CP3 Pass List Sep 2018

Discussion in 'CP3' started by MindFull, Dec 13, 2018.

  1. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    It's simply a rip-off. They fail to show how people qualifying in other allegedly 'equivalent' associations are held back from qualifying as actuaries by exams of such low pass rates failing for such petty, inconsistent reasons and inexplicable marking processes for which IFoA refuse to fully disclose. Pity IFoA have not been subject to proper oversight over the years. Thankfully the disgraced FRC are being shut down and replaced so there is some hope. People need to get their examples ready and put it to them from day 1. Don't sit back and expect others to do it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2019
  2. PeteC

    PeteC Active Member

    What do you think people (mainly part qualified students) can do here?
     
  3. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    With FRC being removed as the oversight body for IFoA then it presents an opportunity for members to lobby politicians for change.
     
  4. Alaric

    Alaric Member

    Arguably members shouldn’t have to lobby politicians. The profession should look to self-regulate if the FRC is being removed; the profession is there for its members and should hold itself accountable to the standards members expect.

    With this exam, the standards expected haven’t been achieved. This isn’t the first time they’ve had platform issues and the use of a global adjustment as a fix benefits some over others as different people had differing experiences judging from this thread.
     
  5. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    They should, yes, but they don't. There is a serious malaise there, a culture that I find to be self-serving. They fob off complaints and have done so for years, so I don't think they are fit to self-regulate. They've only themselves to blame. The disrespect shown to members who raise genuine concerns is terrible. FRC let them get away with it. Students don't have any kind of vote. IFoA Council don't even discuss issues raised by members. People have emailed Council and IFoA Presidents only to get no response except their emails intercepted by IFoA solicitors.
     
  6. almost_there

    almost_there Member

  7. qnehl1

    qnehl1 Member

    I am glad I am not the only person who has issues with this exam!
    My two main highlights are:
    • Effectively putting a pricing basis in a letter to a customer is actually laughable! There is no way this would be done in practice.
    • The whole model solution is presented like a financial textbook, not a letter to a customer with very limited financial knowledge. Overall in my opinion there is just too much information in the solution.
    • How is "Age next ".....Birthday?? classified as jargon?! :D:D:D. Pretty sure a two year old could understand that one!
     
    Alaric likes this.
  8. Alaric

    Alaric Member

    Could be that everyone who took this exam has grounds for an appeal, based on the below and the discussions within this thread. Arguably the more people that appeal the stronger the case is, I am certainly considering it. Note that appeals have to be submitted within 40 days of the exam results, today would be day 28 of the 40 (day 40 being 22/01, assuming I’ve calculated correctly). The relevant page of the IFoA website reads:

    You may make an appeal on the following grounds
    • Irregular procedure or improper conduct of an assessment.
    https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/after-exams/make-appeal
     
  9. Alaric

    Alaric Member

    Here’s a thought. So in using the ‘global adjustment’, those within the IFoA (principal examiner and the Board of Examiners) are actually in breach of the actuaries code. Based on what’s been said within the thread, there no way that this meets the principles for integrity and impartiality. So we whistleblow and bring those responsible before the Disciplinary Committee.
    https://www.actuaries.org.uk/upholding-standards/standards-and-guidance/actuaries-code
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2019
  10. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Alaric, I believe the case for IFoA losing self-regulation is far greater than for failures of this particular exam. We are talking about many years of complaints not handled properly. Examiners would need to be IFoA members to come under the disciplinary process.
     
  11. PeteC

    PeteC Active Member

    It looks like they think they've found a solution to the technical problems faced by (almost?) everyone who has taken the CP3 exam

    There are now three times we can sit the exam
    9:00, 9:30 and 10:00 on the same day
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
  12. patron

    patron Member

    Are they options you get when you go to book the exam?
     
  13. PeteC

    PeteC Active Member

    Yup
     
    patron likes this.
  14. newkid

    newkid Ton up Member

    I've after discovering that the institute have revised some students marks in this exam due to them finding an error in the appeals process, due to the marking of scripts. The principle examiner and his team, reviewed a number of scripts which were below but closed to the pass mark. Following the review, final award marks stayed the same, moved up or moved down. A few of my colleagues who scored less than me in the exam, got the email outlining that there script had been chosen for review. In one instance the overall mark fell 8%.

    My questions are:
    Have I any right towards getting my script re-viewed/re-marked following this development, given that my exam mark was the same as others who had their scripts reviewed (through no request of them own)?

    The email clearly states that the institute reviewed a number of scripts which were below but close to the pass mark - they are acknowledging with this choice of language that they did not review all scripts close to the pass mark - Surely this is unfair? Like if they tell me I fail an exam by 3%, but actually failed by more than 10%, then I should know so I can prepare my exam accordingly. Likewise perhaps I actually passed the exam, but given it wasn't reviewed I have to sit it again.

    Following on from last question - the outcome of my colleagues - one dropping 8%, means that more than likely there are students who received a pass mark, that failed the exam, but the institute and the examiners have chosen not to review these students scripts as that probably opens a can of worms which they don't want to.

    Given that the probability of people having actually failed, although given a pass is probably high, this could in turn mean that the pass mark awarded, i.e. 58 should have been higher/lower if they aim for a certain % to pass the exam.

    There has been no communication from the institute about this development. It appears that it is has been swept under the carpet as I find it astonishing that students can be told that in some instance their overmark is actually 8% lower than previously communicated.
     
    Infinity likes this.
  15. newkid

    newkid Ton up Member

    Just got this email from the Institute

     
    Infinity likes this.
  16. Brad J

    Brad J Member

    This is the first of me hearing about it too. I can't answer your questions about whether you should or should not be entitled to a review though, and would suggest you contact the IFoA if not just for clarity.

    Looking forward to Infinity and Almost_There getting their hands on this one...

     
  17. Infinity

    Infinity Member

    It’s one calamity after another. Just wait till judgment day and then it’s really gonna hit the fan...
     
  18. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Nobody really knows what their marking policies/procedures are. If you do, please point us towards the comprehensive, transparent, full version of the document.
     
    Infinity likes this.
  19. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Complaining to the IFoA is fine and admirable but it's easy for them to just assert they've followed their processes properly while depriving us of the details of their supposed policy/practice. Then what do we do? Complaining to FRC is fine and admirable but almost certainly nothing will be done by them except some minor criticisms of IFoA communication at best.
     
  20. Brad J

    Brad J Member

    Judging by previous evidence of complaints, my expectations are low.
     
    almost_there likes this.
  21. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    IFoA members being fobbed off is a money saving/making exercise for IFoA/solicitors who 'specialise' in such things. Actuaries are funding appalling service for themselves.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 28, 2019

Share This Page