Exam marking problems

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

It's impossible for people to appeal on the grounds that they allow if they fail to share and disclose their procedures.

 

Have a look at this
https://www.ft.com/content/a4659b5e-3d93-11e8-b7e0-52972418fec4

 

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

 

There seems to be a few of them. Just imagine how bad that would look in Court?

 

A lot being said over the pond: http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=332997

 

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.

 

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

 

Can anyone help me how to do a SAR?
Thanking you in anticipation.

 

How many people have complained about this now?

 

Yes Tarbuck - another likely IFOA/Acted employee....

 

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...

 

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...

 

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?