Student performance informs pass mark

[almost_there]

From student handbook 2015/16, page 69:

When each marker has completed their marking they send the results to the lead examiner who will review
the marks and form an opinion of where the pass mark should be set. This will change each session,
depending on the complexity of the paper, and the students’ overall performance.
​

This suggests to me that if you sit an exam in a session where students as a whole haven't done that well, perhaps due to not having studied as hard, then the pass mark will be lower & vice versa.

The 'depending on the complexity of the paper' could be done prior to anyone sitting the exam however they don't set an initial pass mark at that stage. So why are they waiting until people have sat it?

Why does the lead examiner need to see how people have performed on the paper before forming an opinion on the pass mark? Is there no academic judgement taking place?

​

 

[almost_there]

Once the initial pass mark has been decided then scripts which are around the borderline will be marked a
third or possibly fourth time to ensure that the examiners are happy with the proposed pass mark. Where
the first two markers disagree a script will also be third marked by an examiner.
​

So they further alter the pass mark again after 3rd & 4th marking.

There's no need to wait until 3rd & 4th marking to determine a pass mark. The complexity of the paper can be determined before anyone sits the exam. If the complexity of the paper is determined by the marks students get for sitting it then what a weird standard that is! In a session where many students have studied harder then the pass mark is higher, and vice versa. That looks a bit like a quota system, something they deny.

 

[bobbathejobba]

I believe that the pass mark is fairly consistent and if it moves then it is only by a small amount.

My understanding is that since the borderline scripts are third marked - if they feel that the student isn't fit to proceed then they should not pass - hence if they find students who are not fit to proceed scoring, say 61, then the pass mark must be higher.

However, it is clearly not a quota system as the pass rates fluctuate from session to session.

 

[almost_there]

Then how come they need to know how we score on it before they set the pass mark?

 

[bobbathejobba]

I'm confused. I have already explained. The pass mark is initially set (for CTs at 60%) then fine tuned to ensure that only those who are fit to proceed pass. It's not a quota system as that would say a set number must pass regardless of their performance.

The whole point of the examinations isn't so much the mark but ensuring that you are suitable in accordance with the regulations and requirements of our Profession. Therefore the mark has to be adjusted to ensure that is the case.

 

[almost_there]

The student handbook states the initial pass mark is determined after marking. Tell me why examiners can't decide the pass mark before people actually sit the exam?

 

[bobbathejobba]

Clearly I'm not giving you the reason you want to hear. So there's no point in me responding any more.

 

[almost_there]

From student handbook 2015/16, page 69:
When each marker has completed their marking they send the results to the lead examiner who will review
the marks and form an opinion of where the pass mark should be set.

 

[interested]

Pass marks do indeed have to be assessed and declared by the Principal Examiner when the exam papers are written, ie months before any student sits the exam.
As bobbathejobba said, the rest (after the results are in) is fine tuning. At this stage the pass mark might change by 0.5% (yes, that's about all!) and any such adjustments would have to be justified to the Board of Examiners when results are finalised.
There certainly isn't a quota system on any of the actuarial exams.

 

[almost_there]

interested - source please? What you're saying contradicts the student handbook, page 68/9

 

[Net Premium]

I think they are all targeting 60% in the new era.

I suspect that 0.5% leeway is a little on the low side - may be the intention but not always the reality. Eg I doubt the ST5 paper in April 2016 was targeting a pass mark of 68%!
But whatever mark comes out is pretty irrelevant as there are so many ways to tweak the marks students will score with adjustments to the marking schedule. What matters is that students are treated consistently and those who are deemed to meet the appropriate standard pass. What's "appropriate" is always going to be subjective but one hopes those with the responsibility are making the right calls.

I think there's a strong argument for fixing the pass mark but if they did then there would be other ways to move the line in the sand - eg be more/less generous for certain points made.

But we're not the only ones to have such practices. Even multi-choice exams in the US a have a varying pass mark, which feels even more unfair/subjective.

 

[Geraldine]

Pass mark was 67% for ST8, September 2016!!! I failed, and I'm yet to see what my mark is. But wow, you need 67% in an ST in order to pass it? Where else on this planet do you need to get that sort of mark just to pass? Whose fault is it if the paper is easier? I'm so tired of actuarial exams CTs were fine, all the maths was okay. I only hit a bump on CT4, but after that? Pain, pain, and more pain. It's such a long process, and so expensive after repeating a few of them quite a few times already, and there's nothing truly hard about the later subjects At least I finally managed to get through CA1 last year, so I'm thinking of throwing the towel in at associate

I'm just so very tired now. It's been ruining my life for too long - when can I just be free? Sorry to vent here, but I'm kind of fairly miserable now. Wish I had studied something else

 

[almost_there]

Geraldine I feel your pain & agree with you. Been there a few times myself. ST pass marks were between 57 and 67. For SA between 55 and 62.

 

[almost_there]

Wish I had studied something else

I feel like that too.

 

[LastHurdles]

I feel like that too.

Agree.... five years and counting.

 

[ngongtiti]

Pass mark was 67% for ST8, September 2016!!! I failed, and I'm yet to see what my mark is. But wow, you need 67% in an ST in order to pass it? Where else on this planet do you need to get that sort of mark just to pass? Whose fault is it if the paper is easier? I'm so tired of actuarial exams CTs were fine, all the maths was okay. I only hit a bump on CT4, but after that? Pain, pain, and more pain. It's such a long process, and so expensive after repeating a few of them quite a few times already, and there's nothing truly hard about the later subjects At least I finally managed to get through CA1 last year, so I'm thinking of throwing the towel in at associate

I'm just so very tired now. It's been ruining my life for too long - when can I just be free? Sorry to vent here, but I'm kind of fairly miserable now. Wish I had studied something else

I feel your pain. I got 66% for the Apr-2016 ST8 sitting and still failed. First time in my life I've been failed with 66%.....I couldn't belief when I saw it....

 

[Geraldine]

I feel your pain. I got 66% for the Apr-2016 ST8 sitting and still failed. First time in my life I've been failed with 66%.....I couldn't belief when I saw it....

Thanks - really feel your pain too! Your situation is unbelievable... how can one get 66 and still fail

 

[almost_there]

What matters is that students are treated consistently and those who are deemed to meet the appropriate standard pass. What's "appropriate" is always going to be subjective but one hopes those with the responsibility are making the right calls.

Given that the pass mark is set after seeing how everyone's done then the appropriate standard is what exactly? Seems like a competition.

 

[almost_there]

I'm just so very tired now. It's been ruining my life for too long - when can I just be free? Sorry to vent here, but I'm kind of fairly miserable now. Wish I had studied something else

I wish I had pursued a postgrad in actuarial science in somewhere like Switzerland, which for a 2 year course charge around £3k in fees. My understanding is that getting this means you're qualified in Switzerland. This means you can then apply for the IFoA mutual recognition to get a FIA in the UK with 1 year work experience. This is my understanding at present - am just double checking the details. I guess actuaries can understand this as arbitrage.

In comparison the IFoA route costs tens of thousands between exam fees, acted fees, resit fees, counselling etc.

 

[almost_there]

The IFoA has created itself a serious problem with that European agreement. We learn from THEIR exams how the value of something is market value, the fair value at which you can trade something for at distance with a knowledgable person etc.

Yet they've traded FIA for a continental qual (£3k) + 1 year work experience.

IFoA exam fees to FIA = £4570. Acted CMP = £2306. 3-day tutorials = £5326. IFoA membership fee £1.5k. Total over £13.5k. That's over £10k more.

 

[Geraldine]

IFoA exam fees to FIA = £4570. Acted CMP = £2306. 3-day tutorials = £5326. IFoA membership fee £1.5k. Total over £13.5k. That's over £10k more.

Interesting! And I'm going to take a guess that this assumes you pass each exam first time round. So, if we factor in the expectation that ~40-45% pass any given exam, but perhaps inflate this a bit for the cohort that actually gets to the end, you're probably paying quite a bit more than 10k - also assuming that most people will get through their postgrad (which I think is generally the case at uni!)