Pass rates old and new

Hi everyone,
I have calculated pass rates for various subjects that were moved online in 2020 and compared to their pass rates when at an exam venue.
Maybe someone else can calculate and collect the others. Just look in examiners report and use actuarial lookup website:

Subject, Online April 2020, Apr 19, Oct 19, Historic
SP7, 20.47%, 47.1%, 41.4%, 39%
SA7, 39.1%, 50%, 43.5%, 47%
SP5, 42.57%, 44.8%, 42.5%, 47%
SA4, 29.1%, 27.5%, 31.8%, 39%
SP6, 59.5%, 31.9%, 51.2%, 35%
CP1, 44.5%, ?, ?, 46%

SP9, 23.88%, 46.4%, 28.1%, 44%.

 

Can you please explain as to what you are trying to achieve - to me it looks like you are trying to wind up students, for example

SP6 have 59.5% pass rate - where historically it's 35% - so your implying that a large % of students passed that shouldn't have -
likewise you and shown that low pass rate for SP7 - again what's the purpose of this? What is achieve? just wind up students?

In distributions there are outliers - but you fail to mention this - instead you give pieces of information without actually stating how you calculated them - For instance - how many years are included in the "historic" figure - 3? more than 3 - there is only 3 years of the new syllabus so any more and your mixing new and old subjects....

Any student that fails SP7 for instance is going to be annoyed seeing someone the pass % for SP6 was nearly three times higher - it's achieves nothing positive. Likewise someone who failed SA7 is going to be thinking that people in April 19 got an easier exam etc.

Your not even a student, yet you are constantly on a student forum and never given students help with question - in fact, It's kind of strange that you spend so much time of this forum when your not a student

 

I didn't realise my post summarising data would cause such offence and anger, on an actuarial forum of all things. Perhaps you should find a way to relax Ace123.

Is there a need to be so aggressive? I would have thought those figures are easily verifiable by an actuary. Pass rate is calculated by dividing numbers passed by those who sat the exams. Historic figure taken from actuarial lookup website.

 

Also SP6 was only sat by 33 people, so not really a reliable sample size.

 

The format of the exams for April make it more difficult to compare with previous sittings. Perhaps the fact that a global pandemic was going on during the exams may have had a detrimental impact on some people sitting the exams. It would also be interesting to know the number of people who cancelled their exams.

In any case, the examiner reports make it clear that the pass mark is set with reference to a minimum passing standard and may vary from sitting to sitting. One can waste time concerning themselves with a whole manner of things (questioning academic judgment, comparing historic pass marks, the IFoA is the root of all evil) or take a slightly more pragmatic approach and dust yourself off if you've failed, redouble your efforts and make sure you get that exam passed next time around.

The system isn't out to get you as some posters suggest in almost every post. These exams are difficult and the IFoA exam process isn't perfect by any manner of means, but with hard work your qualification day will come. And it will be all the sweeter.

 

Subject, Online April 2020, Apr 19, Oct 19, Historic
SP1, 41.7%, 48.8%, 53.8%, 45%
SP2, 39.9%, 39.8%, 41.3%, 42%
SP4, 26.0%, 28.6%, 42.1%, 43%
SP5, 42.57%, 44.8%, 42.5%, 47%
SP6, 59.5%, 31.9%, 51.2%, 35%
SP7, 20.47%, 47.1%, 41.4%, 39%
SP8, 38.0%, 35.6%, 39.2%, 40%
SP9, 23.88%, 46.4%, 28.1%, 44%
CP1, 44.5%, 39.9%, 33.9%, 46%
CP2, 65.7%, 67.6%, 61%, 59%
CP3, 50.3%, 54.2%, 68.3%, 56%
SA1, 47.8%, 33.9%, 34.3%, 42%
SA2, 48.9%, 39.8%, 47.8%, 41%
SA3, 30.9%, 29%, 30.3%, 37%
SA4, 29.1%, 27.5%, 31.8%, 39%
SA7, 39.1%, 50%, 43.5%, 47%

 

Past performance isn't necessarily a guide to future performance. You also have to capture the significant change this sitting due to online exams which means the above is comparing apples with pears.

 

What significant change would that be given it's the same exam?

 

Online exams and students could refer to personal quotes - seems to be a disingeneous question.

 

So are you saying a fundamental change in the exam so why would pass rates be lower

You said on the coronavirus thread pass marks would go up and that bookwork questions would be 'free marks'. Where did you get those ideas from?

What is this minimum competency that students somehow are unable to show in an online exam?

We never get to see those minutes, do we. Also where is the academic judgment when constructing the exam paper. Since some papers have pass mark of 55 and others 64. Not exactly impressive for a 'numerate' professional body.

 

Are you trying to suggest actuaries aren't numerate? I'm genuinely surprised if that's what you are implying.

Many students passed their online exams - I think your proposal that students are unable to show competency is without basis and not reflective of reality.

I said that these were my thoughts if you read the post fully. I don't present my opinion as fact - you would do well to do the same.

You care to answer of any of these questions?

 

A level and GCSE exams use statistics on the prior performance of the cohort to set grade boundaries. There is little academic judgement in the process. It's called comparable outcomes.

 

Because students wouldn't learn off anything - they would rely on the fact that they have notes and could waste time looking for answers in their notes, and may not have a good deep understanding of topics - hence cannot think quickly and just waste time, I read a few different threads where students said that the exams seemed longer than usual - where they longer or was it just more time was wasted?

Can everyone type as fast as the write - another significant point that you seem to fail to mention.

Another aspect is that the exams probably had less calculation type questions and more theory - so while students might be able to calculate numbers based on formula's in the past and picked up marks - this time round they had to answer just theory and so may be dropping marks cause they don't know what answers mean - just know how to calculate.

It was asked before what positive contribution are you making to the thread by posting those statistics - and why are you so concerned given that you are not a student? Given how much you give out about the IFoA - you can't possible be a member so why care?

Finally - before these exam were sit - you were very vocal that students shouldn't be allowed to sit the exams at home - as not fair on past students, but now you are sympathetic to their cause... any opportunity to give out about the institute. How do you feel about the next two sittings being online?

 

I don't know that IFoA has even given a full transparent step by step process how it came up with pass mark for any of its exams. If I'm wrong, I'm sure ProudActuary can provide the details for us all to enjoy.

Ace123 so you're blaming the students for not adapting to online setup, even if true I don't see why that should lead to more fails.

 

Do the pass marks vary from year to year? What about the number candidates sitting?

 

Less than when the exams are not online. Why?

 

Never mind other exam systems, how come say SP exams can have pass marks ranging from 55 to 64?

 

You tell us and what has this to do with figuring out who should become an actuary.

 

They had more questions on the paper so yes, longer. I passed and was happy as I'm fast at typing, but there was no denying it was a longer paper. Presumably they added more questions on a range of topics so we'd have less time to look up more topics

 

What are you actully trying to achieve from this? Based on how you have posted the numbers, there's only SP7 which looks like the performance could be significantly out of line with historic performance. Really you need to show the distribution to see if extreme low pass rates. For 9 out of the 14 exams that are not usually online, ie excluding CP2 and CP3, the pass rate was higher this sitting than either the histroic mean or the pass rate in one of the previous two sittings. Then if you look at the ones that aren't such as SA7, that's only had two sittings and is sat by a small number of people. SP9 24% vs 28% in a previous sitting but has a low number of students so may be reasonable.

 

Actuary takes an interest in figures, statistics and shares with others. Shocking behaviour. Should have at least asked IFoA's permission before looking at their pass rates.