A
almost_there
Member
So Mr Actuary, what is this year's SCR? Well I've come up with £740m, my actuarial colleague has come up with £505m... shall we just call it £625m? Excellent!
L
Luckcounts
Member
No issues easy life simple to cal, and communicate
S
Sweetactuarialprincess
Member
Dear Tarbuck
The law requires competence standard to be applied equally by or on behalf of the qualification body. Furthermore, the standards have to be transparent.
The practice of other "exam boards, universities etc all across the world" does not change this.
As for "common, necessary and universally used process",,,, This is irrelevant. What matters is the truth, the facts, and the law.
S
Sweetactuarialprincess
Member
Tarbuck,
The conferment of fellowship by theUK institute must be applied equally by or on behalf of the UK Institute to UK nationals and those from oversees. By giving oversees applicants an easier route to the same qualification (avoiding CA3) the UK body is subjecting the UK members to direct or indirect discrimination.
Just thought I should let you know so that you can correct your ways
T
Tarbuck
Member
I don't understand why everyone is losing their minds over this. Borderline marks are marked a third time/ moderated. If a borderline mark is moderated upwards...they pass. How many people who passed are requesting SARs? There is no mystery around this at all. It is literally only the people with nappy rash because they just missed out/ keep missing out.
I was trying to bring the conversation back to normality but I don't think its working. So, we may as well talk about the real issue here.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
almost_there
Member
Normality are the experiences shared on here. It seems you want to be in denial and we must wonder why?
S
Sweetactuarialprincess
Member
Well, they might be behind the double competence standards which they apply. That is something for which they should be taken to task..
More importantly, if those on the foraum are applying the law of the land to achieve justice and redress of their grievance, then they should not be victimized because of it by an apologist that has sipped the IFOA coolaid.
L
Lapsed_Student
Member
Oh dear. Another attempt to derail the thread, trying to dismiss anybody who is in the least bit skeptical that the IFoA are 100% following their own stated examination policy 100% of the time. Considering the amount of time and money spent by students in sitting these exams, I would expect them to be just a tad riled up upon seeing empirical evidence, such as in SARs, of marks indicative as being contrary to the stated examination policy.
Of course, to get a full picture, people who pass should also be submitting SARs. We can then get see if marking is consistent across the board. When is someone who is borderline considered a pass or fail by the third marker? How often is the third marker just the average of the other two? So, to anyone reading this who passed, if you wish, submit an SAR and let us know the outcome.
A
almost_there
Member
I did this. Just to reassure people who have passed that they are perfectly entitled to order the SAR also.
L
Luckcounts
Member
Do you really think the language used above is of good standard and is an efforts to “bring the conversation back to normality”
So what is the real issue for you?
Is getting the script marked correctly is not real issue?
I was awarded 74 and 50.5 is it not a real issue?
You talk about moderation, what is it, awarding average of two extreme not matter what.
Is this called moderation?
Grow up….
Bless you
A
almost_there
Member
I don't see how any member could be impressed that complaints and appeals for discrepancies such as 50.5/74 are rejected. Furthermore if the IFoA engages in such a dismissive manner, with the FRC doing nothing to take up these matters on students' behalf, this leaves only the external, legal routes left. This means the IFoA are spending serious money defending such cases... I simply ask isn't it better and cheaper to do a proper job in the first place? Why not treat the intelligent people who raise these concerns with the respect we deserve, since it's all about looking to improve the profession and uphold standards that our efforts in preparing for these exams deserve!
L
Luckcounts
Member
IFoA do not treat students with dignity we all deserve. They come up with ambiguous replies with dismissive behaviour. They are not even willing to admit their own faults/blunders.
They do not realise how much efforts and sacrifices we have made to take these exams. They just treat us as money making machines. Take money for the appeals and send standard letter without addressing/investigating the concerns.
S
Sweetactuarialprincess
Member
I think they do.... I suggest that those on this forum watch the peoples temple and get red pilled. when people realize the cult type controlling that takes place, they might be more inclined to challenge them..Actuarial scientology, lol....Think about it.
A
almost_there
Member
The time-wasting tactics have been happening for years. This is why students should tell them they want a proper substantive answer within 7 days. Don't let them say we'll get back to you as soon as possible as that could be 2 months away. Oh such and such is not in the office until next week then they'll look at it. Then you don't hear back. Or if you do, it's a dismissive paragraph if you're lucky, probably not addressing your complaint at all then they'll arrogantly declare the matter closed. We're busy now as it's exam time, it's exam results time, it's Easter, it's Christmas, it's this it's that, she's been in meetings all week blah blah blah all a big fob off and WE deserve much better than this.
This is exactly why students are now taking them on in the legal system. Since in the legal system, they are playing on away ground where they don't control the terms, the timetable nor do they judge the matter. The FRC don't do anything to help us; their 'oversight' is virtually non-existent. Even if they do concede it's something they can look into, they'll refuse to do anything unless you provide things in an extremely particular format for them. This means having to articulate the complaint repeatedly in different ways until they conjure up a way to pretend it's not in their remit - delay tactics once again so that you get fed up and go away.
Last edited by a moderator:
T
Tarbuck
Member
I think we should start wearing foil hats or simply wear a seive on our head to make sure they are not always one step ahead of us.
L
Luckcounts
Member
Let me know which "Brand and make" are you buying......
Last edited by a moderator:
L
Luckcounts
Member
In my previous posts I have mentioned the jolly (should have used noun though) behaviour of IFoA, can see some on this forum...ha ha ha
A
almost_there
Member
Dressing up and receiving unnecessary punishment, tarbuck? Some are into that I guess.
S
Sarah Keogh
Member
A further update...
I have now received my SAR following actual third marking and can see that the marks awarded are not always the average of the first 2 markers. So marker 1 gave me 119, marker 2 gave me 118 and marker has given me 117. On my original SAR when I did not have marker 3 marks I was also given an adopted mark (116.6 which translated, rightly, to a mark of 58) which I have not been given this time round.
I have gone back and asked how I know my adopted mark or if this is just marker 3's mark (since this is the senior most examiner).
If it is, 117, then I would have initially thought that this would give me a mark of 58.5 (rounded to 59) but maybe our marks are always rounded down? Does anyone have any experience of this? I can't find anything on the institute's website and my previous SARs have given me marks that are less than ?.5 so rounding down would have been expected anyway.
Thanks
I have now received my SAR following actual third marking and can see that the marks awarded are not always the average of the first 2 markers. So marker 1 gave me 119, marker 2 gave me 118 and marker has given me 117. On my original SAR when I did not have marker 3 marks I was also given an adopted mark (116.6 which translated, rightly, to a mark of 58) which I have not been given this time round.
I have gone back and asked how I know my adopted mark or if this is just marker 3's mark (since this is the senior most examiner).
If it is, 117, then I would have initially thought that this would give me a mark of 58.5 (rounded to 59) but maybe our marks are always rounded down? Does anyone have any experience of this? I can't find anything on the institute's website and my previous SARs have given me marks that are less than ?.5 so rounding down would have been expected anyway.
Thanks
A
almost_there
Member
I fail to see why there's not complete transparency and clarify on matters like rounding policy.
A
almost_there
Member
Just a reminder that there should be a student consultative forum meeting coming up soon, now the April exams have finished. You can forward questions to you local rep or karen.brocklesby@actuaries.org.uk . More details at https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/student-consultative-forum.
Even if you have lost confidence in this process, I believe it is important to submit the issues as a matter of record, as will be their response or non-response.
Even if you have lost confidence in this process, I believe it is important to submit the issues as a matter of record, as will be their response or non-response.
Last edited by a moderator: