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 61 + 59 = 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., 26/01/2021
End date
E.g., 26/01/2021

Events calendar

  • Spaces available

    Drawing from his most recent book “The New Long Life” and his longevity research Andrew J Scott will outline how longer lives and new technologies will fundamentally reshape how we structure our lives and transform the economy. As well as looking at the agenda this will set governments and corporates he will focus on the implications for you and how you prepare your future career.

  • India Town Hall

    Webinar
    28 January 2021

    Spaces available

    IFoA Immediate Past President John Taylor would like to invite you to the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries’ (IFoA) virtual India Town Hall 2021, hosted by John Taylor with IFoA Council Member Mahidhara Davangere and IFoA Chief Executive, Stephen Mann. 

  • Spaces available

    What are the options for the world economy looking ahead?

    In this Thought Leadership Lecture, Economist, Vicky Pryce, will be discussing world economic trends, including the differences in geographical performance and how output is recovering and where.

  • Spaces available

    Trust and Leadership for Actuaries

    Led by Dr. Jim Baxter, University of Leeds, this webinar introduces some key ideas in the ethics of trust, with a particular focus on those in, or on the path to, leadership roles. Dr Baxter is joined by a panel of experienced leaders who will give their personal perspectives on how they understand the value of trust and how they seek to promote and inspire trust, drawing on their experiences of leadership. The panel includes:

  • Health and Care Hot Topics webinar

    Online webinar
    10 February 2021

    Spaces available

    In this webinar, we have two presentations showing the latest research on the implications for life and health insurers of two key issues: genomics and pandemic risk.

    Dr Peter Joshi and Paul Timmers will share their research on how well-established underwriting processes can allow for genomics in predicting expected mortality and morbidity. They will then discuss the potential for stratified screening and personalised medicine to improve health and reduce claim costs.

  • Spaces available

    As the world’s attention begins to turn to COP26 later this year in Glasgow, Sarah Gordon (Chief Executive, Impact Investing Institute) will share her vision for how the financial services industry can deliver for people and the planet, as well as how to encourage more investment with the intention to generate positive, measurable social and environmental impact alongside a financial return.

  • Sub-Saharan Africa Town Hall

    26 February 2021

    Spaces available

    IFoA Immediate Past President John Taylor would like to invite you to the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries’ (IFoA) virtual SSA Town Hall 2021, hosted by John Taylor with IFoA Council Members Mukami Njeru, Prosper Matiashe and IFoA Chief Executive, Stephen Mann.

  • MENAP Town Hall

    2 March 2021

    Spaces available

    IFoA Immediate Past President John Taylor would like to invite you to the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries’ (IFoA) virtual MENAP Town Hall 2021, hosted by John Taylor and IFoA Chief Executive, Stephen Mann.