CP3 April 2019

When will we see a "script reviewer" agreeing with the highest marker and turn a fail into a pass?

 

Maybe it happens, but we don't know about it as you are unlikely to submit a subject access request if you passed.

 

If it was marked by the highest marker and another marker who agreed with him it would be a comfortable pass and no script review. I think those who say this exam is a lottery have a point.

 

CP3 exam booking for September is now closed. I would have sworn all three sessions were available as of Tuesday evening.

 

Pretty disgusting to see the huge amount of subjectivity in these examinations. I would have expected a maximum of 6 marks but 17 marks are way high. It seems that the IFoA does a live marking session and a marking scheme is utilised to mark the papers so how come such high differences in these marks. Am sitting for CP3 this September and it really frightens me. I have noticed a difference of 10 marks from both markers for my CP2 attempts. This is really worrying.

 

IFoA are failing at the very basics of what a qualifications body is supposed to do. Inconsistent marking. Failure to provide exam opportunities. Inconsistent standards being applied for the same qualification. Lack of transparency about what's required to pass. The list goes on.

 

I wonder with this whole "script review" procedure, presumably it takes place when examiners have a view of what the pass mark/pass rates potentially are. Would this affect the independence of the script reviewer when marking for the third time? If the pass rate is already quite high I'd imagine there may be an incentive to mark the borderline scripts more harshly or take a more pessimistic view on them e.g. agreeing with the lower of the two markers?

 

They will never get it, that is the turmor of this profession.
Safeguarding existing & broken process and promote a strong front has always been viewed as higher priority than anything, just look at the mess now they have created for themselves.
Real changes come from continuous problem solving with solutions designed around the objectives, have we even asked why we have so many exams compared to other similar qualifications, what is the purpose of these exams, are they helping members committed to a life-long actuarial career or just putting a final label to feel superior?
The market is not stupid and look at real salary level and growth, actuaries are lacking way behind compared to other real data/tech specialists who got a lot time with reinforced learning techniques in actually useful materials for their work, and really trained to be expert in their fields. Meanwhile we spent countless hours for "passing" subjectively judged exams to be recognised as experts, so go figure.

 

It's about time actuaries stopped presuming or assuming that IFoA do it this way or that way, giving the benefit of the doubt each time. Demand the full documented processes and hold them to it or continue to suffer.

 

Ask yourselves how much does it cost to qualify with IFoA? For Fellowship, it is 15 exams. 15 exam fees. 15 acted notes. 15 acted tutorials maybe. Many years of IFoA subscription. Don't forget the resits! At its cheapest I'd say £1k per exam which would be £15k. More likely £20-30k. Even if you go to University to clear many of these it is still in the tens of thousands.

Yet in Spain their Universities have created 2 years Masters courses which cover the AAE European syllabus at a cost of 4000 EUR. That's right, a full time course with tuition costing 80% less than IFoA's route to be recognised as a fully qualified actuary in Europe.

This does not add up. There are brave members who are trying to challenge IFoA on this obvious unfairness. Don't let them fight IFoA alone, support them, make your voices heard.

 

I have also received an exam counselling report. The main criticism seems to be that I used a bar chart rather than a table in my paper. Visual aids are worth 5 marks according to the mark schedule. I don't agree with their criticism but regardless I don't see how this can fail me.

The person who prepared the counselling report contradicts the second marker in a lot areas. For example the counselling report said i mostly avoided jargon, avoided spurious accuracy and avoided irrelevant points and 'will not have lost many marks for this'. There are 12 marks for this section yet i only got 3.

This is just one example of many. After looking at the marking schedule, sample solution, subject access request and counselling paper i truly believe i passed that paper. My average mark is way above the pass mark but there is nothing i can do about it, it's just infuriating and holding up my qualification for another 6 months.

 

I think the nature of this exam and the marking schedule makes the marking highly subjective, which probably explains why the marks vary so much from marker to marker, and the counseling advice contradicts the actual marks. I thankfully passed it on the 2nd attempt. On the 1st attempt I missed out by 3 marks, worked hard on my weak areas (and thought I did everything correctly on the 2nd attempt) but still wasn't that much higher than the pass mark on the 2nd attempt even though I thought I would be.