• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

Marking - overall categories

A

almost_there

Member
From getting mock paper and assignments marked by Acted, I see there is an 'overall' category of marks. This represents 20% of the total marks for a letter and 25% for the presentation.

There is considerable discretion for the markers here. Any minor flaws in your submission, which may not have cost many marks on their own, can end up being multiplied here by a harsh marker. For my attempts I've had between 4/20 and 9/20 for written & 4/25 to 21/25 for presentation.

My honest opinion is that if you have such a discretionary element at the end worth 20-25% then this makes a mockery of the detailed marking scheme earlier, as this category alone can determine pass or fail for you.

Once again alleged jargon appears inconsistently punished in this category.

This category would explain why so many people are experiencing CA3 to be a lottery. I agree it's not a complete lottery as by doing some preparation you can improve your chances of passing. The point is it's just going to be a chance of passing at best, since there is no clear definition on jargon and you can never be sure of the level of technical detail required.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This has happened again in the actual Nov 2016 exam marking. Just got my SAR back.
So they show a breakdown of marks per category per question, which is welcome, although not particularly illuminating.
For both questions, there are 80 marks for the detailed/individual categories then 20 marks at the end for 'overall'.
Specifically here is what I got for the first 80, then last 20:

Q1 final mark 48.
Q1. (i)-(v). Marker 1 = 49%. Marker 2 = 53%. Average 51%
Q1. (vi) Objectives. Marker 1= 40% (8/20). Marker 2 = 35% (7/20). Average 37.5%

Biggest discrepancy = 18% by marker 2.

Q2 final mark 54.5
Q2. (i)-(v). Marker 1 = 61%. Marker 2 = 55%
Q2. (vi) Objectives. Marker 1= 40% (8/20). Marker 2 = 40%. Average 40%.

Biggest discrepancy = 21% by marker 1

My complaint here is how can marks like 40% and 35% be justified for the overall category when the average for the individual categories were much higher?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The IFoA have declined to discuss this.

Say you get 60% in the individual categories. Look how the mark you are given in the overall category determines the outcome:
40. Final mark = 60*0.8+ 40*0.2 = 56
60. Final mark = 60*0.8+ 60*0.2 = 60
80. Final mark = 60*0.8 + 80*0.2 = 64.

This category has enough power to cause a pass or fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top