Don't bother appealling

Buried in the latest Student Newsletter from the I&F, is a link to some appeals data:

http://www.actuaries.org.uk/research-and-resources/documents/exam-appeal-statistics

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.

 

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.

 

So they've cashed in what, £60k in that time?

 

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.

 

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.

 

It keeps getting better and better. You seem kind of anti-IFoA at the moment. I'm anti-IAI myself and so I can relate, but I totally respect IFoA.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Eh?

 

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.

 

Submit a Subject Access Request.

 

Unfortunately for exam paper marking they don't need to release them under the Data Protection Act, there is some kind of exemption.

 

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.

 

No.

http://www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/schools/exam_results

In theory, a number of students collaborating could get their results and work out the pass mark from there.

 

Then get together and start a revolution kids! I'm sure they'll be falling over themselves to be transparent with you.