G
GemmaHayes
Member
Hi all,
What did you think of the exam this time? There was a clear error in paper 1 with the definition of the nominal interest rate derived from the effective rate. I think paper 1 was incredibly time pressured even if you didn't have this error as there was a crazy amount to do in the time available.
For paper 2 I thought it was normal standard, just worried about how bad paper 1 was with lack of reasonableness test comparison and final parts due to extreme time pressure yet again.
Probably my biggest worry however is the marking for this paper as it seems there's some crazy markers that give zero for signposting when you get full marks off another. It's crazy subjective based off the marking I've seen thus far. Hopefully I don't get a lazy marker this time! They seem to not bother reading half of the paper too. Hopefully the institute are checking for these rogue markers this time.
Best of luck to all!
What did you think of the exam this time? There was a clear error in paper 1 with the definition of the nominal interest rate derived from the effective rate. I think paper 1 was incredibly time pressured even if you didn't have this error as there was a crazy amount to do in the time available.
For paper 2 I thought it was normal standard, just worried about how bad paper 1 was with lack of reasonableness test comparison and final parts due to extreme time pressure yet again.
Probably my biggest worry however is the marking for this paper as it seems there's some crazy markers that give zero for signposting when you get full marks off another. It's crazy subjective based off the marking I've seen thus far. Hopefully I don't get a lazy marker this time! They seem to not bother reading half of the paper too. Hopefully the institute are checking for these rogue markers this time.
Best of luck to all!