Hi, I've been reading the updated advice on plagiarism (https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studyi...-regulations/inappropriate-conduct/plagiarism) and was wondering how we should interpret this for SA2. For example, I have just been practising a question asking "Describe how the company would determine the Solvency II Technical Provisions for the unit-linked savings product". Do you think saying something at the start of the question like "Answer based on my understanding of the core reading given in Chapter 11 of the ActEd course notes" would be sufficient?
If you are writing an answer in your own words then we don't think you even need to do that (although it wouldn't do any harm). It's only if you are reproducing material word for word, or paraphrasing that you need to reference. Hopefully you won't need to do very much of that.
I agree mavvj - it's very subjective. If you used a very broad definition you could argue that nearly every point scoring comment you make is paraphrasing something that already exists. But I think we need to try and interpret it in a reasonable and practical way. The guidance refers to "altering a few words and changing their order" and so if you know you are doing this you're going to need to reference, as things stand. Another way to look at it might be that if you are deliberately and consciously trying to write something in a different way, perhaps with some core text in front of you, then you are almost certainly paraphrasing. If you are simply writing down something based on your own understanding then you should be fine.
Do you think if I use the same referencing approach that I used for SP2 in September (which did not cause me any problems then) I should be okay?
That depends what you did last time . But I don't see why not. The IFoA haven't published any change document and so as far as I can tell the rules, regarding plagiarism at least, are the same. I think the additional information has been released to try to help students understand the new format, not to change the rules.
Hi - just to add that yesterday the IFoA made material changes to their webpage on plagiarism guidance (same link as in the original post above) so we would strongly recommend re-reading this if you haven't already done so. The wording is now much closer to what has previously been communicated.
I am treating all of these referencing guidance as it is indented only for exceptional situations, e.g. you look at some ideas from the CMP and you intend to use almost identical idea then you should reference this. I do not intend to reference anything during the exam as I study hard for these exams and study in the same way as it would for closed book exam. I am happy to accept risk that IFoA's interpretation is different, which would be outrageous since you would be penalised for something that was totally fine and expected during the classroom exam times (e.g. memorising something), because I am simply rejecting to put up with this nonsense.
I am also sitting SA2. I have read the updated guidance and are other students in the same place as me in that it doesnt make things any clearer for them? I understand that copying and pasting lines of text from core reading needs to be refferenced. What I dont get is how the IFOA state that "passing off anothers persons work as your own" is plagiarism. it is the line between paraphrasing and your "own words" which is the most confusing. I find I am barely even able to study these days all my time goes into reading the regulations to determine what the correct conduct is.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the possibility of being accused of plagiarism than the possibility of failing the exam.
Exact same. I will be completly second guessing any info I out down on the page whether its to be referenced or not
I am so sorry that things are in such a mess - I cannot understand how IFoA Council (and Management Board, who are meant to hold the Executive to account) have managed to let things get into this position. It seems to me as if things have been deteriorating significantly since sometime in 2020 (probably while I was still on Council, but with Council not being informed of problems until after I left in early September 2020, and possibly not fully or at all in some cases). Good communication is such an important skill in professional work, yet here the IFoA's performance has been very poor.
Could I ask fellow students how you are interpreting these regulations? For example the creator of this thread used the example "Describe how the company would determine the Solvency II Technical Provisions for the unit-linked savings product"... If asked a question surrounding this topic & the answer was put firmly in your own words (but using your developed knowledge from the notes) are your planning on referencing? Personally I am planning not to otherwise I will find myself referencing nearly everything I write in that case but I just want to check with people
