The paper is now available online. How do others think about their performance? It seems a passable exam compared to previous sessions. Although the last question is of big marks, everyone should get some credits, so it won't be the differentiator. The other questions are not out of ordinary either.
I think the 16 marks will be the differentiator up to some point, the amount of detail required a lot of attention and in the time available, I admit it was quite a challenge. Other questions were okay, I think if one studied hard they may have made mistakes here and there because of the time pressure, but overall did atleast enough to pass, hopefully!
I thought the paper was totally "doable". A lot of topics did not come up. The only real challange was the time given. It seemed impossible to answer questions as much as you would like to, becasue you had to move on to the next question etc. I studied quite a lot for ST9 and I could not provide all the answers I knew due to the time pressure.
Looking retrospectively, I am worried about the GLM question in the context of mortality risk. I don't think this subject comes up in the ST9 study materials.
I think it's somewhere in the Sweeting textbook though, looking retrospectively I am worried about three 'free' marks I lost, made a mistake somewhere and I think it may cost me a pass.
Improve on the FA by getting a pass and writing SA5 at the same time. As for me I know what I did wrong, I thought the staff on CALCULATING correlations won't be asked! I knew all calculations except this, I thought that kind of calculations are CT3. Other than that the 16 marker was hard for me (in the time available). All the best, do write again it's worth it and it's an interesting subject!
I will definitely sit ST9 again...I am just not sure if I can cope with SA for the first time + ST9..... I don't know what I got wrong - the exam reports are not up yet and I cannot rememeber my exact answers.
