So what did people think of the exam? It seemed a reasonable enough exam with a lot of bookwork type questions, will be interesting to see if it's a high pass mark - hopefully not.
I thought this exam wasn't time pressured whereas past exams you could get bogged down with calculations. For instance Q3 was worth 14 marks and is on behavioral finance - 14 marks = 27 mins - but you probably should be able to answer the question in 10 mins if you know the material well. Same for the other bookwork questions if you know material it's not going to take the allocation mark/min time to do it. Whereas previous long calculation type questions - say 22 mark questions - may take you longer than the mark/min allocation. I spent probably 20 mins doing Q5 (iii) (worth 6 marks) which was a calcs question that was easy to mess up if you read the table wrong, - you can't really mess up a bookwork question. I'm afraid though that this made lead to a high pass mark, and while an exam made be easier in relative terms, doesn't mean that I will get a higher mark. Find out in 2 months time I guess.
I read in the Examiners' report that: "Assessing the minimally competent candidates a pass mark of 51 was deemed appropriate. The pass mark was then scaled to 55 and candidates awarded an upward adjustment." That seems quite obscure. I wonder what was the point of scaling both the pass mark up and candidates' marks. What advantage /difference there was over letting the pass mark be equal to 51 marks? Also, does anyone know how exactly was the upward adjustment performed - e.g. did all candidates receive flat 4 marks upward adjustment, or was just the mark of candidates who scored 51-54 marks set to 55 marks instead, or did the upward adjustment work differently?
