SA4 Sep 2018 Results

[almost_there]

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.

Then they should be checking thousands every session- it's their job & not student's fault, who's already paid very good money to sit the thing. What kind of an excuse is it they don't handle a complaint properly because they get so many of them and it would take them time. I've seen these kind of excuses shared by you on this thread deployed by IFoA many times e.g. they only have 160 staff to deal with 30,000 members blah blah blah. How on earth do they think other organisations manage it, such as insurance companies where actuaries work, who have way more customers to deal with.

 

[almost_there]

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.

That's a great idea. I think with FRC being shut down and replaced by PRA to provide oversight to IFoA, this is something members could lobby the Government for.

 

[student1990]

Do you still have doubt IFoA marking is not rough even after looking at the table I posted above?

Thanks for posting the extra info - it's very interesting and I can see why you are frustrated.

I personally think there are two issues here.
1. how reliable is the marking
2. should you have passed?

Impossible for anyone without your script and the marking schedule in front of them to answer the second one. But they need to sort out the first one. Differences in 1st and 2nd marking is bound to happen some times but for you to see >9% all five times really doesn't help with trust and credibility.

I'd be more frustrated about one of your previous SA4 attempts than this one when you scored >60% by one marker. Although it's possible that one marker is scoring too high and one marker too low - for you to see it 5 times out of 5 is really tough. Although it's easy to blame the marker, I suspect the issue really lies with the examiners, the exam questions and the marking schedules. They need to be made less subjective so that it's easier for the markers to be consistent.

I don't think you should appeal this time given the marks you've shared. But I do think you should share your table with the IFoA - as it's really good evidence of a problem that could and should be solved.

 

[almost_there]

But I do think you should share your table with the IFoA - as it's really good evidence of a problem that could and should be solved.

He's brought this to them for 2.5 years and they've done nothing.

 

[Luckcounts]

Well good to see majority is voting in favour of “fair marking,” when I started this thread I had no documentary evidence to prove otherwise so I used the word “feel.”

Now I have documentary evidence that the marking is not fair. Many out there would claim my final marks have been “reviewed.” To those who are not aware of the “review” this is not independent review, and most of the time it is averaging the other 2 marks, e.g. in total out of 12 parts of the questions I answered, the “reviewer” awarded me average marks on 7 occasion. Do you think this is independent review?

Are we allowed such a “review” in our actuarial profession?

I have suggested to IFoA in the past if they have firm believe in their practices, let it be exemplary for the actuarial world and allow it in the actuarial professional work.

On this occasion “reviewer” awarded 26% lower than marker 1.

For argument sake let’s assume this “review” is perfect. What about the ability of the marker who has 26% marking difference than what the “expert reviewer” thinks I shall be getting?

Is this 26% marking difference significant?

If so what about all the scripts this marker has marked?

As per student handbook this marker may have marked between 60 to 240 scripts. 153 appeared for Sep 2018 exam. This means the examiner making 26% error marked between 40% to 100% of the scripts.

If IFoA really think they care for the marking system and one of the markers has made 26% errors, shall they not be reviewing all the scripts this marker marked?

The point I have been trying to put across to IFoA is they do not care about marking, and rely on the game of luck.

Another query IFoA has failed to respond is following the marking schedule. All markers suppose to follow a marking schedule, if they follow the marking schedule such a big differences (as shown in the table in my previous post) shall not arise in the first place?

So all those voting in favour of “fair marking” I would encourage them to bring some strong evidence to prove their claim or review their voting.

Good luck

 

[Luckcounts]

Ha Ha
What an independent forum, independent marking and independent review they have removed my evidence from the forum?

 

[Luckcounts]

I don't think you should appeal this time given the marks you've shared. But I do think you should share your table with the IFoA - as it's really good evidence of a problem that could and should be solved.

Well all the evidence has been removed.
Appeal, this is a laugh, I appealed when I scored 74, and it was unsuccessful.
Well this time 53 is above pass mark 51 but I am not wasting my money on appeal.

 

[student1990]

Ha Ha
What an independent forum, independent marking and independent review they have removed my evidence from the forum?

I don't understand - what else have you posted that's been deleted? Your table is still there.

 

[almost_there]

As per student handbook this marker may have marked between 60 to 240 scripts. 153 appeared for Sep 2018 exam. This means the examiner making 26% error marked between 40% to 100% of the scripts.

If IFoA really think they care for the marking system and one of the markers has made 26% errors, shall they not be reviewing all the scripts this marker marked?

That's scary. In my view this situation does require a serious investigation beyond your particular attempt. Pass rate only 29.4% too.

I have suggested to IFoA in the past if they have firm believe in their practices, let it be exemplary for the actuarial world and allow it in the actuarial professional work.

Quite. Actuaries actually have to disclose their own processes, assumptions, calc methods, documentation etc. and justify them. I ask why we tolerate IFoA in our lives who aren't subject to the same scrutiny. I like the idea of actuaries asking for IFoA education to be given oversight from a proper education board.

 

[DeliAli]

I think there's something strange going on too. SA3 has the same issue with rogue markers not following the same marking scheme too. The best we can hope is that something will be done to improve the processes in 2019 sadly. The discrepancies are huge.

 

[almost_there]

With the FRC being dumped as IFoA's oversight body then I'd say the time is now for people to get together and do something.

The best we can hope is that something will be done to improve the processes in 2019 sadly. The discrepancies are huge.

The best hope for anything to change at IFoA is for it to be forced on them externally. They simply fob off complaints from members.

 

[arpitajetha]

I could not understand your point of discussion.

You appeared ST4 and SA4 both and you scored 74 in ST4 and passed ST4
and failed SA4 so how much you scored in SA4?
you can ask question wise marks from IFoA, they will give you marks from both markers and how are you producing these all information?

 

[Dom B]

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.
View attachment 1161

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”

The quality of marking by the IFoA is absolutely appalling. These exams are just a lottery.

 

[almost_there]

It's now two years since that student newsletter reassuring us of marking processes. How can we be reassured when examples keep appearing?
http://instituteandfacultyofactuari...EF23F30FEDED/B66776A13D809EAFA29558A201773426

 

[Luckcounts]

I could not understand your point of discussion.

You appeared ST4 and SA4 both and you scored 74 in ST4 and passed ST4
and failed SA4 so how much you scored in SA4?
you can ask question wise marks from IFoA, they will give you marks from both markers and how are you producing these all information?

I think you have not read it properly, When I scored 74 in ST4, I failed that ST4 the marks are from my SAR as you suggested

 

[almost_there]

Why is luckcount's table extremely small for people who aren't logged in to view?

 

[KevinB]

I see from the examiners report the pass mark for SA4 was actually 51 but they scaled it to 55, what is the point of doing this? Is there a policy not to quote a pass mark below 55%

 

[Luckcounts]

I see from the examiners report the pass mark for SA4 was actually 51 but they scaled it to 55, what is the point of doing this? Is there a policy not to quote a pass mark below 55%

Well there is a policy to mark it wrongly/roughly so that students feel they did not do well, then scale the messed up marks up to show examiners are generous and sympathetic. Scaling up is a carpet to hide the mess.

 

[Infinity]

I think there's something strange going on too. SA3 has the same issue with rogue markers not following the same marking scheme too. The best we can hope is that something will be done to improve the processes in 2019 sadly. The discrepancies are huge.

Please email to the FRC. They are supposedly the oversight body of the IFoA. The more people that contact them the better. At the moment they’re doing nothing

 

[Infinity]

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.

I contacted several bodies such as the OIA. They’re not interested in the IFoA. The BEIS says the IFoA falls in the cracks of regulation

 

[Infinity]

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.
View attachment 1161

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”

Google CMA and university of East Anglia. As well as the FRC you should contact the CMA. They need more complaints to get the ball rolling. You should be able to find some documentation on the consumer act relating to higher education providers.