• 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.

October 2019 Exam CP2

G

GemmaHayes

Member
Hi All,

What were your thoughts on this sitting? I found it extremely difficult, much more so than the previous sittings! Is it likely to have a much lower pass mark as a consequence? Thanks :)
 
GemmaHayes said:
Hi All,

What were your thoughts on this sitting? I found it extremely difficult, much more so than the previous sittings! Is it likely to have a much lower pass mark as a consequence? Thanks :)
Click to expand...
Yes, it seemed crazy difficult this time around, far more required to be completed than in April 2019. It was impossible to get to the second scenario in paper 1 completed and very hard to find any time to talk about the conclusions and next steps in paper 2. Hopefully there is a reduction in the pass mark to compensate. Those sitting in US were also hit with some additional sleep deprivation too just to make their lives more interesting!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeKing said:
Yes, it seemed crazy difficult this time around, far more required to be completed than in April 2019. It was impossible to get to the second scenario in paper 1 completed and very hard to find any time to talk about the conclusions and next steps in paper 2. Hopefully there is a reduction in the pass mark to compensate. Those sitting in US were also hit with some additional sleep deprivation too just to make their lives more interesting!
Click to expand...
I also found it quite difficult, particularly paper 1. I left out so many questions to try and write a decent document. It will be interesting to see the pass mark this time.
 
Yes, I think it was difficult to know how to approach the project with that in mind. Either skip chunks of the model steps and write a few pages of audit trail or attempt to get as much of a mixture of both with a limited time to complete audit trail due to the more difficult model. The simulation dataset was much more difficult to manipulate and perform calcs on than 5 schools students results and basic multiplication/ division so hopefully they might take that into account when correcting the exam :) Paper 2 was no walk in the park either ;)
 
I see from the Student Consultative Forum the comments on the April exam about errors, the size of the dataset and the lack of advice on technical elements so I see I wasn't on my own. Hopefully this cohort of students aren't penalised for the errors on the side of the exam setting process! Their response is encouraging anyway "the examiners will take that into consideration when determining the overall pass mark for the exam." Let's hope so when we see the pass rate on Thursday ;)

"I was disappointed at what were, in my opinion, some sloppy elements to the CP2 examination questions.
1) In paper 1 the number of vines for the 2nd ("smaller") vineyard was not specified, although this was a material assumption in building the model. A strange "data error" if this was deliberate.
2) In paper 1 (2 iii a and 2 vii) we are asked to compare findings with "the theoretical average" (indicating the "mean" to the majority of readers) of a quantity defined as an exponential function of a uniform random variable. This involves an integration I would imagine is outside the scope of the syllabus, and a fairly heavy calculation for the marks allocated. Asking for the "median" instead would have helped for the first vineyard. For the 2nd vineyard this calculation was even more complex, and also involved the mean number of "core" and "overtime" hours worked which involves calculation of the mean of a truncated uniform random variable.
3) Despite the assurances in the question paper, there was a mistake in the model provided (see e.g. cell D8 of "Most Deliveries" tab which has a non-zero allocation lower than the minimum). Using different information sources (audit trail, question paper, model) which contradicted one another caused a lot of confusion and wasted time when trying to understand the model.
CP2 Paper 1 – the question style was very different to recent years past papers and no methodology/formulae given for the uniform distribution which meant students either had to know the detail or remember the specific subject it could be found in to look up, wasting valuable time in the exam. In previous papers the methodology or generic formula was provided."
 
GemmaHayes said:
I see from the Student Consultative Forum the comments on the April exam about errors, the size of the dataset and the lack of advice on technical elements so I see I wasn't on my own. Hopefully this cohort of students aren't penalised for the errors on the side of the exam setting process! Their response is encouraging anyway "the examiners will take that into consideration when determining the overall pass mark for the exam." Let's hope so when we see the pass rate on Thursday ;)

"I was disappointed at what were, in my opinion, some sloppy elements to the CP2 examination questions.
1) In paper 1 the number of vines for the 2nd ("smaller") vineyard was not specified, although this was a material assumption in building the model. A strange "data error" if this was deliberate.
2) In paper 1 (2 iii a and 2 vii) we are asked to compare findings with "the theoretical average" (indicating the "mean" to the majority of readers) of a quantity defined as an exponential function of a uniform random variable. This involves an integration I would imagine is outside the scope of the syllabus, and a fairly heavy calculation for the marks allocated. Asking for the "median" instead would have helped for the first vineyard. For the 2nd vineyard this calculation was even more complex, and also involved the mean number of "core" and "overtime" hours worked which involves calculation of the mean of a truncated uniform random variable.
3) Despite the assurances in the question paper, there was a mistake in the model provided (see e.g. cell D8 of "Most Deliveries" tab which has a non-zero allocation lower than the minimum). Using different information sources (audit trail, question paper, model) which contradicted one another caused a lot of confusion and wasted time when trying to understand the model.
CP2 Paper 1 – the question style was very different to recent years past papers and no methodology/formulae given for the uniform distribution which meant students either had to know the detail or remember the specific subject it could be found in to look up, wasting valuable time in the exam. In previous papers the methodology or generic formula was provided."
Click to expand...

Hi GemmaHayes,
Can you please share the SCF's comments (in relation to CP2) or let us know where to find them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top