• 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.
Hi guys, I thought that someone perhaps could help me understand how the "standardised final mark" is derived? It is not an arithmetic average of marks from marker 1 and market 2. In my case, the "standardised final mark" was set equal to the lower mark from marker 1. Is there a policy written somewhere about how the final mark is decided?
 
As far as I am aware I don't think they have a policy written down. Maybe worth asking the profession, although in my experience I have had to wait weeks before getting an answer.
 
I was awarded 74 and 50.5 is it not a real issue?

This is absolutely absurd behavior. I wish I knew about all of this before. I have quite often thought I passed only to get an FA. Sorry for not reading the whole thread but which exam did you score such differing results?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi folks, just an update:

  • Student consultative forum. I submitted 11 questions. 4 of these they failed to ask and address in Nov 2016. I notice they've conveniently put a caveat on their page now, inserted after the June meeting, saying they don't discuss: "concerns raised by either an individual or a small number of students if these concerns are felt not to be in the interest of the majority of students.". lol. Did they answer any of my questions? No.
  • On the exam appeal webpage, it states:
    "The grounds for appeal must be related to: Alleged irregular procedure or improper conduct of an assessment. This can include procedures for question setting, marking and results moderation of the examinations"
    I requested all the documentation containing full details of their procedures for question setting, marking and results moderation of the examinations. Did they send anything to me? No.
 
As far as I am aware I don't think they have a policy written down. Maybe worth asking the profession, although in my experience I have had to wait weeks before getting an answer.

It's impossible for people to appeal on the grounds that they allow if they fail to share and disclose their procedures.
 
Would people who do actuary exams at Uni already have this route available to them? I'm guessing they would?

I'm 100% with you on this luckcounts they need to be externally accountable. It seems the FRC are completely useless in this regard. There seems to be a lot of time / money being wasted obsessing about improving TAS and so on, when pretty much every actuary out there vastly exceed those standards anyway. It's on the IFoA itself the FRC should focus its attention, on the matters raised here.

Have a look at this
https://www.ft.com/content/a4659b5e-3d93-11e8-b7e0-52972418fec4
 
It may be though that it takes a long time to resolve and as unpalatable as resits are, it may be quicker to resit and pass than go complaint route.

There's something massively wrong for that to be the case. The IFoA CEO is extremely highly paid and should be carrying out the "putting things right" process according to its timescales i.e. to resolve complaints within 5 weeks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's something massively wrong for that to be the case. The IFoA CEO is extremely highly paid and should be carrying out the "putting things right" process according to its timescales i.e. to resolve complaints within 5 weeks.
Or you could try the alternative "putting things right" process using an ET1.. That might speed things up slightly.
Here is the link to it
https://ec.acas.org.uk/Submission/SingleClaimantPage
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would state that there are huge problems with the marking process from looking at the SAR information provided. I had some huge differences in the results from my SAR request. Not only can there be a huge difference between marker 1 and 2 (over 12% in an SA exam) but individual questions with 12 markers total may have up to 5 or 6 marks discrepancy between marker 1 and 2 on ST exams but the cumulative difference may not be as large as the markers are higher or lower depending on the individual questions. It seems insane to me but I'm not sure what can be done when you encounter these marking difficulties. Surely with the marking schedule etc the results of each examiner should be similar per question? If some markers are not doing their jobs correctly surely there must be something we can do? The final review by 3rd marker only seems to be random questions too even when they see the problems with marking. It all seems a mess to me! I don't agree with litigation but I'd love to see the exams marked correctly.
 
If some markers are not doing their jobs correctly surely there must be something we can do? The final review by 3rd marker only seems to be random questions too even when they see the problems with marking. It all seems a mess to me! I don't agree with litigation but I'd love to see the exams marked correctly.

The IFoA Director responsible for the qualification is Mr Clifford Friend, the Director of Education. The IFoA complaints process is called "Putting things right". https://www.actuaries.org.uk/about-us/complaints-against-ifoa
 
This is an interesting conversation, and I would like to thank ActuaryStudent9123116 for raising this issue and StudentActuary_02 and almost_there for their helpful points.

I sat SA4 in April 2016 and was given a mark of 55 (pass mark was 59).

I was surprised, as I thought I had done enough to pass, and decided to appeal on the basis of a procedural irregularity (this was before you needed evidence to do so - although who knows how you are supposed to get evidence these days in the 15 days needed to submit an appeal, when an SAR takes 40 days to come through).

Obviously, my appeal failed and my mark of 55 was maintained.

A few months later I came across this topic and decided to submit an SAR for my SA4 results and all internal correspondence relating to my exam sitting and appeal, primarily to find out which question I did so badly on that I failed.

This turned up some interesting results: Marker 1 had awarded me 62 marks (i.e. a pass) and Marker 2 had awarded me 60 marks (i.e. also a pass).

However, there was a third column titled ‘adopted mark’, which summed to 55.2 (i.e. a fail), and which is the mark I was given for my paper.

I went back to the Institute and asked them to double-check the information they provided, as I believed they had either provided me with the wrong person’s marks, or that I had uncovered some kind of mistake in the averaging of my marks.

The Institute have now responded and let me know that my marks were ‘normalised’ in order to ensure discrepancies between markers do not unfairly disadvantage students.

The have also confirmed that my ‘normalised mark’ was reviewed by senior examiners and deemed appropriate, although no evidence of this was provided as part of my initial SAR.

I’m not sure where to go from this to be honest (probably nowhere if I pass it on Thursday!) but thought this tale might be of interest to others.

In the interests of balance, it is worth mentioning that I also failed CA3 and included this in my SAR. One marker passed me (just) and the other gave me a fail. The two marks were averaged (to a fail), and then my script was reviewed by a third actuary who confirmed that taken as a whole, a fail was appropriate.

How many people have complained about this now?
 
I would disagree! If everyone who fails starts doing this for feeling a bit sore from failing then it's going to damage the credibility of anyone who might have a genuine complaint! I would also guess if any positive action does come from this it'll be in the form of a tightened process around a 3rd marking with little to no change to pass rates so I doubt there would be a large number of cases it would make a difference at all! I certainly wouldn't expect any retrospective passes issued. I'd focus more on passing the next sitting than spending too much time on a perceived injustice from the last sitting. At the end of the day, everybody is subject to the same process.

Yes Tarbuck - another likely IFOA/Acted employee....
 
Can anyone help me how to do a SAR?
Thanking you in anticipation.

Write to the IFoA and specifically mention subject access request and data protection act with regards to your exam grades. Mention you want a search on your name, any shortened version of it and your ARN or any other identifier.
 
Where did that post disappear to from a student getting 49 and 62 from two markers, with pass mark 55, and being told by IFoA his script review was 49 and that his marks were within the 10 mark limit, when the difference was 13?
 
Please don't be put off bringing up these issues that IFoA / FRC have failed to address for fear of being criticised here by some. Doing their best, lol, they're remunerated highly to get things done properly not ask for sympathy and do nothing to sort out the problem

It's not unreasonable to query whether the marking system is fit for purpose. It seems markers get each less than 10% of the exam fee, so more than 80% of it goes to IFoA. The marker remuneration is much less than what a qualified actuary can charge per hour. Reasonable to query also whether actuaries are qualified to mark papers...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The marker remuneration is much less than what a qualified actuary can charge per hour. Reasonable to query also whether actuaries are qualified to mark papers...
Perhaps those who are marking are trying to give something back to the profession? I fail to see why actuaries wouldn't be qualified to mark a paper. They have to pass an assessment before being allowed to mark, have a two stage process for marking prior to marking live scripts and receive feedback at the end of the exam period. Who would you like to mark the papers?
 
Looks like a system built on the cheap with no serious handling of complaints at all. You tell us why actuaries are qualified to do this given you know so much about the process...
 
Looks like a system built on the cheap with no serious handling of complaints at all. You tell us why actuaries are qualified to do this given you know so much about the process...
You said it's reasonable to query whether actuaries may mark papers. So explain why?

Do you not think that lawyers/barristers should mark bar exams? Or that doctors/consultants should assess other trainees?

Why don't you answer a question for a change?
 
Back
Top