Hi all What are people's thoughts on the most recent SA7 exam? I've gone through my script a few times now against the mark scheme and the examiners report, and although my script is far from perfect I am surprised at the mark scheme's answers to quite a few of the questions. In particular the main culprits being: Question 1v) - asks for a discussion surrounding the mix of debt and equity within a company following an extended period of QE. The mark scheme talks about the impact of costs on debt and equity financing but doesn't talk about the mix of debt and equity within a company. Question 2 iv) asks for comments on whether the reduction in coupon is justified but seems to gives marks for reasoning why the coupon should be increased. Q3 - asks for suggestions in how ESG can be incorporated into an investment process for private credit. Given that this is a very open-ended question for 18 marks, the mark scheme only offers 18 points which can gain credit, seems quite harsh given the range of points that could be considered valid? Q4i) asks for discussion on factors to set the level of investment risk - I don't think the mark scheme answers this question? Q4ii) asks for comments on +/- from a governance point of view - the mark scheme doesn't really consider many (if any) governance factors and the examiners report talks about candidates not discussing enough implementation factors (which isn't asked for in the question). Appreciate in a SA style exam the questions will be harder than previous exams however I feel that the mark scheme isn't really answering the questions being asked in the paper? Does anyone have any thoughts or insight into this and where I may have gone wrong? Many thanks in advance!
It is sometimes worth communicating these frustrations to the IFoA who will pass it to the SA7 examinations team. Without hearing these opinions, the exams team are often unaware of any issues with the paper. The pass rate for this sitting was very poor.
Thanks Colin, I've heard though that communicating this is a somewhat futile effort, will the above actually be listened to by the IFOA and do you know what the best way is to communicate this? I think probably the biggest reason for the low pass rate was how rigid the papers were marked relative to the mark schemes. In Apr 20, Sep 20 and April 21 there were at least a handful of sub-questions on each question which contained the wording "credit given for other relevant points" but this wording has been missing from the last 2 exams, both of which have seen the low pass rates. This means potentially valid points from candidates which go around the wording of the mark scheme have been given no credit.
I have to agree Phil X - it seems baffling that on a paper that is ultimately quite subjective and has a wide range of correct answers, the mark scheme can be so bare and so little common sense can be applied in marking "other" correct answers. It is particularly frustrating, as you point out and given the focus on reading questions thoroughly, on questions where the mark scheme doesn't even answer the right question.
The profession state that the papers are flexibly marked, even though it doesnt say it specifically on the Ex Report. But I hear what you say, that it is better for students to have an Ex Report that contains a larger range of the ideas that were awarded marks, rather than a comment that flexible marking was practised. Sending thoughts to the IFoA may be futile from the perspective of this sitting, but may alert the staff actuary and the examination team to thoughts from the student population. I am not able to put names on the forum for data protection but the profession's website has contact details for any exam related query which will be passed to the relevant staff actuary.
