Exam marking problems

None of your markers were within 10 marks of each other! Just how bad does it need to be before the IFoA admit they've failed?

Also if the principal examiner deemed your scripts of a fail standard... what does that say about the marker who gave you 74, 10 marks above the pass mark? Did he give everyone high marks? Is he still accepted as a marker? This raises more questions than answers!

This is why it's very important for people to submit SAR's to find out actually what took place!

 

I will also encourage everyone to come forward and request SAR
Well PE confirmed 61.5, this means both examiner were wrong, one who gave 74, i.e. 12.5 extra and one gave 50.5 11 marks below
and possibly both marked majority of the scripts and none of them was right, except 3rd
Furthermore I am told by IFOA apparently third marking is not "blind" marking
Most astonishing is the email which states exactly below
"In this case the Principal Examiner has applied his academic judgement and determined that the scripts were not of a pass standard and awarded an overall mark accordingly"
Means PE looked at my script and instead of marking it in accordance with the marking schedule, he just did not like it and make up his mind to fail me and gave 61 i.e. mean of other two.... Job done and well done....what a laugh
Not only that everyone in IFOA believe this is the right approach, if the IFOA mind set is this I do not expect any improvement.....bless

 

If third marking is not blind then it's little wonder the marks awarded fall in between what the first two markers gave

Hey maybe Mr PE can save all the time and trouble of marking and just do this for all scripts.

 

It's beyond astonishing really.. the IFOA is at risk of becoming a laughing stock, now that the truth about all the marking issues is finally coming out with the SARS and incomprehensibly-poor explanations (which, in the way that they've been worded to various students replies, actually appear like afterthoughts to fit their case)

The way I see it, some possible conclusions are:

1. The two markers have a very different level of judgment and their ability to score us fairly will be biased by the extent to which our style of writing, or the points we make, engage their differences / appeal to their vastly different way of thinking
2. The 3rd marker gave you a score that was at least 10 points away from either marker, and that's basically saying that both markers were incompetent
3. It's highly suspicious that the 3rd marker's academic judgment just happens to be near the middle of the two markers' scored but just under the pass mark - as if to err on the cautious side and not make the statement that there's an overly-penal marker who is causing students to fail

 

The imbalance is quite incredible. We invest our time and money so heavily in these exams then we get marking like this? I say put a freeze on CEO and Education directors' remuneration until these issues are sorted out.

 

Luckcounts

I also sat ST4 last time round and on my SAR Marker 1 gave me 70, Marker 2 gave me 57.5 and then Marker 3 gave me 62.5.
The final column of the table shows an adopted mark of 63.9 (although the mark given to me on my results letter was 62...).

The differences in marks is a concern and it does make you feel like it's luck of the draw which two markers you are initially allocated.

 

Is it merely a coincidence that the third marker comes up with something like average of marker 1 & marker 2 then minus 1?

 

I don't get what the point of the adopted mark is then, if it's not the ultimate one used?

Why is the institute failing us?

Why can't we expect better than this?

Why are they taking us for granted?

 

I have raised the same point as you made in my appeal.
IFOA says, they cannot reply to specifics of my query rather will give overall reply i.e. a (round and round reply which does not make sense)
Looks like you had the same examiners as me in my case the variance is higher than you.
You should also complaint.
I am going to take legal action in next few days, IFOA is just making mockery of us instead of taking it serious, I suggest the same to you.

 

Must wonder what marker 1 was giving marks for that marker 2 wasn't? You could understand it if every now and then there was a disagreement whether a point you made was worth half a mark or a mark, or whatever. However question after question this happens? What's marker 2 not seeing? What's marker 1 being too generous with? I see the IFoA CEO has written another article talking about "...our reputation for professionalism...": I say address these matters please as actuaries are being let down and these revelations fall short of a "leading professional body".

 

I am told third examiner made a judgement, and then gave me marks, instead of other way around. In their December news letter IFOA admitted third marking is flawed and they need to improve it. Yet they are awarding third examiner marks.
Does not really make sense, the third marker is the "most experienced marker" and in news letter they are saying they want to improve...........why......
Please read December 2016 new letter thoroughly and what they are saying in it.
All suspicious...... take legal action else this will continue

 

Well I raised all these points in my appeal.
But IFOA is not serious at all.
best practice is, it is clear Examiner 2 is penal, look at examiner 1 marked script, and find out how many times he was generous....
10 more marks than passing means examiner 1 was so generous he gave me 20 extra points=10 marks
Not possible ...... is IFOA implying all examiners are in competent..........do not they have a marking schedule to stick to.
Why examiner have to make a judgement.....

 

Very good point. One thing I learned from submitting mock paper to Acted for marking for SA2 was that many points would be half a mark. So I went into the exam with one point = half mark mentality. This helped me since then I made more points than I would have previously. I saw 10 mark question as let's make 20 half mark points rather than let's make 10 long winded points and hope I get a mark for each.

As you say, 10 marks = 20 points difference. Wow, just wow, suddenly the discrepancy seems twice as bad already.

 

Well I made a SAR at 6.37pm on results night, results out 6pm. Still waiting for it 25 days later. They emphasised how they couldn't do mine any sooner as it wouldn't be fair on people who have made requests before me. Seriously, how many people will have submitted it before me? I expect only a small proportion of students would submit one at all!

 

This is what we have to look out
IFOA December newsletter says 10 marks difference is "industry standard" but is this 10 mark means 10 mistakes, 5 mistakes or 20 mistakes
In IFOA case this is almost 20 mistakes which is not "industry" standard
Wake up IFOA do not disguise your issues in fancy words.....students are not fool

 

This is their standard reply
I had the same reply, I made SAR request just one day after exam results came out on 23, letter received on 24/12 was on holiday on 24/12 next working day was 28/12. SAR was the first thing I did on 28/12 and was told the same.
IFOA mentality/mind set is depicted in their emails

 

Hi All,

I have done my research on the issues.

IFOA is non serious and childish because they know nothing can be done against them until we go to court.

I have made up my mind to go to court, to find the truth.

If anyone is serious on this forum to really make a change. Just do one thing as below;

Ask all of your SCM representatives to compel IFOA to participate in in OIA scheme.

Ask all of your SCM representatives to compel IFOA to participate in OIA scheme.

OIA is the cheapest and easier way to get independent adjudication.


We all want transparency and IFOA as a “leading” body wants transparency


Why will they not agree to participate in the scheme?


Over 500 higher education universities/institutions are participating, including Russel groups universities, Cambridge and Oxford.


IFOA is no superior to them; I do not see why they cannot participate.


Do justice to yourself and all other students; else accept IFOA non serious behaviour.


So please start the movement to compel IFOA to participate in OIA scheme.


Let’s join let’s start; anyone wants to take the lead start a group/petition etc. for this movement.


NOW OR NEVER


Decision is yours…………..

 

That sounds interesting: what is the OIA scheme?

 

Link below

http://www.oiahe.org.uk/

 

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.

 

Here is the list of Unis covered
http://www.oiahe.org.uk/media/35752/provider-list.pdf

It includes all major actuarial degree awarding unis I.e.City, Imperial, Kent, Leicester