word count exceeded 740, will I still get a score?

Discussion in 'CA3' started by black_bird, Feb 8, 2017.

  1. black_bird

    black_bird Member

    Hi, my written paper submitted in day one had 744 words including graphs and table. The required word count was 600. Unfortunately I didn't have time left to review before submission.

    Please may I ask how this will affect my mark? Will it be a 5 marks deduction, or perhaps it will invalid the whole paper written and get a score zero?

    Thank you!
     
  2. vikky

    vikky Ton up Member

    Wow..Am sure to have missed a trick..Word count on MSword said 577 or me and thought I was on the higher side..
    :(
     
  3. David Wilmot

    David Wilmot ActEd Tutor Staff Member

    Sorry - that's not a nice situation to be in after your exam. But you certainly won't get zero. Your submission is valid and will be marked.

    My understanding is that you will lose up to around 5 marks as an explicit penalty for going so much over the word count. However, if the reason you went over was due to other problems (e.g. including unnecessary detail / irrelevancies) then further marks will be lost.

    When I've written a sample solution to be included in ActEd's ASET, I've sometimes gone over on word count. I feel much more comfortable when this happens, compared to being under on word count. This is because missing out required technical content and/or using unnecessarily complex language (which tends to abbreviate) is penalised far more severely by the marking schedule than including unnecessary detail or irrelevancies.

    I hope this gives you the reassurance you wanted.
     
  4. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    So, how many marks on the marking schedule for graphs in the written paper?
     
  5. David Wilmot

    David Wilmot ActEd Tutor Staff Member

    That's a much harder question to answer!

    The long answer

    If you have a look at the marking schedules for written papers that ActEd produce (in our Assignments and Mock Exams), you can see that there are three main sections: construction (format, length etc.); technical content; and meeting objectives. If a graph were to be included in an answer then it will form part of the assessment in all three sections. So how many marks depends upon the relative weight that is placed on the key messages that the graph is intended to convey, compared to the key messages conveyed by the remainder of the document.

    If I were marking a script from an ActEd student where a graph wasn't included then I would make an assessment as to how well the necessary key messages were conveyed using alternative means.

    So, ...

    The short answer

    ... it depends on the context!
     
  6. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Thanks. Clearly there's no clarity from the IFoA on this matter, which is unfair on students and indeed Acted, in an exam where time is already squeezed to produce the words. The experience of the poster above of not having enough time to check their work and rush to the finish is commonplace and I believe this is completely unfair.

    Their syllabus does not specify visual aids (graphs, tables etc) for part A but only for part B. Therefore in my view it's inappropriate for them to provide exam papers asking for these extra time consuming activities in part A when no one knows how many marks are for it. It's terrible that this important point was passed to the student consultative forum in November but was not asked at the meeting, when in my view time was allocated to discuss far more trivial matters. When I asked whether it would be discussed at the next SCF meeting I was told it would have to be resubmitted (I guess so it can be filtered out again), no automatic spill over.

    It's true to say acted assignments didn't have visual aids asked for in part A, which I believe is according to syllabus unlike recent exam papers. I have asked on this forum whether Acted's provision would change this year in light of these changes in 2016 but no answer provided, which is disappointing for people resitting this exam.

    I believe Acted should get clear answers from the IFoA what's going on with these graphs/visual aids suddenly being asked in part A and how many marks are for them, what have they deducted marks for in respect of these things etc.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2017
  7. David Wilmot

    David Wilmot ActEd Tutor Staff Member

    We (ActEd) do indeed have regular communications with the IFoA. We look to understand as best we can what the Examiners are looking for so as to provide the best help available for our students.

    Our study materials and tutorials have been reviewed by the IFoA's Education Actuary responsible for CA3, and we have adjusted our products and services in the light of feedback received. In particular, our marking schedules reflect such feedback.

    Picking up on your particular point, we do indeed also proactively seek information from the IFoA in order to ensure our materials are in-line with the expectations of the Examiners. The information we receive as a result is then used to up date our materials periodically. Whenever we obtain such information we also update the FAQs on this forum.
     
  8. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Thanks. Can you please tell everyone who's resitting CA3 this year, who were caught by surprise by the graph/table requests in part A in Aug & Nov, & the non-actuarial topic in November, what changes you have made to your assignments and mock papers in light of that?
     
  9. Pede

    Pede Member

  10. Edwin

    Edwin Member

    I think the problem with most people is the negativity towards this subject. I just sat it for the first time and can glady say i enjoyed it. It makes perfect sense to be tested on communication. Whether i pass or fail it was a good one and i can glady do it again.

    This forum had scared me with negative comments before!
     
  11. Unfortunately the negative comments come from the negative experiences of students.

    For example, there are numerous examples of students who present to clients regularly and successfully in their work, yet receive degorgatory, offensive comments and a very low score from the IFoA markers, and find themselves aiming for a required standard that is very ill-defined by the IFoA.

    Good luck with your exam result.
     
    SummerWeather and almost_there like this.

Share This Page