Suspicious CA3 pass mark/technical difficulties

Discussion in 'CA3' started by Gavin Kelly, Nov 7, 2016.

  1. Gavin Kelly

    Gavin Kelly Member

    My friend from work was only given 25 minutes to redo their presentation hours after he thought he was finished. So there would have been little scope to redo it, although more scope than anyone doing it through the app.
     
  2. 14/15

    14/15 Member

    Ah true. I had a friend who has just sat it and had technical difficulties straight away so had the rest of the session to perfect it.
     
  3. Viki2010 likes this.
  4. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Yes student actuary. There's an interesting court case going on at the moment by a student (not actuarial!) against Oxford University as well. Certainly I'd advise people to utilise their subject access request rights and any fobbing off or unsatisfactory service from IFoA education should be referred to president & CEO as well as Financial Reporting Council who are meant to be supervising the IFoA, where transparency is one of the things in their remit (beware, there's a fobbing off tendency there too!)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 8, 2016
  5. Gavin Kelly

    Gavin Kelly Member

    Hi Aditya,

    I was wondering if you have heard anything from the IFoA regarding your SAR?

    I emailed last Monday, and I hadn't got a response from them, so I phoned Education Services yesterday. They said that they were up to date with all of their emails and has been passed to the online team. I was then told that the Education Services line manager would be in touch. I have not heard anything from the line manager, so I sent a chaser email today.

    I believe this situation to be very serious and I would have expected a response by now. We both have evidence which clearly shows a violation of the marking procedures set out in the student handbook.

    Hopefully we will hear something soon.
    Thanks
    Gavin
     
  6. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    We're all still waiting for the minutes of the student consultative forum November 18th to appear on their website. I've never heard of minutes taking so long to approve and publish. Very interested to see how many of these issues were raised and the response.
     
  7. Gavin Kelly

    Gavin Kelly Member

    Interesting student newsletter that was emailed out this morning. I can't help think that I am the subject of the 'Examination Marking' section.
     
  8. Have put some of my own thoughts on their statement in another forum post:

    https://www.acted.co.uk/forums/index.php?threads/exam-marking-problems.12902/

    Would be interested to know if you agree Gavin? You're certainty not alone!
     
  9. Gavin Kelly

    Gavin Kelly Member

    StudentActuary_02

    Thanks for directing me to the other forum. I have had a quick read through, and I couldn't agree more.

    As far as I am concerned, Education Services do not handle complaints at all well. Any time I phone they just say that it has been passed to another team, or they assumed someone else would have been in touch. They are not willing to take any ownership or making sure their clients, i.e. us, are looked after.

    It was 4 weeks before I got an answer to my 1st query about raising the pass mark, and dealing with technical difficulties. I just got fobbed off any time I tried to chase. I was given timescales from Education Services as to when I would receive a response which were not adhered to.

    After two emails and one phone call in the last 9 days, I am still no further forward with my query about marking process failures as evidenced by my SAR request. I just don't understand why it is taking so long to get a response on such a serious matter.
     
  10. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    On another thread I've explained how the IFoA have only now abolished the special overseas rate. I first complained about this in June 2011, with reference to the Equality Act 2010. When I now read back those email exchanges I had the same kind of experiences as you describe here. It seems to take an awful long time for the IFoA to accept problems and take action. I will not receive a thank you letter in the post and probably someone else internally will take the credit for making this change. I'm with you guys 100% on these things and persistency must surely pay off, even if it takes years... ! We aren't complaining because we're enemies of this profession but because we want it to do things right.
     
  11. trevor888

    trevor888 Member

    Gavin Kelly

    I suspect that the Inst will give you an answer along the lines of pass marks reflects the difficulty of the paper so they adjust pass marks accordingly blah blah worded in a more 'professional' way.

    I feel that by playing around with pass marks AFTER the exam, they are not ensuring consistency. They should set it before the paper. I

    The CA1 April pass mark was 56 whereas it was 50-55 in previous sittings....
     
  12. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Setting pass mark after marking the papers will only fuel the thoughts of those who believe they are operating a quota system. They of course deny operating a quota system.
     
  13. Gavin Kelly

    Gavin Kelly Member

    I finally got a response from the IFoA about my SAR which said:

    Your papers were reviewed by senior members of the marking team as part of the moderated marking process and the final mark of 62 was awarded, the Principal Examiner for the subject also agreed that this was an appropriate final mark. As you will see from the recent student newsletter, the IFoA are committed to clarifying the processes around moderation in the student handbook.

    I have responded saying:

    However I am finding this difficult to accept, especially when the marks from one of the markers would have resulted in me passing the exam.

    According to page 70 of the student handbook which states:

    ‘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’

    The student newsletter that was released yesterday confirms that my script for the written paper should be third marked as it lies comfortably outside the acceptable variances between the markers (normal variance 0-10 versus a variance of 16 for my written paper).

    There is no evidence that the paper was marked a third time. Having the papers reviewed does not comply with what is in the student handbook. If the papers were marked a third time then why is the breakdown of marks not available in the same way as it was from the first two markers?
     
  14. trevor888

    trevor888 Member

    That should be a good reply. However, they can counter-argue that it indeed was marked a third time, but there were no annotations made on the paper etc. hence it seems like it was not. They can also blame it on poor audit trail as per the newsletter released yesterday and that they will improve etc.

    In submiting my SAR to them, I have requested for evidence of the date my paper was marked for the third time. This should solve the problem hopefully.
     
  15. KoLDB

    KoLDB Member

    Just had a chance to look at the whole issue posted. This further proves to all members how IFoA handles this CA3 exam with such little care in communications when the crazy fact is that this exam is all about communication (or so as it seems).
    I have not seen any well-known modern profession to be able to screw up such a simple operation. The least they should do is to issue an apology to causing confusions among members who might have been affected by this exam. I guess they have too much pride to admit they can make mistakes.
    For this, IFoA, I would mark you to a clear Fail.
     
    almost_there likes this.
  16. trevor888

    trevor888 Member

    Whatever it is, human error can not be completely eliminated. It is impossible. The Inst should accept this.

    Example:
    The biggest aviation collision in history was the Tenerife disaster where two 747s collided. It was found that the cause of the crash was the dutch KLM captain. He was the most senior pilot in the entire airline, so senior, in fact he certified KLM pilots' licenses and was a chief trainer yet he could not follow control tower directions and perished with the rest.
     
  17. Gavin Kelly

    Gavin Kelly Member

    You won't be surprised to hear that I have not heard a single thing from the IFoA on my latest email. So I sent another one yesterday saying:


    I was wondering when I can expect to receive a response on my latest email below?


    If the paper was not third marked, and therefore the marking process has not complied with what is stated in the student handbook, could you advise how I can take this matter further?
     
  18. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    I agree about that but it appears from their admissions that it wasn't just a case of not third marking for one or two people... which I'd call an admin oversight that could fall under human error.

    The real issue is whether there is a systematic problem of not third marking the scripts entirely as had been stated in the student handbook they would do. This could be why script marked (3rd) is now being redefined as not marking the entire script again... !
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2016
  19. KoLDB

    KoLDB Member

    It is never about third marking or fourth marking or whatever protocols the profession has set.
    We are all in a club that is still managed so backwards in a way that is almost like living under a dictatorship.
    One-way communication, limited scope to respond to feedbacks/debates, key decisions being held by only several individuals, you name it.
    The profession is always right, no matter what you say.
    They stripped away the grade appealing you know, just this act is already a disgrace.
    Don't tell me this is just for "saving" operational cost or those usual nonsense response "we can guarantee that we are always right".
    We are stuck in a loop where we say there is clearly something wrong or at least worth taking a step back and rethink, but the profession? "wrong, what wrong?".
    Denial of wrongdoing is a difficult thing, I can easily admit I have made mistakes in all my exams i took and I will always think there are things to be improved in myself. I can't say the same for the profession, that is how sad the current situation is.
     
  20. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    I've just been made aware of this:
    https://www.employeebenefits.co.uk/...uaries-introduces-new-pay-and-bonus-strategy/

    The organisation has begun a new bonus scheme for the top 30% of staff, paying bonuses of between 5% and 20%. “We decided not to pay less than 5% because people do not get hugely excited by 2% bonuses,” said Cribb.
    Hmm, not much chance of conceding poor service then: it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas! Ho ho ho.
     
  21. Gavin Kelly

    Gavin Kelly Member

    10 weeks since the exam results got publisged, I finally get an answer from the IFoA:

    "With regards to your final mark and the third marking process, I confirm that your paper has been through the correct process. Your papers were reviewed by senior members of the marking team due to the difference between the first and second marks and this is evidenced by the comments in the ‘Moderated Mark’ section shown on your Subject Access Request document.


    Third marking itself may involve a partial marking of some questions, an entire remark of the paper or an overall review. In your case this involved an overall review by the senior examiner who applied his academic judgement and awarded a final mark of 62. This in turn was agreed by the Principal examiner of the subject. "


    I wonder how they decide what 3rd marking procedure they choose?
     

Share This Page