• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

Don't bother appealling

What an outrageous rip-off! VESTED INTERESTS HERE FOLKS.

They charge £380 for an appeal for CA1, £265 for other subjects. Probably send out a standard letter so very kindly informing people their appeal has been rejected. Cash in your exam appeal fee, and laugh as you have to pay to sit it again. Shameful stuff.
 
Calum said:
The short version is, don't bother. Of 222 appeals from April 2010 to April 2013, exactly 3 succeeded - 2 in ST5 and 1 in SA1.
Click to expand...

So they've cashed in what, £60k in that time? :eek:
 
mpyan1 said:
Probably send out a standard letter so very kindly informing people their appeal has been rejected. Cash in your exam appeal fee, and laugh as you have to pay to sit it again. Shameful stuff.
Click to expand...

That was hilarious!:) But then again these things happen in every institution all over the world and so it wouldn't be fair to point fingers at the IFoA alone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sanjay said:
That was hilarious!:) But then again these things happen in every institution all over the world and so it wouldn't be fair to point fingers at the IFoA alone.
Click to expand...

Doubt even a casino would be allowed to offer such a rip-off game.
 
Given the process that exam scripts go through, no matter the criteria to pass, I think it's reasonable to say that they are on the whole fairly marked against that criteria.

While I don't agree with mpyan's views of the IFA, I have to admit I do question the value of having an appeals process at all which is clearly changing very little.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mpyan1 said:
Doubt even a casino would be allowed to offer such a rip-off game.
Click to expand...

It keeps getting better and better.:D You seem kind of anti-IFoA at the moment. I'm anti-IAI myself and so I can relate, but I totally respect IFoA.
 
Calum said:
Given the process that exam scripts go through, no matter the criteria to pass, I think it's reasonable to say that they are on the whole fairly marked against that criteria.
Click to expand...

How do you know that when the criteria is unknown?
 
Because otherwise more appeals would succeed.

Unless you think they're out to get you, in which case it's turtles all the way down.
 
What you are paying for is for the chief examiner to remark your paper.

Bear in mind though that if you are borderline you have already been marked three times - by two assistant examiners and by a chief examiner.

Therefore the chance of having an upgrade when you are marked a fourth time is obviously going to be small.
 
John Lee said:
What you are paying for is for the chief examiner to remark your paper.

Bear in mind though that if you are borderline you have already been marked three times - by two assistant examiners and by a chief examiner.

Therefore the chance of having an upgrade when you are marked a fourth time is obviously going to be small.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I don't know why people expect there to be a significant change when the fourth person looks at it.
In my opinion, the criteria for a sucessful appeal should be that there was a significant error with the first set of (triple) marking. A single mark differerence doesn't cut it. Yes some will be unlucky and miss by a mark or two, but others will be lucky and barely scrape through with an extra mark.
Even if I'm being a bit harsh, the odds are still pretty slim that you'll be successful.

So what's the perfect solution?
If you lower the fees, more people will attempt an appeal (grasping at straws), leading to even more abysmal success rates.
If fees collected are lower than cost of paying examiner to remark the paper the IFoA makes a loss which has to be recouped somewhere else (not fair).
If you get rid of the appeals process completely, people complain there is none means of recourse.

I think we're at a reasonable balance.
 
Rejecting an appeal generates another exam entry fee, perhaps more tutorial fees and not losing face for the profession... but of course they care more about justice for little old you, an anonymous wannabe actuary.

Anyone who has to pay such a huge fee should be allowed a copy of all 4 markings of their paper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
didster said:
Exactly, I don't know why people expect there to be a significant change when the fourth person looks at it.
In my opinion, the criteria for a sucessful appeal should be that there was a significant error with the first set of (triple) marking. A single mark differerence doesn't cut it. Yes some will be unlucky and miss by a mark or two, but others will be lucky and barely scrape through with an extra mark.
Even if I'm being a bit harsh, the odds are still pretty slim that you'll be successful.
Click to expand...

I think the order of events matter in this discussion. My understanding is that the process is carried out in the following order :-

1) Write the exam paper
2) Let people sit the paper
3) Mark the papers
4) Decide the pass marks

My question would be: what meaning does the pass mark have as a standard, except as a relative one between the candidates, rather than a meaningful standard for what an actuary requires to be considered qualified to carry out their work?

They will always steer the discussion onto how many times they mark the papers, thus diverting attention from discussing the mechanics of 4) above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top