Investigation into possible plagiarism

It hit me like a tone of bricks and I certainly wasn't expecting it. I debated with myself for a while over whether or not I had inadvertently breached the regulations without actually realising it. In my case, I had made my own notes using the Examiners' Reports and taken down bits of bookwork that had appeared repeatedly in past answers. I did this long before the exam moved online and open book. When the exam went ahead, I had no idea where exactly the material in my notes came from, i.e. it could be from course notes, core reading, tutorial notes, Examiners' Reports, my head etc, because the IFoA had never instructed us to reference in our notes or indeed in exams before. When we were told we could use our 'personal course notes' I took that to mean I could use the notes I'd prepared over months leading up to the exam. After all, they were personal to me. In any case, the definition of plagiarism is quoting verbatim or paraphrasing someone else's ideas without acknowledgement. Nowhere in the regulations did the IFoA prescribe a particular referencing convention. They also failed to realise that not only would verbatim material need referenced, so too would paraphrased material. I've been told by ActEd tutors in the past that if your point doesn't appear in the Examiners' Report then it's unlikely to score. Therefore, it's basically impossible to make an original point that doesn't require acknowledgement in an actuarial exam. That leads me to the bizarre conclusion that the entire exam script would require references for every single point because I don't claim ownership of any of the ideas whatsoever. Virtually every point every candidate makes in the exams comes from Core Reading. Based on that logic, we should have all been citing the Core Reading but that is of course a ridiculous suggestion. Thus, in my view, I not only did not breach a regulation, I approached the exam in a completely reasonable way that's consistent with how candidates have always approached these exams. The IFoA spectacularly failed to define their own regulations, they then wrongly interpreted those regulations and after putting us through a month from hell, they have the cheek to dismiss the allegation without an apology and with the ludicrous advice that we should just reword our answers to make them nice and different from the course material in future. Again, they forget that paraphrased material should technically also be referenced by the letter of the law and by the definition of plagiarism which is of course 'widely available online'. They seriously need to define plagiarism for themselves and for us and if they're really that concerned about how we structure sentences then provide a referencing convention and appropriate training to candidates.

 

I think it's best people do not respond to this question until Proudactuary declare who he is asking it on behalf of or what use Proudactuary intends to make of the responses.

 

Completely agree with Roy672's thoughts on how the concept of 'plagiarism' doesn't seem relevant in exams such as those set by the IFoA.

 

I cannot agree more with this.

This forum has been the port during the storm that was so badly needed whilst going through this experience.

Aside from the tit for tat nature of the comments between a pair of people participating here it has been extremely helpful to know other people out there were going through the same investigation.

It is very unfortunate that the forum disappeared a few days before the deadline for providing evidence, and came back online mid August when a decision was imminent. It’s also very unfortunate that this thread has disappeared off the “Hot Topics” list despite having well over 40,000 views.

Mentally this investigation has had very serious consequences for people who were ‘innocent’ from the beginning. People who are now already at a serious disadvantage for the next exam sitting which is a little over 4 weeks away.

 

People should consider complaining to the FRC about the IFoA's handling of this entire matter. They are the oversight body for IFoA's regulatory activities.

 

And I'm sure many other people aren't.

Stop spamming the thread with nonsense like this. You diminish any shred of credibility you have left with infantile comments such as this.

 

Actuaries ain't stupid you know.

 

I agree with all of this. The whole thing was a disgrace. I've yet to hear of any allegations that were upheld yet the dismissals were accompanied with letters saying (I'm paraphrasing) 'well you definitely cheated but not enough to gain an advantage so we will let it go, but in future dont quote from any of our educational material in an open book exam' - so dismissed whilst still bring called dishonest?

Its beyond ludicrous.

As a matter of interest also, where online is this being discussed more freely?

 

I think there is another forum called the Actuarial Outpost - this is primarily for US students though there are some UK based students too. I'm not sure that I'd agree that it's being discussed more freely there though do take a look and make that call for yourself

Agree that this has been dealt with terribly by the IFoA - they should either be including more application based questions so that just writing out the core reading won't score or accept that students will do much better in bookwork questions. If I were a student sitting in September/October I really wouldn't know what to do if a bookwork question came up - that is fundamentally wrong.

In terms of actions, perhaps you could liaise with other students in your company/firm? If you all feel the same then raise it collectively with your employer. The IFoA might take more notice if suddenly 5/6 large actuarial employers write to them with concerns. Similarly, contact ActEd and ask for their advice. At the very least, if the ActEd tutors are unable to offer concrete advice then surely they should flag to the IFoA.

 

I did use my notes for sub sections for a couple of points but it was shocking to see being accused from far back papers. This was something i genuinely never done. When comparing my answer to the markschemes, they were similar but not word for word if that makes sense.

 

Then what was the point of the extensive bookwork testing up to this year? There's no good reason why a virus means what is required to be tested of an actuary fundamentally changes. Or was the bookwork testing always a pointless exercise. If so many people over the years failed to qualify due to losing marks on this and won't be impressed.

That just puts an enormous delay on matters. We all know how reluctant employers are to get involved in matters such as this. It shouldn't require 5/6 large employers to persuade IFoA of anything. Individuals can take action and should explore all the options available to them as is their right.

 

That's utterly shameful. If they genuinely believe people cheated they should have taken action, although of course they can't even define properly what cheating is and so on. Surely they know only too well they can't prove such a thing anyway and are trying to save face for themselves but I think this time it won't wash.

 

Note that this thread is supposed to helping students with plagiarism. It's not a thread for tit for tat nonsense between the pair of us. I am offering an opinion with a view to helping people and I'll continue to do that - you can agree/disagree if you want. You clearly don't think much of my opinion and the feeling is mutual. Focus on helping people rather than constantly harping on about how the IFoA is the root of all evil. For someone who is so anti- IFoA you sure spend a lot of time on here - as is your right, just an observation.

 

... and have letters like that been sent to these people's employers? People shouldn't take that lightly, it can unfairly damage an employer's perception of you despite IFoA proving nothing against you. IFoA ought to instead apologise and make full retraction of accusations.

 

I have not heard of copies being sent about dismissals but (like with the assusations) students may feel they must share the letter about the outcome with their managers (who are aware of the accusations due to the barring from exam applications).

I agree students should either be found innocent and the accusations fully retracted or guilty followed by proceedings. But what I've seen is wording that says (by my interpretation anyway), essentially, guilty but no proceedings. Who would want to share that with their employer ?

Perhaps some of the others up thread can confirm if their letters were worded similarly.

 

Well said, and very appreciative of you taking the moral high ground - As a person that wasn’t affected but viewed this thread it did seem to lose track of its underlying issue. I’m sure people who were affected may have been frustrated at seeing the thread divert to unrelated topics.

Also in agreement that the next paper should be more application based, bookwork will terrify me after reading the thread! Let the pass mark be adjusted as seen fit from this.

 

Guilty with no proceedings does not seem in accordance with people's human rights that they are meant to abide by. People should also SAR the IFoA to find out exactly what information will be held on their systems regarding this going forward also...

Surely the pass marks from the past should be adjusted also, don't you think?

 

Thanks, and my apologies to anyone who was frustrated as they tried to read through the thread. Hopefully the IFoA will have learned from this session regarding accusations of plagiarism, so spurious accusations should be much less likely next time round.

The approach to answering bookwork is definitely worthwhile asking the ActEd tutors/ActEd. Perhaps those of you who still have tutorials could raise this question to the tutors.

Mods/admin - not sure if you're able to shed any light on an appropriate approach to bookwork questions going forward?

 

Honestly I don’t know what other advice they could give. I tend to phrase the bookwork in my own words when I know it rather than learn it off (similar to yourself from an earlier post), but this thread has made me think would “ should I double check the actual core reading to make sure that they weren’t overly similar”. If that makes sense?

 

I don’t think pass marks should be adjusted from the past. There’s a completely different situation now, which the IFOA should reflect going forward in the style of question. Bookwork was, and remains to be, important to know and understand and so there is merit to the past papers’ questions and marking. But it doesn’t make sense to “test” bookwork when everyone has access to the notes, and doing so creates the issue we have here

 

Yeah, I'd completely agree with you there. What strikes me as odd is that many posters here who have been accused of plagiarism have tried to express things in their own words. There is perhaps an element of keeping perspective here in that the vast majority of candidates who sat the exam weren't investigated. That shouldn't detract from the importance of the IFoA in clarifying their position though.