To clarify this, my CA3 paper was not third marked, but reviewed by a third marker who added additional comments as to why he/she believed a fail was appropriate.
The comments (both from the first 2 markers and the reviewer) are very helpful – if I end up failing CA3 again I will probably do another SAR just for these comments.
The ‘adopted marks’ column in my SAR gave a mark to 1d.p. for each part question, e.g. 4.1, 6.5, 2.8 etc. I can’t see a committee going through multiple papers at that level of detail, so it would be interesting to hear from anyone else who has submitted an SAR for an SA subject and whether they have this column or not.
My feeling (with no evidence to back it up) is that some kind of formula or computer programme is applied to each marker’s marks to scale them up or down depending on how generous / strict a marker is.
I have tried backsolving for these scaling factors and it appears a different one is applied to each part question.
I suspect that use of the word ‘normalisation’ in the Institute’s correspondence with me was not an accident, and that the actual method for scaling marks involves fitting given marks to a normal distribution somehow.
If I fail again on Thursday I may go back for more details on the scaling method, but I’m not sure what information they would actually give me.
Click to expand...
In the present environment, all students who fail should be doing a SAR. The information you are entitled to receive is not only helpful for revision, possibly replicating many of the benefits of exam counselling for no charge, but allows you to know whether you are in the ever growing list of students who have not had their paper marked by the IFoA in line with their own marking procedure in force at the time you entered for the exam.
Regarding the adjustments applied to your marks, have you asked the ICO whether the IFoA were able to exclude how the adjustment was calculated in your Subject Access Request? The IFoA do not have a good track record in adhering to the Data Protection Act, so I would ask the ICO for their opinion. My suspicion is that the IFoA have to provide such data under the Data Protection Act.
Having just read the student consultative forum notes for Nov 18, which have just been published on their website, it appears they don't really find anything wrong with anything, is the impression I get. They'll only concede and take action on minor points regarding exam timetables or minor technical issues.I think the SCF is a waste of time, just a place for them to direct complaints at to be left alone. Then they even filter out some complaints so they don't even get raised, such as the Q1 Nov 2016 CA3 issues I've raised. There appears to be no follow-up on the actions raised in previous meetings. Utterly pointless.
Click to expand...
Having just read the student consultative forum notes for Nov 18, which have just been published on their website, it appears they don't really find anything wrong with anything, is the impression I get. They'll only concede and take action on minor points regarding exam timetables or minor technical issues.I think the SCF is a waste of time, just a place for them to direct complaints at to be left alone. Then they even filter out some complaints so they don't even get raised, such as the Q1 Nov 2016 CA3 issues I've raised. There appears to be no follow-up on the actions raised in previous meetings. Utterly pointless.
Click to expand...
I have to echo your experience here, the SCF do not advocate for and do not appropriately represent the student body. Every year I see their role on the website being watered down further and further, until now they are just described as a conduit for communicating to the IFoA.
I understand our rep ran student feedback for the last meeting by the IFoA for approval. The IFoA advised the rep to put the feedback aside, and the rep agreed and then refused to raise the student's feedback at the meeting last November. The IFoA are therefore filtering the questions that are raised at their own feedback meeting, and no-one on the SCF has a problem with this!
The SCF is not fit for purpose and needs to be reformed. Any students should therefore be raising their complaints directly to the IFoA until this changes.
Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2017