SP9 Results

I sat SP9 last September and received 62.5%, which put me in the 72% of students that the IFoA chose to fail by setting the pass mark at 63%. I have just received my results and have received 63%, which has put me in the 76% of students that the IFoA have chosen to fail by setting the pass mark at 64%. This exam has had the single lowest pass rate in history at 24% and the highest pass mark at 64%, and there is no explanation whatsoever for why they have set the pass mark and rate to these extreme levels in the examiners report (despite the fact that SP9 examiner's report did in the past include comments showing that the pass rates were consistent from sitting to sitting, so obviously transparency on this was important to them in the past).

I have comfortably passed every exam, including the fellowship, except this one. This exam is acknowledged to be difficult given the subjectivity around what is a "correct" answer, and I'm just wondering, where is the hard line beyond which the examiners are allowing themselves excessive subjectivity in choosing how many people to fail? Do students have any meaningful recourse to challenge this decision, through the FRC or through judicial review, when there is so clearly an inconsistent standard in the past two exams versus the long term average standard? I know that the IFoA will not accept a challenge on this given it falls under challenging their academic judgement (they wouldn't address my appeal last September because I was challenging them on these grounds).

I would really love to hear the insight of the ActEd tutors on how this examinations process works. I cannot understand it at all - the IFoA design a paper and marking scheme, and there would presumably be a standard proportion of people passing based on more usual pass marks, but they have made the decision at some point to set the pass mark to so high a level as to fail more students than they ever had before. What could possibly be feeding into this decision except a desire to fail more students? I would like to believe that this isn't how they operate but they haven't even tried to offer any other plausible explanation. Is it likely that the standard is going to move again in September?

 

I thought the 26% pass rate for SP4 was worse.. having recorded 42% preceding sitting. But for SP9, this is extreme. I feel for you, it's so de-motivating after all the hard work to improve your previous score.

 

Thanks mulita, it is so de-motivating. You work hard enough to pass in any other sitting and then they just move the goal posts

 

268 candidates presented themselves and 64 passed. Pass rate = 23.88%

April 2019. 153 attempts 71 passes. Pass rate = 46.4%.
Oct 2019. 128 attempts 36 passes. Pass rate = 28.1%.

Historic ST9 pass rate = 44%.

 

Why can't IFoA set a constant pass mark of 60% and design their exam papers accordingly? Or is that too obvious.

 

There are a whole host of exam bodies who do not set a consistent pass mark from session to session.

 

Ok. And? I think it's clear that the pass mark has been higher than it has ever been and the rate is lower than it has ever been. The pass mark would suggest that both the candidates have been unusually bad the previous two sessions and exam papers have been easier than their targeted 60.

I think most would appreciate some transparency from the IFoA on their decisions. They already have subjectivity allowed in the marking schemes, why do they need it in the pass mark? Are the candidates in the previous two diets much worse than what they have seen before?

It seems that the previous SP9 examiners had a different view of this issue, based on the marking scheme of a question on the Sept 2014 SP9 paper ("Describe an examination process designed to minimize the risk that the standard required of candidates could vary from one examination to the next.").

Doesn't apply to me (qualified) but would be nice for the IFoA to be transparent.

 

This sudden drop in pass rate reminds me of CT8 in April 2010 & 2018:
http://www.actuarial-lookup.co.uk/exams/ct8

 

Well, firstly the examinations were moved to an online format - so it may well be that students' performance was negatively impacted by this. Perhaps people spent too much time looking up notes and not enough time writing their answers down.

The examiners use the basis of minimum competency and apply this consistently from one year to the next. With differing cohorts and questions then it's natural that the pass mark will vary from year to year, as it does for a number of qualification awarding bodies.

 

Maybe the examiner could have commented on this in the examiner's report (or even have provided a robust justification for the change in pass rate/mark).

Is SP9 unique in this regard (Students struggling against an "easier" exam paper with the pass mark set higher)?

I'll also note that this happened the sitting before. Were candidates much worse than usual that sitting while the exam was easier? Unanswerable question for us really - transparency would be nice from the IFoA.

I understand the trickling of actuaries through the system helps keep our salaries high, but you'd have to question whether this is done on merit.

 

That claim is totally unsubstantiated. You're blaming students for the lower pass rates.

That statement actually has no meaning.

 

Read my quote, I said "Perhaps" - I don't try express my opinion as fact, perhaps you should try it too.

As for the statement having no meaning - I disagree completely. 'Examiners use academic judgment in assessing the pass mark' is hardly an earth-shattering statement. Pass marks vary for A-level, GCSE and Scottish qualification exams, amongst others. Do you think they are flawed exams systems too? [Y/N] Do you not think examiners should be able to use academic judgment? [Y/N]

 

You're correct in that I don't have any more of an insight in to why pass marks go up or down than you. Academic judgment will play a role for sure and I would hope that there is a justification for the pass mark being set at the Board of Examiners' meeting, for example.

Almost_there has posted a detailed breakdown of pass rates in this year compared to prior years - some subjects have increasee but it looks like most have fallen.

 

Thanks for your kind words Anna, I will resit and hope for the best in September.

I think even the most ardent defender of the IFoA has to admit that it is highly unusual to have two consecutive sittings with record high pass marks (63%,64%) and pass rates which are two of the three lowest in the history of SP9 (28%, 24%). I think it also needs to be acknowledged that the SP9 examiner's reports are simultaneously less transparent than they have been in the past in commenting on the performance of students and exam standards being consistent. It is not very probable that two consecutive papers are implicitly the easiest in the history of SP9 and are the most difficult for students to pass, and this improbable event warrants a justification. Obviously all human beings, including examiners, are subject to conflicts of interest and bias, and it is reasonable to expect a robust explanation for unusual decisions as the bare minimum of a check against such biases.

 

The only rationale I can see for this is that most individuals clustered around this.

Ie by lowering the pass mark by 1 , it would of meant another 20% passed.

I don't have any evidence to back this up however.

There may be other factors such as scaling factors being applied - I agree it isn't transparent in the marking schedule