Exam marking problems

I understand that the Institute destroy the detailed data about the marking of your exam paper (AKA the incriminating evidence) after one year, so your SAR can only cover the last two exam sessions.

In addition to the very useful revision support a SAR provides, this is why it is so important to get a SAR in promptly following an exam fail to avoid missing the deadline and missing your chance to check your paper was marked fairly.

In the current climate I would hope that, in the interest of transparency and reasonableness, they have suspended this policy once the systematic nature of the marking failures was raised last year.

However, systematic failures in the marking process could well go back a long way, and as seen in past mis-selling scandals, the IFoA may in the future have to prove they did third mark borderline / marker disagreement cases, or pay compensation for lost salary, time spent resitting unnecessarily etc.

This could all have been avoided if the IFoA had detected the systematic marking process failures promptly, instead of allowing the same systematic failures to continue into 2016 and then pretending that the policy in the student handbook never existed.

 

Thanks. Are they allowed to destroy data in this way?!

Indeed. Even just a refund of the exam fee would be a huge liability, never mind adding in all the inconvenience expenses you mention etc. which would multiply it many times!

 

All this makes one wonder for how long this has been going on for? As only recently have more people been using their SAR rights to extract information, which have uncovered these failures. In the past, people would just assume things were done properly. I do believe the highly paid people running this profession should be held accountable for these failures and take urgent action to fix things. Will they?

 

Someone please help me on this, in an exam where a single point is supposed to be worth 0.5 marks, how does one end up with an adopted mark that ends with 0.6?
Is this due to the mark correction computer software or something?? Very strange

well this means that to really pass, one needs to score well above the passmark so that the normalised mark can't be brought down so much

 

It's about time they come clean about their process but I guess it's just another matter they fail to be transparent on. I really don't get this secrecy rubbish that permeates the culture of this profession: what's that all about? Who is it protecting and why?

 

I agree they have a lot of explaining to do. But im not expecting anything to change. Them telling us that they don't have pass quotas, is like putting speed humps on a highway after every 20m and going on to say that there is really no speed limit.

Reminds me of a situation we had in my country 10 years ago. We had only 1 university with a medical school that could only take in something like15 students a year. Out of thousands of A level biology candidates, only 15 people were allowed to get an A grade. It was not uncommon for an A to start at 90%!

What I have taken from this is that studying for an actuarial exam is not just reading to gain knowledge, one has to read like they are training for the olympics.

Last session, I failed two ST exams, both with marks that would have comfortably gotten me a pass in the previous session. Since im not convinced that I can change the rules of the game, I will just study and aim to reach a level where no software can 'normalise' my mark.

 

Clearly they fiddle with the marks people actually get! As you rightly point out how can you get 0.6 from averaging two markers' scores? For them not to realise they've let the cat out of the bag here is insulting our intelligence.

They should fully disclose what they get up to inbetween you submitting your exam script and getting your result. There is no excuse for sly secrecy and it's no longer good enough for them to expect us to just trust them. I say trust, but verify. We are verifying and are uncovering unacceptable situations.

When you read and listen to what various Presidents, CEO etc. of the profession say over the years about how to promote the profession, make it more relevant and respected etc. then really the poor standards from them are the first things to start owning up to and make improvements before lecturing to anyone else.

Why would it be so bad for them to declare that only the top 40% of entrants in their exams get to pass? That would be a clear indicator of their standards and even a selling point.

 

Agree with your last comment. Unfortunately it seems as though we have little recourse and the only thing we can do is work towards the next exam. Forget that the system is so screwed up otherwise you will get detracted from the main goal of passing the exam!

 

With regards to the 2 marks being higher than the mark awarded, hasn't somebody else already said it happened to them in this or another thread and it was due to exam moderation? Ie they said it was because the markers gave higher than average marks systematically so their scripts were moderated down? Fairly sure that's common practice in any exams right back to GCSEs.

I agree the exam system isn't perfect - but I also accept it never will be. The idea there is some great conspiracy to hold people back or not do a thorough job is stupid - it just wouldn't happen that a whole institution of professionals - especially ones who had to go through a similar rigorous process - would cover up/ not whistleblow/ act unfairly without consequences.

The only thing I've taken from the numerous comments/ threads isn't a common theme of corruption and underhandedness but a common theme of people stuck on one of the last exams for some time being the people making the complaints! It is an interesting read so I can understand the high reader number but from my point of view at least I'm not reading for agreement - it reads more like sour grapes or desperation to me. I am very sure some of the people marking/ auditing/ contributing to the exams now are people who were struggling on an exam or failing repeatedly by a thin margin before.

I hope you all pass soon but honestly I think coming at it from a rational perspective will do you much more good. I'll say it again, I'm sure the exam system is flawed and I'm sure sometimes better actuaries sometimes don't pass - but it can never be perfect and there are always going to be people missing out narrowly/ repeatedly who don't necessarily (and certainly don't feel like they should) deserve to fail. That doesn't mean the system is out to get you!

I'm not saying you shouldn't push for positive change, but honestly the "the world is out to get me" attitude....I don't buy it, and it makes me buy less into the argument. The best way to push forward positive change? Pass your exams and get on the exam board!

 

Did you know that around 5 years ago, the IFoA (Derek Cribb) went to the UK Government and claimed there was a shortage of actuaries in the UK and that not even in the single EU market with access to 27 countries' actuaries could they recruit enough to deal with this alleged 'shortage'? They wanted immigration restrictions eased so they could go outside the EU to find actuaries for UK jobs. For a year they were granted this until some people realised what had taken place and protested to the UK Govt. The Govt then looked at this matter again, this time considering the opposite viewpoint. The IFoA didn't even respond to this review this time round (must wonder why) and the Govt removed actuaires from the shortage occupation list. The IFoA had no consultation with members nor did they present any evidence to members to substantiate this alleged shortage.

At the same time this profession was holding many, many people back from becoming qualified due to incredibly low pass rates in subjects like CA3. Surely the right thing to do would have been to sort out these low pass rates on CA3. Offer training, explain better what's needed to pass, show examples of scripts passed and scripts failed, define jargon etc. etc. Also if pass rates were not going to improve they could have held CA3 exam sittings far more often and at cheaper prices to help people get through it quicker compared to the once per 6 month situation at the moment. However as you can see from all our discussions here, the requests made to them from the student consultative forum and others that there appears little interest in improving pass rates to get more people qualifying in the UK. I encourage you to think why this is the case.

Adding to this scenario, in 2011 the IFoA signed up to the mutual recognition with the AAE, allowing actuaries qualified on the continent to come to the UK and get FIA with just one year's work experience. No CA3 required. In fact many get qualified on the continent without completing a single actuary exam in English & have not passed any exams in UK specific insurance contexts.

So Tarbuck, please don't patronise us by claiming we are just annoyed at not passing CA3. In the meantime all this has gone on by the IFoA to get others qualified without needing CA3, even wanting to bring people from outside the EU to take up qualified jobs while many in this country are stuck on this stupid CA3 exam where they've done nothing to improve pass rates.

 

I'm completely missing your argument...isn't the pass rate for CA3 in line with all the other exams? Higher than the SAs even? Do you mean nothing to improve your personal pass rate of CA3?

 

Well that's a pity but I encourage you to look at the context I presented and the rest of the complaints on this forum then you'll understand people's frustrations better.

 

One reason is because they see the IFoA let others come into the country and get FIA without needing to do this expensive CA3 exam. It seems the British need to pass an English communication exam to qualify as an actuary in the UK but overseas actuaries don't have to. Now can you explain that one?

 

Yes....the UK has a different institute than other countries....so the requirements are different. Still not seeing a conspiracy.

I don't remember seeing one argument saying the pass rate should go up other than yours...it makes no sense when its the same or better than most other later exams. Better guidance yes...more clarity on marking yes....upping the pass rate? Nope.

This is getting silly. I didn't really want an argument I was just saying I think there is a lot of confirmation bias/ jumping to conclusions/ crowd mentality coming in here. A lot of people have posted gripes but I haven't seen anything that's not easily explainable quite rationally without the need for a big plot to keep the people down. This will be my last post - I wish you all the best with the exams.

 

Yes we have different requirements such that many of us get held back from FIA due to things like CA3, that overseas actuaries don't have to do to get FIA here. It's really not that difficult to grasp the unfairness here.

The point about pass rates is that the IFoA determine the pass rates. So for them to claim a shortage of qualified actuaries when they had the power to do something about that in this country, such as improving the pass rates or enticing people who had given up the exams to come back and get qualified etc. but they did nothing except hand out FIA cheaply to continental actuaries and ask the Govt to let non-EU actuaries in more easily.

 

I disagree - there is substantial recourse available.

If a student receives a fail, and upon submitting a SAR, finds that they are among the many students whose paper was not MARKED a third time by a third person when they were borderline / had disagreement between the two markers, then they can raise a formal complaint to the IFoA as the IFoA have breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Just sitting back and doing nothing means the Institute will continue to breach their own marking policy with your paper in the future. Remember, too many students may be resitting a paper that they have already passed. Therefore it is worth investing 15-20 minutes pursuing this complaint to defend your own legal rights under the Act if it saves you needing to invest 150-200 hours in resitting that paper all over again.

Raise your complaint, escalate it if you are fobbed off and make IFoA management have to explain to you why they are breaching your legal right to have your paper marked in the way they promised. If you still don't get anywhere, get in touch.

 

SA_02 is right. Use the recourse available. Don't get fobbed off, you deserve better than that. After exhausting options with IFoA then notify the FRC of the issues. They will probably fob you off but if they do then there is a complaints process about them if they fail to act. In addition if you ever get fobbed off and they cite any UK or EU laws or regulations as excuse, then ask them to cite it exactly for the attention of your MP and MEP. No more fobbing off!

 

I got my SAR back. Marker 1 gave me 68.5, which would have been a pass for ST8 2016 Sept (whose pass mark was 67). Marker 2 gave me 60. My adopted mark was 63.1. I was apparently marked a third time - marker 3's mark was almost equal to the adopted mark. However, marker 3 only provided one mark for a single part of two different questions... and no marks for any of the other parts. And those two single marks were: one, exactly the same as the adopted mark for that part and two, slightly different to the adopted mark for that part.

It just feels like a horrible lack of transparency. I have my doubts over whether I was truly marked a third time. My conspiracy theory is that that 3rd marker's marks were added as a validating afterthought. But we'll never know, I guess.

Here's a moderation example of some sort: Question 7 was said to be 10 marks. Both markers gave me full marks. But the adopted mark was 9.8..

Also, can I just say... there's something incredibly distasteful about two professional markers differing by more than 10% (in my case, marker 2's mark is 14% higher than marker 1's). This doesn't seem right / professional / acceptable and smacks of a flawed marking process.. as an institute whose core is numeracy, statistics and applied maths, they should be ashamed of this significant result.. I just wonder about the extent to which this sort of thing affects students overall..

And Tarbuck, let's be serious... they're a business. Have a look at their financial statements, and perhaps give some thought to what stationary distribution they're projecting their budget on. The communications exam is an epic fail because of the way it holds back many people who are so overwhelmingly capable of communicating well (and that's probably not just with respect to actuaries as a benchmark for what we consider good communication).

 

I'm a bit speechless but can't say I'm surprised as it has happened AGAIN. That was not third marked if only some bits were.
First of all quite a difference between 68.5 and 60... for the third marker to come up with a mark near the average of both is soooo predictable. They used to say FA was within 5% of the pass mark. Well marker 1 gave you a pass and marker 2 gave you FB. Then the 'third marker', who didn't fully mark your paper, conveniently gives you a 63, a FA. That stinks.

Losing 0.2 like that makes no sense at all when both markers give you 10/10. What kind of weird process do they have which produces that?!

You're absolutely right with regards to this is supposed to be a profession built on numeracy, accuracy etc. yet this looks so bad

 

They should be but they won't be . Their regulator the FRC are shamefully not interested also. At least the SAR's are giving us all a glimpse into what goes on so that some (forced) transparency can exist for us to analyse.

 

It just boggles the mind!

And to think I have to pay all that money again, out of pocket this time! What a sad, sad joke