CA3 exam marking problems

Hi,

This is a continuation of the following thread:

https://www.acted.co.uk/forums/inde...s-ca3-pass-mark-technical-difficulties.13044/

however the CA3 threads have now closed and therefore we're unable to add any more posts.

When I last posted on this matter I mentioned that I had made an official complaint via Putting Things Right about the marking of my August 2016 CA3 paper. In particular there was a clear disagreement between the marks awarded for my written paper (Marker 1: 38 and Marker 2: 54), with no third marking taking place.

I also complained about the handling of my queries by the education services team.

I am pleased to say that I received a response yesterday from the IFoA, who agreed that the marking procedures, as set out in the student handbook, was not followed and have arranged for my script to be independently third marked. The IFoA also agreed that one of my queries could have been handled better and the Education Services have been informed so lessons can be learned for the future.

I am a little gobsmacked and very pleased that the IFoA have finally admitted fault, apologised, and are now doing something about it.

I am not hopeful that I will receive a pass mark for the exam, but at least whatever mark I do get is more acceptable as my paper will have gone through the proper procedures which it should have gone through in the first place.

If anyone else has had similar problems then it is worth taking the matter further so that justice can be done.

Kind regards
Gavin

 

Let's hope they do things properly this time.

 

Hi,

Yesterday I received my 3rd mark for the written paper. I was given a mark of 50, and my overall mark increased to 64 and therefore I have failed the exam by only 1 mark.

I have asked the Profession how they have calculated the overall mark of 64.

I suspect that the marks from the 1st two markers for the written paper have been ignored. Therefore I have obtained a mark of 50 for the written paper and a mark of 79.5 for the presentation (average of 80 and 79). This gives a total mark of 129.5 out of 200, implying that my percentage is 64.75%, and failing by 0.25%.

I will let you know what the Profession says.

Thanks
Gavin

 

When should the paper be marked by the third marker?
Is there any guidance as to what the number of mark difference should be between 1st and 2nd marking?

 

Good luck with that. On 12th May I wrote to the IFoA and asked the following, for which they have not responded at all:

"On your exam appeal webpage, it says:

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/after-exams/make-appeal

"The grounds for appeal must be related to: Alleged irregular procedure or improper conduct of an assessment. This can include procedures for question setting, marking and results moderation of the examinations"

Please send all the documentation you have containing full details of your procedures for question setting, marking and results moderation of the examinations."

 

Well I have heard back from the Profession. They said that they did not perform a calculation like I set out above. The took the 3rd mark for the written paper and the two marks for the presentation and applied 'academic judgement' to assess that overall I was a marginal fail and so a mark of 64 was awarded.


"The Principal Examiner and Chair of the Board of Examiners came to a final assessment on your performance based on their academic judgement using the first and second marks for your CA3 presentation, and following IFoA examination practice, the third marking of your written paper.


Their final decision based on these three marks, and the fact that your written paper failed to meet the expected pass standard for this examination, was that a final mark of 64 be awarded reflecting a marginal fail."

 

The question is are they following a documented process that is applied equally, or are they making it up as they go along? I have requested full details of their processes (as mentioned in my post above) and they have failed to provide it. In fact all they did was try and fob me off by referring to pages 62 - 64 of the student handbook but this clearly falls short of what I was asking for.

How can anyone appeal against their process when they fail to disclose it? This all falls very short of my expectations of a professional body.

 

Hi Gavin, I have received my SAR for CA3 and found out that my presentation part was above pass mark based on marks from both markers, however the marks allocated on my written paper had a huge gap - one marker gave me 53 and another 36. I am a bit shocked how much subjectively there an be in the marking process!!! The overall pass mark is 60, so I don't think it is worth me putting any appeal or put things right procedure in place. It is just disappointing that there has not been a remark by the third marker.

 

If you don't mind me asking, what marks did you get for the presentation? The written part should really be marked a third time.

Although in my case above. I think their 'judgement' is clouded by the fact that they originally failed me, and it would really not be in their best interest to overturn a result, as would set an unwanted precedent.

 

Vicki2010 - have they refused to third mark Q1?
Besides, how can anyone do an appeal based on their procedures when they refuse to disclose them? I've been waiting over 3 months now.

 

Surprisingly, I got a 61 and a 64.

I have sent an email to "put things right" requesting a third marking process for my written paper, as the spread was just to large....

Anyhow, I don't think it is worth making an appeal as the written paper was way below the passing mark of 60. The comment on my SAR was "a clear fail".

I always thought that my written paper was the better part of my CA3. This was the first time that I have requested a SAR as I didn't know about it before.....

 

I am waiting for response. I hope the IoA have received the email. The "put things right" mailbox does not send an automated confirmation of receipt. I will call to follow up.

 

Hi Gavin, I'm quite upset by you comments. I also took the communications and modeling papers and narrowly failed getting an FA in both but this was years ago when the IFoA thought it was inappropriate to even release the exact marks. I would have liked to have done a SAT but it is too late now.

What is of particular concern is however the conduct of the exam team. I've had problems with exam times and dates being changed at the last minute and the IFoA have even admitted they were at fault but they don't seem to understand that this has impacted my exam performance and a sorry is just not enough.

They've also admitted that the curriculum 2019 document published recently is misleading but rather than do anything about it, they've just doctored the document without notifying students of any changes or even putting a date or version number and again partially apologies without considering the impact it has had on me.

I am also displeased with the putting things right process, which the IFoA refuses to even conduct in my case. There is no method of recourse for me despite the fact that other students are also facing problems.

How can some justice be done here?

 

Still no response to this reasonable question. I don't think they should be allowed to charge for exam appeals if they simultaneously restrict appeals to these grounds and refuse to disclose their detailed processes.

 

Gavin, in the House of Lords, their Lordships held that:

18 The notion of an "authorisation or qualification" suggests some kind of objective standard which the qualifying body applies, an even-handed, not to say "transparent", test which people may pass or fail. The qualifying body vouches to the public for the qualifications of the candidate and the public rely upon the qualification in offering him employment or professional engagements.


Watt (formerly Carter) v Ahsan [2007] UKHL 51

The academic judgment argument without more, is unlikely to hold

 

Quoting from the "putting things right" process:
3. What will happen next
3.1 The Chief Executive, or an appointed Director, will review your complaint and decide whether or not it should be accepted for consideration under Putting Things Right.
3.2 Where the complaint is accepted under Putting Things Right the Chief Executive will then either consider the complaint themselves, or assign the complaint to the Chair of the Management Board, a Director, or an appropriate senior member of staff who has not previously been involved in the substance of the complaint to investigate.
3.3 Where a complaint is not accepted under Putting Things Right, the reasoning for that decision will be communicated to the complainant. Reasons for rejecting a complaint might include (but are not limited to):
 Other complaints process(es) have not yet been fully concluded
 The complaint is about a matter of IFoA policy rather than standards of service
 The complaint falls below a de minimis level of seriousness
 There is a more appropriate complaints channel (e.g. the Disciplinary Scheme) for the particular complaint
 The subject of the complaint has already been substantively considered under Putting Things Right
3.4 In certain circumstances we appreciate that it will not be appropriate for the Chief Executive, a Director, a senior member of staff or the Chairman of the Management Board to investigate a complaint. In these circumstances the matter will be submitted to the President of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, who will either investigate the matter personally or appoint an appropriate person to investigate on their behalf.
3.5 We aim to provide you with confirmation as to whether the complaint has been accepted under Putting Things Right, and if so the name and contact details of the person investigating your complaint, within one week of your complaint being received.
3.6 We aim to respond in full to all complaints within four weeks of you being informed of the details of the investigating person; however this is not always possible. If we are unable to provide a full response within four weeks you will be notified and given an estimate of when we expect to respond in full.

If the above hasn't happened then the IFoA and Mr Cribb have failed to carry out their complaints process. FRC are meant to look into it when this happens - notify them.

 

I have been waiting for nearly 8 years

 

you need to get hold of the examiners handbook. To do this you need to lodge an ET1 bringing a claim under S.19 and S.145/146 asking for the ET to declare the rule preventing the examiners handbook as unenforcable because it [the rule] provides for treatment that is prohibited under the EqA 2010.
I hope this helps. Oh BTW, the reason that they do not address your complaint is to time you out of a potential claim at the ET or other court.
Here is the link for starting the claim
https://ec.acas.org.uk/Submission/SingleClaimantPage