15 marks difference between exam markers

The script review is carried out by the chief examiner where necessary and their marks supercede markers 1 and 2. Scripts are only reviewed for questions where the first two markers have material differences so the chief examiners marking isn't entirely independent.

In my case although the script review did not return average marks for each QUESTION reviewed, overall it resulted in my final marks being a close average of the two markers.

I've now received a response from the IFoA and it is as expected. Quoting from the response the things that stood out for me were:

• "Marking any exam to a high quality requires two things, the marker to have sound knowledge of the marking process and scheme, which has been tested and proven, as well as a clear and legible script to mark. If either of these things are inadequate it could lead to below average marking."
  
• " Marking exams where questions require an essay style response with a subjective approach, often results in marker differences, as observed with your SA2 script. In this instance your marks were reviewed by the Senior Examination team. If they felt the average of the 1st and 2nd marks were accurate they did not make any adjustment. If they felt the average mark did not reflect the quality of the response they adjusted the mark, as can be seen in your mark breakdown."

In this day and age I don't understand why such important exams are not carried out on computer systems where legibility can decide someone's future.
Also if such essay questions are open to subjectivity it does mean it comes down to luck to end up with two markers who understand the points made and agree with them to enable a pass.

I am devastated but keeping my spirits high for the next sitting.

 

Sounds like a copy and paste response - if they allege it's "tested and proven" then how do they explain a 15 mark discrepancy!

 

Does anyone know a way to get a copy of your exam script? It's sadly not covered by the SAR.

I have been going mad looking at the exam paper, published solution and the marks I received for certain questions. I distinctly remember making a lot of the points within the published solution but have surprisingly been awarded 0's and 1's where according to the exam solution I should've received much higher. I wonder if part of my script was misplaced or what because I really don't understand how I could score nil or so low even after making the points in the solution.

I know there's no use pondering over failed attempts but how can I improve next sitting knowing that even if I make the points in the solution, there are chances I'd still end up with 0's, or end up with two markers with significantly different marking opinions?

 

I think you're correct in saying script is not included in a SAR. Face to face exam counselling I imagine is the only option if you want to see your script.

You are exactly right how can you prepare for the next sitting if you don't understand why you've been awarded a fail - my criticisms stem from nothing more than similar concerns myself yet IFoA don't seem to get it why people would ask such questions.

 

Just adding my 2 pence.. I had 8 marks difference between 2 markers in my last CT8 exam. And this exam is largely mathematical..
There was 1 sub-question worth 2 marks, 1st marker gave me 2 out of 2, 2d marker: 2 out of 2, script reviewer: 0.5 out of 2 which was finally awarded.. That's 75% difference!
Another sub-question worth 3 marks, 1st marker: 0 out of 3, 2nd marker: 2 out of 3, script reviewer: 2 out of 3.
Talk about subjectivity!

 

It would make perfect sense for a student to be able to review their own script against the examiners report to find out where they went wrong. If the IFoA were confident in their own marking process then they would have nothing to fear by releasing exam scripts to students as part of the SAR. After all, this is an individual asking for access to a document that they wrote!

 

8 marks difference between two examiners on CT8?! That beggars belief.

Out of interest, did the 3rd examiner score almost exactly between examiner 1 & 2 (just as everyone else seems to report)?

 

No. There is no "3rd examiner" as such. There is a "script review" (which is explained in Maxit post above - I can't explain it better)
The script review is done for only a few questions, not the whole paper. In my case, script review did not return an average, quite opposite in fact! (see my previous post)

 

Oh I see. So did you come very close to the pass mark and the script review pushed you further away from it?

 

Well, actually I passed this exam, (by very small margin I must say). Requested SAR out of curiosity. I suppose I was just lucky. My sympathy goes to those who were less lucky.
I am dreading "essay style" exams now, as they sound even more like a lottery..

 

Well congratulations anyway. I think most people who passed the April 2018 CT8 did so by a very small margin.

 

Indeed it would. And that was the ruling of European Court of Justice in one of the cases in the end of last year:
https://www.williamfry.com/newsandi...scripts-and-comments-constitute-personal-data
Sadly, the recent UK Data Protection Act didn't take notice of ECJ ruling, and an exam script still doesn't constitute personal data..
Basically, the only way to get your script is to complain to European Court. However, by that time they will destroy your script anyway, as the exam data "retained for 16 weeks following the publication of results" (quote from an email in response to my SAR)
Correction: European Court will not help us, as UK legislation explicitly excludes exam scripts from personal data, however, there is no similar provision in Irish rules. (The guy in that case was Irish)

 

My understanding is that the Financial Reporting Council don't do any inspections or quality control of IFoA for these things such as consistency of marking or pass rates. IFoA needs to be subject to some outside genuinely independent organisation and be accountable to them, where students could take issues to them. Otherwise nothing will change.

 

Oh I think I found it. Atrocious.

 

1/3 of people aged 35-40 are still in student status. There are many who have given up and completely left the profession by this stage. 82% of women quit the profession after 7 years. The IFoA are worried that their low pass marks will put people off entering the profession so raise them artificially. Explain that.