You are here

Marking guidelines

Marking procedures and publication of results

Marking Guidelines

All assessment processes, including marking and moderation, will be conducted anonymously unless the nature of the assessment makes this impossible.

All assessments will be marked by two markers, who will have been subject to a quality control test exercise and deemed acceptable by the Chief Examiner (or nominee). Neither will know the identity of the student, nor will they know the marks the other awards. This is known as blind marking.

All marking is completed against a marking scheme explaining where and how the marks are awarded. These are also included in the examiners’ reports, and published to the IFoA website after the results are released.

Prior to live marking all markers and the senior examination team sample mark a selection of candidate scripts. This allows the seniors examiner to quality assure the markers by checking their interpretation of the marking scheme and making sure their marking is aligned to reduce variation where possible. It also allows the senior examiners to test the marking scheme and identify if additional points should be added or changes made. At this point the senior team are once again assessing marker competency and ensuring a comprehensive marking scheme is available to support marking the exam.

Due to the nature of many assessments, it is accepted that markers may disagree about the mark awarded for a question – this is not an error. It is accepted industry norm that a final mark may differ up to a total of 10 marks.

Moderation (Script Review)

After scripts have been double blind marked, a further moderation process, referred to here on in as the script review process, is instigated.  A candidate’s script will be subject to a further review by the senior examination team if one of the following criteria is met:

  1. Where the first and second mark awarded lie either side of the pass mark
  2. Where the first and second mark awarded is equal to the pass mark
  3. Where the first and second marks are both fails but the average of the two marks is within 2 marks of the pass mark.

Examinations made up of two papers, will follow alternative criteria for script review. It should be noted that dual paper assessments will have a single pass mark for the combined components, however each component may not carry an equal weighting.

Dual paper weighting is defined as:

  • CM/CS ‘A’ Papers – 70%
  • CM/CS ‘B’ Papers – 30%
  • CP Paper 1 – 50%
  • CP Paper 2 – 50%

The criteria for script review for all dual paper assessments is defined as:

  1. Those where the “highest” mark is equal to or above the pass mark and the “lowest” is below it.
  2. Those where the “highest” and “lowest” marks are equal to the pass mark.
  3. Those where the “highest” and “lowest” marks are both fails but the combined average is within 2 marks of the pass mark.

Examples of the above criteria are shown at the end of this document.

For each candidate, the “lowest” total mark for the overall exam shall be calculated by combining the lower of the first and second marks for each part of the exam.

For each candidate the “highest” total mark shall be calculated by combining the higher of first and second marks for each part of the exam.

Script review is carried out by the Chief Examiner (or nominee) and will involve one of the following

  • Full remark of script(s)
  • Remark of specific questions
  • Review and validation of the marks awarded by the first / second markers and the final mark to be awarded.

The reviewer will remark questions or parts of questions until either the total mark awarded is no longer classified as borderline or the entire script has been fully remarked.  In some cases, at the discretion of the Chief Examiner, a script may receive a final review. In these instances

a script may be marked up to a maximum of four times.

On occasion a script may be reviewed even if it does not fall within the marking guideline criteria. The Chief Examiner, or nominee, have the discretion to review further scripts; this may be done to validate the pass mark or as part of quality control mechanisms

Scaling

In exceptional circumstances an adjustment is applied to the whole cohort so the marks better reflect the achievements of the candidates sitting the assessment. For instance, scaling may be needed where an error or ambiguity in an assessment question is discovered or the paper is significantly harder or easier than intended.

Final Mark

The final mark will be calculated as follows:

  • The average of the first and second marks only, where no additional marking has taken place as part of the script review process.
  • A combination of first and second mark averages (where no third mark has been awarded as part of the script review process) and the third mark awarded to questions/parts of questions which have been remarked as part of the script review. For example, the mark for question 1 is the average of first and second marking, question 2 is the mark awarded following script review.
  • Script review marks only (in cases where the whole script has been remarked)
  • Final script review marks only.

For dual paper assessments, the final mark is determined by the weighting of the paper. For example, in an assessment with a 70:30 weighting the final mark is 70% of paper 1 plus 30% of paper 2.

The final mark reported to candidates will be a whole number from 0 to 100.  When marking, the markers may award a 0.5 mark, and due to this in many cases the average of first and second marks, before rounding, can include 0.25 marks. In all cases where the final mark is not a whole number, the final mark reported to candidates is rounded down to the next lower whole number.

Examples of script review criteria for dual paper assessments

50:50 weighting for CP1 and CP2

Criteria A

  Marker 1 Marker 2 Pass Mark 60
Paper 1 62 58 Highest Mark 62 + 64 = 126/2 = 63
Paper 2 64 57 Lowest Mark 58 + 57 = 115/2 = 57.5

Criteria B

  Marker 1 Marker 2 Pass Mark 60
Paper 1 61 61 Highest Mark 61 + 59 = 120 /2 = 60
Paper 2 59 59 Lowest Mark 58 + 57 = 120/2 = 60

Criteria C

  Marker 1 Marker 2 Pass Mark 60
Paper 1 60 58 Highest Mark 60 + 58 = 118/2 = 59
Paper 2 58 57 Lowest Mark 58 + 57 = 115/2 = 57.5
      Average 59 + 57.5 = 116.5/2 = 58.25

2. 70:30 Weighting for CS and CM assessments

Criteria A

  Marker 1 Marker 2 Pass Mark 60
Paper 1 60 55.5 Highest Mark 60 x 0.7 + 68  x 0.3 = 62.4
Paper 2 60 68 Lowest Mark 55.5 x 0.7 + 60 x 0.3 = 56.85

Criteria B

  Marker 1 Marker 2 Pass Mark 60
Paper 1 60 60 Highest Mark 60 x 0.7 + 60 x 0.3 = 60
Paper 2 60 60 Lowest Mark 60 x 0.7 + 60 x 0.3 = 60

Criteria C

  Marker 1 Marker 2 Pass Mark 60
Paper 1 60 60 Highest Mark 60 x 0.7 + 55 x 0.3 = 58.5
Paper 2 53 55 Lowest Mark 60 x 0.7 + 53 x 0.3 = 57.9
      Average 58.5 + 57.9 = 116.4/2 = 58.2

Exam Data - Subject Access Request (SAR) guidance

Filter or search events

Start date
E.g., 20/10/2020
End date
E.g., 20/10/2020

Events calendar

  • GIRO 2020 Virtual Conference

    Available to watch globally in November.
    02-13 November 2020
    Spaces available

    This year's GIRO has been re-designed as a virtual conference to offer members and non-members the opportunity to get up to date content from leading experts in the general insurance field via online webinars. All sessions will be recorded and made available to purchase and re-watch post-event on the IFoA's GI Online Learning Resource area

  • Life Conference 2020 Webinar Series

    Online
    16 November 2020 - 27 November 2020

    Spaces available

    This year's Life Conference has been re-designed as a virtual conference to offer members and non-members the opportunity to get up to date content from leading experts in the life insurance field via online webinars. All sessions will be recorded and made available to purchase and re-watch post-event on the IFoA's website.

  • Spaces available

    The webinar will discuss the challenges and opportunities schemes face in evaluating end game options, choosing a target state and understanding the impact this strategic decision could have on member outcomes long after the “end state” is reached. Adolfo, Kevin and Rhian bring over 60 years of experience in the industry and a variety of perspectives as scheme actuary, covenant adviser, trustee, de-risking adviser and insurer.

  • Spaces available

    Retail banking is going through a period of substantial change as it moves into the digital age. Banks have large amounts of data about their customers and about their risks. Open data application programming interface (APIs) and data science are enabling banks to use their data to offer innovative and sometimes personalised services. Data science is also adding value in risk areas such as fraud detection and cyber security. At the same time, the move to online banking is making it easier for firms including fintechs to enter banking without having to establish branch networks.

  • Spaces available

    Cash-flow driven investing is a game-changer for DB pension funds navigating their end-game. Suitable for sponsors who want to reduce risks on their balance sheets. And for trustees, it shifts the focus to providing greater certainty of returns, managing funding level volatility and ensuring they have enough income to pay cash-flow requirements.

  • Spaces available

    Patrick Kennedy, Partner at Gateley Legal and Founding Director of Entrust (a leading professional pensions trustee company), will be delivering an update on the latest legal developments during the course of 2020. With both a pensions legal perspective and over 25 years of trustee service, Patrick will seek to highlight how the letter of the law has continued to evolve against the backdrop of a difficult and challenging year

  • Spaces available

    The talk will provide an understanding of the priorities and relationships between deficit reduction contributions, in the context of wider scheme funding, and different types of value outflow from the employer based on the working party’s recently published report. 

  • Spaces available

    Covid-19 has required an urgent and cross-practice initiative to facilitate the extensive impact this pandemic has across all industries. IFoA members have been keen to contribute in a different way, so we developed the IFoA Covid-19 Action Taskforce [ICAT] to coordinate our effort, with a more efficient governance.

    We have over 500 volunteers and countless topics which we have amalgamated into 93 workstreams.