SA4 Sep 2018 Results

[Luckcounts]

Hi all,

Well no point in writing this but just wasting my time…….

Nothing happens no matter what evidence is produced and IFoA is full of actuaries can justify anything and everything.

I do not believe the results are correct. I was expecting a pass but failed and failed with a big margin, since the result day wondering what went wrong….can’t imagine anything serious….

Admittedly was not expecting 75 but with 55 pass mark I should have pass

Well I failed ST4 after scoring 74 so no wonder I have failed this.

For IFoA I am just another mourning student and nothing wrong on their side.

But as always I feel there are serious issues in the marking process, waiting for SAR but IFOA can cover up things quite easily.

I am on the taking side I just humbly request to all the markers, examiners and IFoA please mark the scripts correctly, you are stealing precious time of my life making me study again

We are investing time and efforts so please please please get this right…….

Do you feel the marking is not fair?
At least raise your voice on this forum…..this is the min we can do raise your voice…..speakup……
Please vote so at least our concerns are raised and IFoA may look at this seriously
Thanks and best of luck

 

[Aeroactuary]

Please vote so at least our concerns are raised and IFoA may look at this seriously

 

[almost_there]

Nothing happens no matter what evidence is produced and IFoA is full of actuaries can justify anything and everything.

I'm not sure it's as much actuaries at IFoA but more the various lawyers / pr / managers / spin doctors whatever they are who don't handle complaints properly with any humility. They think they can spin themselves out of everything but their credibility is on the decline. Things are changing, albeit slowly. People are speaking out more (but not still not enough!). External regulators are increasingly ruling against IFoA's conduct. Kingman review did not agree with IFoA that the status quo was OK with regards to their FRC oversight. I think you were the first poster on this forum to suggest IFoA education needs to be subject to some proper education oversight such as what Universities get - I totally agree.

 

[student1990]

Perhaps they should put a tick box at the top of the paper asking if you think you deserve to pass. If you tick it, you've passed - yipee.

Seriously though, if you've missed by a margin - you're probably missing something and no point blaming the markers. It's marked more than once.

Bad luck though - positive energy for next time.

How did you fail ST4 with 74?

 

[Pede]

In any exam, somebody has to fail and somebody has to pass (well, pretty much). In my view (if I'm allowed one), your effort would be better spent finding out exactly why you didn't pass - this is much easier than trying to change a system when we don't know quite what (if anything) needs to change. Exam counselling would be worth a try. If after that you are still adamant that you should have passed then maybe you will have more tangible clout to your argument.

I'm sure that's not the opinion of some people here, so I won't be responding any more to this thread.

 

[Luckcounts]

Perhaps they should put a tick box at the top of the paper asking if you think you deserve to pass. If you tick it, you've passed - yipee.

Seriously though, if you;ve missed by a margin - you're probably missing something and no point blaming the markers. It's marked more than once.

Bad luck though - positive energy for next time.

How did you fail ST4 with 74?

If I prove I scored 74 and failed what will you do?

Can you or IFoA give me back all my time , efforts and sacrifices I made to pass it again?

Ask IFoA how they managed to fail me after scoring 74.

If not then just stick to your baloney suggestions of having a tick box

 

[Luckcounts]

In any exam, somebody has to fail and somebody has to pass (well, pretty much). In my view (if I'm allowed one), your effort would be better spent finding out exactly why you didn't pass - this is much easier than trying to change a system when we don't know quite what (if anything) needs to change. Exam counselling would be worth a try. If after that you are still adamant that you should have passed then maybe you will have more tangible clout to your argument.

I'm sure that's not the opinion of some people here, so I won't be responding any more to this thread.

Well your opinion of exam counselling has some weight, but what if IFoA exam counselling can justify a fail after scoring 74?

I scored 74 in ST4 and exam counselling perfectly justified why I failed what a laugh?


For this SA4 I know what I have done and couple of other guys…….


I know someone passed this SA4 where he had no clue what the bigger question on Merger and acquisition worth 55 marks is all about, someone writing rubbish on 55 marks passed and passed with quite good marks and I failed knowing all the material and knowing what I am writing about

 

[student1990]

If I prove I scored 74 and failed what will you do?

Ask IFoA how they managed to fail me after scoring 74.

Sorry, there's obviously nothing I can do.
But I was just trying to understand what you meant about 74% in SP4. How is this a fail? Was the pass mark 75%? Do you mean one marker gave you 74% and the other much lower - that would be very tough on you. Do you think you got 74% marking it yourself.

With regard to SA4, perhaps it's worth an appeal if you're really sure you did enough.

 

[Luckcounts]

Sorry, there's obviously nothing I can do.
But I was just trying to understand what you meant about 74% in SP4. How is this a fail? Was the pass mark 75%? Do you mean one marker gave you 74% and the other much lower - that would be very tough on you. Do you think you got 74% marking it yourself.

With regard to SA4, perhaps it's worth an appeal if you're really sure you did enough.

I appealed for my results in the past; IFoA did not even bother to look at what went wrong. They just tried to shush me up by writing a letter.

For your information I have received my SA4 both examiners are 33% out from each other. The marker awarding lowest marks even gave me marks for the question I even did not attempt. How is it possible? And so called 3rd marker did a great job once again by averaging the other 2 Nos. Great job done well….

Somehow you seems to be associated with IFoA, if so kindly ask them to do their job properly, please do not steal students precious life by making them pass the same exam twice/thrice. We are making lots of sacrifices to take these exams….please please understand this

 

[Luckcounts]

for all those who voted that marking was right, please note you are wrong I have evidence otherwise, so do not just believe what you are told and do not have blind faith in everyone

 

[student1990]

I'm happy to keep an open mind - but you should publish the proof so that they do something about it. You can look around to learn about what goes on.
Eg look here: https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/exam-results/marking-guidelines

My interpretation of that is if neither of your first two marks were pass marks and the average wasn't close to the pass mark then I don't think it would have been 3rd marked at all - and the final mark awarded/quoted is just the average of the other two - which will explain your SAR numbers.
God knows how you could get a mark if you left an answer completely blank though - but I suppose if you're right about that then your mark will just go down, not up. It's a shame you can't see your script to check what you've written. I've always forgotten by the time I leave the exam room.

And finally, don't shoot me for saying this, I'm trying to help you make a better case. But you've just asked everyone not to have blind faith but all you've really said so far is that they are wrong because you should have passed - this isn't a very strong argument. And you've said you got 74% in SP4 and haven't explained how.

I'll keep an open mind but if you want more people to support you then you need to provide a bit more detail I think.
Happy to look at that objectively when you post it.

 

[almost_there]

I
God knows how you could get a mark if you left an answer completely blank though - but I suppose if you're right about that then your mark will just go down, not up. It's a shame you can't see your script to check what you've written. I've always forgotten by the time I leave the exam room.

No, this is not something that can be brushed away that easily. This is a very serious find, an irregularity, a new low. It's not good enough to say oh just put up with it because if that mark becomes zero then your overall mark would go down, although that's exactly the sort of rubbish justification I have come to expect from IFoA.

IFoA should in the first instance check the script and confirm to him the position that he didn't answer the question. If they are claiming he did answer the question they should provide documentary evidence such as a photo of the part of the script where the did so; I'm afraid their say-so is not good enough. If it's established he didn't answer the question then they must get this script re-marked by an independent person and re-asses, also do the same for everyone else marked by this person and sack marker 2. The almost unthinkable worst case scenario here is that there's a rogue marker not properly marking just carelessly filling a sheet with marks.

 

[student1990]

A "new low" might be overdoing it a bit given everything else they've been accused over over the last 12 months on here.

I can think of about five plausible explanations. But of course one of those includes human error. So I'd recommend you write a nicely toned letter to the IFoA explaining what you have found and asking them to check it out. It should only take someone a few minutes to have a look and you'd hope the marker would want to check it out themselves.

I suspect they'll say that if they checked every request like this out then they'd end up with thousands every session - but no harm in trying.
Good luck

 

[almost_there]

I can think of about five plausible explanations. But of course one of those includes human error. So I'd recommend you write a nicely toned letter to the IFoA explaining what you have found and asking them to check it out. It should only take someone a few minutes to have a look and you'd hope the marker would want to check it out themselves.

No it should be properly checked out. Shouldn't be about IFoA coming up with a so-called "plausible explanation" i.e. the least painful excuse for them and throwing in with that. Done properly, this marker's performance should be checked not just for this candidate but for all other papers also to establish whether it is a rogue marker. This wouldn't be a very difficult analysis for an actuary to do, a pattern could be found, the marks are on spreadsheets. Thing is the IFoA will almost certainly not do this and just try and play down this irregularity with poor excuses like "human error", "typo" or something to make it sound OK or trivial.

I suspect they'll say that if they checked every request like this out then they'd end up with thousands every session - but no harm in trying.

That comes with a territory of being a qualifications body. They charge enough. Not that hard to analyse whether one marker might be a bit rogue, funny how it's not in those 'rigorous processes' the IFoA love to to talk about but not so keen to show anyone the process documentation.

 

[student1990]

No it should be properly checked out. Shouldn't be about IFoA coming up with a so-called "plausible explanation"

Try reading my post again. I didn't say they should be "coming up with". I said there are possible explanations. I don't know what the explanation is. Until it is checked out, (which I also suggested) we won't know.
You seem to have made your mind up before it's even been looked at. Why not take other possible explanations and extrapolate those to their conclusion. You've probably picked one of the most unlikely. Given every script is marked twice, then rogue marking would very likely have been picked up already.
The chance that it's a mistake is probably quite high - say 20%, if we can think of four other reasons. The probability that correcting a mistake (if it is one) will make any difference to whether this student passes or fails is probably close to zero.
But until someone looks - none of us will know.
Merry Christmas all - forget the results and enjoy the festivities.

 

[almost_there]

Until it is checked out, (which I also suggested) we won't know.

True, it needs to be properly investigated.

You seem to have made your mind up before it's even been looked at. Why not take other possible explanations and extrapolate those to their conclusion. You've probably picked one of the most unlikely.

In a reputable company with say an insurance system, there would be a process to report such an irregularity if a figure appears somewhere where it should not. It would then get referred to someone to investigate and let the evidence lead the way. It could be indicative of a far more serious problem. No competent actuary sits there saying oh don't worry about it it's not likely to be a problem. It would be that kind of incompetent approach that lead to huge errors on systems. I draw my approach from my experience of seeing such things.

 

[Luckcounts]

And finally, don't shoot me for saying this, I'm trying to help you make a better case. But you've just asked everyone not to have blind faith but all you've really said so far is that they are wrong because you should have passed - this isn't a very strong argument. And you've said you got 74% in SP4 and haven't explained how.
I'll keep an open mind but if you want more people to support you then you need to provide a bit more detail I think.
Happy to look at that objectively when you post it.

Table below for my last 5 sittings and look at the staggering difference the markers have.
Do you think this is “one off” event?
Does any prudent person (obviously other than IFoA) think this is not systematic?
Clear pattern of poor marking.


If you or anyone would like to look at the SAR send me their email and I will be happy to forward it.
I have been writing to IFoA about this on every occasion but nothing has been done in last 2.5 years.
Well IFoA has justification for everything. Most common are standard wording such as “blind marking by markers” and review from the “expert.” IFoA has such a belief in “review” which is basically a “hard” job of averaging other two Nos.
If IFoA is really serious to improve the marking why don’t they carry out APSX2 type “independent review”

 

[Luckcounts]

I'm happy to keep an open mind - but you should publish the proof so that they do something about it. I'm just a member like you. I have sacrificed loads too. But you can look around to learn about what goes on.
Eg look here: https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/exam-results/marking-guidelines

I have been going through this for last 2.5 years and tried everything but what is the results, well latest sitting the difference has been just 17.5 mark, what a laugh, ha , ha good improvement though from 23.5 to 17.5

 

[Luckcounts]

God knows how you could get a mark if you left an answer completely blank though - but I suppose if you're right about that then your mark will just go down, not up. It's a shame you can't see your script to check what you've written. I've always forgotten by the time I leave the exam room.

Well IFoA has lot better justifications then yours, though yours are not bad at all.

One Possible one is I answered this somewhere else so marker recognized that, but this is numerical question which I did not do, and my memory is slightly better than yours, remember what I did and how well I did it.

 

[Luckcounts]

A "new low" might be overdoing it a bit given everything else they've been accused over over the last 12 months on here.

I can think of about five plausible explanations. But of course one of those includes human error. So I'd recommend you write a nicely toned letter to the IFoA explaining what you have found and asking them to check it out. It should only take someone a few minutes to have a look and you'd hope the marker would want to check it out themselves.

I suspect they'll say that if they checked every request like this out then they'd end up with thousands every session - but no harm in trying.
Good luck

Bottom line is If IFoA can justify 23.5 marks difference 17.5 difference is easier to justify. Keep doing "the great job” well done.
After dealing with IFoA several times, I felt there is no desire to change or improve. Well no one needs to unless they are compelled. IFoA has monopoly and they can do whatever they want.
Why IFoA is not open and transparent in their processes?
Why IFoA do not join Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA)? Universities like Oxford and Cambridge are part of the scheme?
But why shall they loss their monopoly, no one liked to be checked.

 

[Luckcounts]

Try reading my post again. I didn't say they should be "coming up with". I said there are possible explanations. I don't what the explanation is. Until it is checked out, (which I also suggested) we won't know.
You seem to have made your mind up before it's even been looked at. Why not take other possible explanations and extrapolate those to their conclusion. You've probably picked one of the most unlikely. Given every script is marked twice, then rogue marking would very likely have been picked up already.
The chance that it's a mistake is probably quite high - say 20%, if we can think of four other reasons. The probability that correcting a mistake (if it is one) will make any difference to whether this student passes or fails is probably close to zero.
But until someone looks - none of us will know.
Merry Christmas all - forget the results and enjoy the festivities.

Do you still have doubt IFoA marking is not rough even after looking at the table I posted above?
If so good luck, you have bright chances to join IFoA board