

The case file candidates receive before the exam includes a variety of documents that reflect the breadth of information they might encounter in a professional setting.

These materials often comprise fictive emails, position papers, websites, press releases, stakeholder briefings, and official EU documents.

The documents are designed to simulate a broad scenario with multiple interrelated issues, including policy debates, procedural challenges, and stakeholder perspectives.

The diversity of document types requires candidates to sift through both formal and informal sources, distinguishing between objective data and subjective opinion.

In the case study, candidates are asked to step into a specific professional role, such as that of a policy officer, advisor, or administrator within an EU institution. This role dictates the perspective from which they must approach the tasks. For example, a candidate might be tasked with drafting a briefing note for a high-level official or preparing a press release on behalf of a Directorate-General.

The role assigned influences not only the content of the responses but also the style and tone required, as candidates must align their outputs with the expectations of the position they are simulating.

Preparation for the case study begins with a thorough examination of the case file.

Candidates should not only read the documents but also actively engage with them by creating summaries, noting key points, and mapping out stakeholder positions. This preparatory work might include outlining the chronology of events, identifying potential conflicts or issues, and developing a "stakeholder map" to track the interests and positions of different parties involved.

Given that the exact questions on exam day are unknown, candidates must be ready to apply their knowledge flexibly across different tasks. Having a thorough understanding of the European ecosystem, its actors and its norms will give candidates a head start.

Familiarity with EU terminology and the functioning of its institutions can be a significant advantage in the case study. While the reasoning tests do not require specific knowledge of the EU, the case study might involve scenarios rooted in EU policy or administration.

Understanding terms like "Directorate-General," "trialogue," or "subsidiarity" can help candidates navigate the documents more effectively and provide contextually accurate responses.

This knowledge also helps in understanding the relationships between different EU bodies and the procedural nuances that might be relevant to the tasks.

Our course is tailored to giving you that head start.

The tasks on exam day can vary widely in format, reflecting the diversity of writing tasks encountered in EU roles. Common tasks include drafting a press release, preparing briefing notes for senior officials, outlining an action plan, or creating speaking points for a public address.

Each task requires a different writing style and focus: a press release might prioritize clarity and public messaging, while a briefing note might require a more detailed analysis tailored to an informed but busy reader. The specific task types are designed to reflect real-world duties, challenging candidates to demonstrate their versatility as communicators.

When working with partisan or subjective sources in the case file, candidates should exercise critical judgment. Such sources might include stakeholder position papers or media articles with a clear bias.

It's important to distinguish between fact and opinion and to use these sources judiciously, ensuring that the final recommendations are balanced and well-supported by objective data where possible.

Time management is crucial in the case study exam, given the limited 45-minute window for responding to potentially complex tasks. Effective strategies include practicing with mock exams under timed conditions, becoming thoroughly familiar with the case file content before the exam day, and developing a clear, structured approach to answering the questions.

On the day of the exam, candidates should quickly outline their responses, ensuring that they address all parts of the task, and allocate time for reviewing their work to correct any errors or clarify points.

Unlike the multiple-choice reasoning tests, which have clear right and wrong answers, the case study is evaluated by human examiners who assess the quality of the written responses.

The marking scheme is based on a pre-determined scoring guide that aims for objectivity but also allows for the consideration of nuance and judgment.

Candidates are evaluated on the clarity of their writing, the coherence of their arguments, their ability to marshal evidence from the documents, and their adherence to the specific requirements of the task.

While there is no single "correct" answer, strong responses are those that are well-structured, persuasive, and rooted in the provided materials.

Candidates demonstrate their understanding of the case file through the precision and relevance of their responses. This means being able to quickly reference key documents, integrate information from multiple sources, and craft arguments that are both persuasive and grounded in the materials provided.

Well-prepared candidates will have internalized the main points of the case file, enabling them to adapt their knowledge to the specific questions asked on exam day. Demonstrating this understanding requires not only familiarity with the content but also good EU knowledge and the ability to think critically about the information and its implications.

Strong candidates will go beyond merely summarizing the documents; they will interpret the information, assess the reliability of different sources, and make recommendations that are both logical and well-supported.