Disqualification letter from SOA

[Anonymous]

A friend just received a letter from the SOA telling them that their paper was not being graded because it was not signed. This is truly awful. I have 2 questions:

1) Why do they wait so long to tell you? The exam was given 6 weeks ago and grades are due out in 3. Didn't they notice the lack of a signature a long time ago?

2) Is there any recourse? Has anyone succesfully challenged this ruling and had it overturned? If so, how did you do this?

If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them.

[Minerva]

OMG - my second worst nightmare. No, I don't, but, at the risk of thread drift, does anyone know what would happen if you forgot to put your candidate number on the top of one or two pages (essay exams)? My WORST nightmare, especially since there is such a real possibility that I did it and didn't notice.

And aren't the proctors supposed to look at your envelope for the signature?

[Anonymous]

Minerva,
At the risk of worrying you further, I would think they would throw out a paper with no candidate number on it. They all get separated by question, so it might get lost in the shuffle, unless they attached all of one candidates papers for each question together.

And this instance is on an early exam so there is no envelope, just the Scantron page.

[Bob the Dog]

Bob thinks there is very little recourse. Unfortunate, but Bob has always been directed to sign envelopes. Following directions important from time to time.

[Enough Exams Already]

I think your friend is SOL, I'm afraid. I strongly doubt the SOA would grade the paper without a signature, and I don't remember anything about it being appealable. (sp?)

:sad:

[Guerilla poster]

Your friend? is SOL. I have heard about someone tried to jump through hoops to get their paper graded, had several people vouch that they were at the exam with them but in the end the SOA didn't budge. Needless to say the person offed themselves.

[Pub Guy]

As a proctor, I always look for the Candidate # and signature on the envelope as it was turned in or picked up. It is pretty common for me to get an envelope without one of the above and I then would have the individual write it in after the fact (but obviously before he/she left the room).

As for grading with no Candidate # on a specific page, I think the SOA honestly tries to figure out whose paper it is, probably based on its location within the stack of the candidate's other answer sheets. The SOA will then pencil in the Candidate's # before separating his answers out for individual question grading. However, despite the SOA's generosity in this regard, it's always a good idea to spend a few seconds to check for Candidate #'s on all pages before putting your answers in the envelope.

[Minerva]

WRT checking - I always do, but........ (That's what makes it a nightmare - you know, the kind where no matter what you do things go wrong?)

[Maine-iac]

I pretty much agree that this poor person is up the creek.

However, I do know of a case where the SOA sent a letter to saying they would not grade an exam due to "exam irregularities" and the person was able to sucessfully argue that the incident had been mis-reported, and his paper was eventually graded. (I was in the same SOA exam session, and the person in question recruited me to tell the SOA what I had observed if requested, but it didn't go that far.)

[RPM]

We did have someone a few years ago receice such a letter. The head of our actuarial dept went to the SOA ranting and raving. We are a major testing site, and he said he would pull the plug on us being a testing site if the SOA didn't come out with some kind of a compromise. He had to sign a letter basically saying he didn't cheat and it was an accident that he didn't sign the paper. It was notorized and sent off. He passed the exam. I hope that helps. And good luck.

[Mick Fan]

Good luck to your friend. He may be up the creek, but shame on the proctor.

Students are nervous enough going into exams that they forget the trivial things. It's up to the proctor to make sure that those silly things like not signing a name don't cost the student.

[Gretchen]

On 2001-12-20 21:58, Mick Fan wrote:
Students are nervous enough going into exams that they forget the trivial things. It's up to the proctor to make sure that those silly things like not signing a name don't cost the student.



What????? I'm sorry, but I totally disagree. The proctors help where they can, but it is the CANDIDATE'S responsibility to make sure that they do what they are supposed to. Being nervous doesn't mean they shouldn't be expected to follow instructions - just about everyone else manages to, and they're just as nervous. Since your are told that not signing your paper would disqualify it, that hardly qualifies as a 'trivial' item. People need to take a little responsibility for themselves!

[Bob the Dog]

What????? I'm sorry, but I totally disagree. The proctors help where they can, but it is the CANDIDATE'S responsibility to make sure that they do what they are supposed to. Being nervous doesn't mean they shouldn't be expected to follow instructions - just about everyone else manages to, and they're just as nervous. Since your are told that not signing your paper would disqualify it, that hardly qualifies as a 'trivial' item. People need to take a little responsibility for themselves!
Bob agrees with Gretchen whole-heartedly. Proctor not respsonsible for student's inability to follow directions. Bob sees too many instances of "not my fault" for his liking.

[JMO]

I'm with Gretchen on this one.

I seem to recall that the proctor instructions to be read in the exam include a reminder to all that the signature is required.

Why should anybody expect more help than that?

[Actuary321]

On 2001-12-21 08:52, JMO wrote:
I seem to recall that the proctor instructions to be read in the exam include a reminder to all that the signature is required.

And as I recall this is read while we are filling out our name, candidate number and so on. I can see how it can be missed because the message seems to come while I am doing something, but I always stop where I am and go to the signature line, sign it and go back to filling out the rest of the form.

[Ammie]

Could be worse. They could lose half of your exam, give you a zero, and then not tell you until you filed a request to have the paper regraded. This did happen on SOA Part 4 or 6 in the summertime, I know.

I think it was terrible they did not volunteer this info. You make a mistake, you should step up to the person involved.

[42]

Minerva, it's been a long time, but I had the same nightmare as you. I used to put my candidate number at the top of 20 or so sheets of paper before I started writing anything.

[Mick Fan]

Maybe it's just the environment that we test in. Where I take the exams, we very rarely have more than five people sitting for one. It's easy for the proctor to check the outside of five exam envelopes.

If you have more people, then it may be tougher for the proctor.

I'll concede that it is still up to the person who actually didn't sign it.

[Buru Buru]

Ammie: What was the result of this situation? Did the person ultimately have to accept a zero since there was no way to grade a missing paper?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Super Actuary on 2001-12-21 20:25 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Super Actuary on 2001-12-21 20:26 ]</font>

[Arlie_Proctor]

The CAS had a similar situation a couple of years back when the shipping company lost a shipment of completed exams. The problem was identified within a few days following the exams. The affected candidates were allowed a special "re-sitting" and their papers were graded along with the rest of the candidates.

[Minerva]

Despite the fact that I was the first (I think) to ask about the proctor's role, I tend to agree with Gretchen that it is ultimately our responsibility to make certain we sign the envelope. However, maybe it's just that the proctors I've had have been human beings who remember what it is like to take exams. They ALWAYS remind us at the END of the exam, which is when you are supposed to sign the %*&^ envelope (scantron sheet, too?)(Not at the beginning, when they read all of the other instructions. - Aren't you signing that you HAVEN'T received any help?)

I think it's worth an appeal, and employer-supported as much as possible. After all, what is the worst that can happen? They turn him/her down? If Blue Turtle's friend knows anyone (even as a slight acquaintance) in the same session who could attest to his/her non-assistance assertion, it might not hurt.

Now, the candidate number thing - times have changed. Theoretically, you are not allowed to write your candidate number at the top of the page before the exam starts or after it finishes. (In some earlier threads, I was surprised that this practice is still occurring, since there is a slight advantage - but, I digress.) I personally have not been in (or heard about) a session in which someone said as they were putting their sheets in the envelope - "OMG, I didn't put my candidate number at the top of this one! Mr/Ms Proctor, what can I do?"

This is a worse nightmare for me than usual this time, because while putting my sheets in order (and checking to make sure I had them all) for about 20 seconds at the end of one of the sessions, I "lost" 2 sheets (they were in with my scratch sheets), and so I was in major panic mode (Have I lost them? Did I forget to do those 2 parts?), and can't remember whether I finished checking for my number at the top of each page.

Oh well, only 3 more weeks of purgatory.

[Zee]

Speaking of nightmares, I had a nice one on Christmas Eve. I got a score of 3.5 on Course 5. Very disappointing.

(I think the non-integer result is what woke me up!)

[Ammie]

Super Actuary, I believe that he was refunded his exam fee. How much does that suck?

I still remember his face when he found out. Very shy guy, just walked up to me and told me, and then he just stood there.
He didn't know what to do, so I immediately placed a call to someone I knew was on his exam committee.

Because they didn't tell him right away, and he only found out because he contacted the ombudsman, it was too late to even suggest a possible re-sit. It did not count as an exam sitting for him at work.

[jedekiah]

If the SOA loses someone's exam, (a) they should admit it and (b) the candidate should pass! A policy of automatically passing a lost paper will (a) prevent the candidate from excessive complaining and/or taking any legal course of action and (b) perhaps motivate the SOA to be just a tad more careful not to lose exam papers! It boggles my mind that they could be even the slightest bit careless with the exams after we spend so much time devoting our lives to studying for them.

The candidate in question probably has major lawsuit potential given that the SOA didn't come forward and tell him anything at all until he filed for a regrade, and was fully prepared just to give him a zero rather than face the fact that they screwed up. Sick, I tell you. Why do I want to be let in to this society?

[Steve White]

Hold on. I certainly don't know all the facts about the specific case Ammie described, and admit they sound terrible.

My guess is that there was no coverup involved, that SOA knew it didn't have afternoon question 1 (assuming for this example we're dealing with a two-session written answer exam; a morning session would be equivalent), afternoon question 2, ..., afternoon question n for the candidate, without simultaneously noticing it didn't have any of the afternoon questions. Since candidates don't always answer every question, no individual question missing would raise any red flags. Now in this scenario I would have hoped that someone would have noticed in the beginning that there was no afternoon envelope at all for the candidate, or would notice after the fact that a candidate who did OK or well in the morning got 0 on every afternoon question, but I find it easier to accept that those were overlooked rather than covered up.

As for the proposed remedy, I don't like it. No remedy is going to be completely satisfactory, but passing people with no evidence that they deserve to pass doesn't seem to be the answer, especially since one of the justifications is to teach the SOA to be more careful. Despite some highly regrettable mishaps that are likely present in any human system, the SOAs handling of exam papers is quite good. Many, as a %, cases of lost papers are due to mail / courier problems, which can't (IMO) be blamed on the SOA, yet candidate is clearly blameless. Should we pass all those?

I'm not involved in the administration or scoring of any two-session exams. It strikes me that a more reasonable remedy might be to pass or fail the candidate based on the session for which you have papers (refunding exam fees to any who fail without having been scored on the entire exam). I have no information on whether this has ever been done, and if not, why not.

[Lucy]

Minerva, The CAS rules are different - at CAS proctored exams candidates are instructed to fill out their candidate number on every page BEFORE time is called to start the exam. They are also instructed to sign the envelope (certifying that they are who they claim, and they know the rules, and know they will be held to the rules) before they begin.

It seems to me that asking students to remember to sign the envelope at the end, after the adrenaline race of the exam, is just asking for trouble. Of course, you ought to remember to sign it, and of course, most people do, but every error is a biggie.

[JMO]

Now THAT idea makes more sense to me than the SOA proposal that students be given time (1/2 hour, if I recall) to read the questions before starting to write.

Maybe I should suggest this over in the Desert.

[jedekiah]

In response to Steve White's response: Coverup or no coverup, I believe that failing someone with no evidence that they deserve to fail is far, far worse than passing someone with no evidence that they deserve to pass. Yes, I know, refunding someone's exam fee isn't really "failing" them, but from the exam-taker's standpoint, having to study for an exam all over again is essentially the same thing as failing. After all, no one really cares how many times you fail along the way to your FSA.

AND, by saying that if a paper is lost in the mail as opposed to lost by the SOA then it makes less sense to pass the candidate, Steve, you are implying that somehow passing a candidate whose paper is lost is some sort of punishment to the SOA! Why, pray tell, would the SOA *want* to fail anyone without evidence? Honestly, if it were me, I wouldn't care about whose fault it was that my exam was lost, if the SOA wants to blame it on the mail system then fine. Whether I have to take it again when I knew the stuff well enough to pass would be the real issue.

What it boils down to is the question of whether someone who has studied for 4+ months for a grueling exam should be given the benefit of the doubt if an unfortunate mishap occurs. A benevolent and caring organization would give him / her that benefit of the doubt.

I'm going to say one more thing: arguing that since less than 50% of the candidates pass, it is more likely that the candidate would have failed anyway holds no water. What if two candidates' papers are lost? Should you draw lots and pass one of them? Statistics mean nothing when you're talking about real people and their lives (or lack thereof due to studying).

[E. Blackadder]

On 2002-01-05 15:21, jedekiah wrote:
... A benevolent and caring organization would ...


Can we agree that this description does not encompass the SOA?

[Steve White]

"AND, by saying that if a paper is lost in the mail as opposed to lost by the SOA then it makes less sense to pass the candidate, Steve, you are implying that somehow passing a candidate whose paper is lost is some sort of punishment to the SOA! Why, pray tell, would the SOA *want* to fail anyone without evidence?"

Where did I say anything about the SOA *wanting* to fail anyone?

I don't believe I ever described passing a candidate whose paper is lost as punishment to the SOA. I was responding your statement:

"A policy of automatically passing a lost paper will (a) prevent the candidate from excessive complaining and/or taking any legal course of action and (b) perhaps motivate the SOA to be just a tad more careful not to lose exam papers!"

and was observing that the (b) reason would not be relevant in most lost paper situations, IMO. Only you know whether (b) was intended as punishment.

"I'm going to say one more thing: arguing that since less than 50% of the candidates pass, it is more likely that the candidate would have failed anyway holds no water."

I agree completely. Has that argument made here, by anyone?

"Whether I have to take it again when I knew the stuff well enough to pass would be the real issue."

In that case, wouldn't my suggestion of looking at the available evidence (e.g., the morning paper from a two-session exam; the exam booklet from a multiple choice exam) be a more suitable method of trying to determine whether you knew the stuff well enough, rather than saying you automatically pass?

I said before there is no good solution, and I stand behind that 100%. Whether passing all such candidates is the best available solution is a closer call; I think not.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2002-01-04 09:38, Steve White wrote:
Hold on. I certainly don't know all the facts about the specific case Ammie described, and admit they sound terrible.

My guess is that there was no coverup involved, that SOA knew it didn't have afternoon question 1 (assuming for this example we're dealing with a two-session written answer exam; a morning session would be equivalent), afternoon question 2, ..., afternoon question n for the candidate, without simultaneously noticing it didn't have any of the afternoon questions. Since candidates don't always answer every question, no individual question missing would raise any red flags. Now in this scenario I would have hoped that someone would have noticed in the beginning that there was no afternoon envelope at all for the candidate, or would notice after the fact that a candidate who did OK or well in the morning got 0 on every afternoon question, but I find it easier to accept that those were overlooked rather than covered up.

As for the proposed remedy, I don't like it. No remedy is going to be completely satisfactory, but passing people with no evidence that they deserve to pass doesn't seem to be the answer, especially since one of the justifications is to teach the SOA to be more careful. Despite some highly regrettable mishaps that are likely present in any human system, the SOAs handling of exam papers is quite good. Many, as a %, cases of lost papers are due to mail / courier problems, which can't (IMO) be blamed on the SOA, yet candidate is clearly blameless. Should we pass all those?

Yes. Once the candidate turns in his paper, it is the SOA's responsibility to deliver him/her a grade. Would SOA accept as an excuse for a late exam registration/fee that the mail service lost it? I doubt it.


I'm not involved in the administration or scoring of any two-session exams. It strikes me that a more reasonable remedy might be to pass or fail the candidate based on the session for which you have papers (refunding exam fees to any who fail without having been scored on the entire exam). I have no information on whether this has ever been done, and if not, why not.


This suggestion makes sense to me too, but as a potential candidate with a lost paper, I'd rather they just pass me :smile:

[Griffin 1]

On 2002-01-06 12:51, TDA wrote:
Yes. Once the candidate turns in his paper, it is the SOA's responsibility to deliver him/her a grade. Would SOA accept as an excuse for a late exam registration/fee that the mail service lost it? I doubt it.

How is this a contradiction? The SOA in both scenarios is saying that it is not responsible for lost mail.

[E. Blackadder]

The nominal SoA rules are simple and consistent. *

Perhaps cosmic perfection is not a realistic goal, but at these prices, test shipments to the SoA ought to be with the most reliable carrier.

* The incident of the student not signing his name and getting the notary affidavit was IMO an example of poor judgment on the SoA's part.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2002-01-06 13:35, Griffin wrote:

On 2002-01-06 12:51, TDA wrote:
Yes. Once the candidate turns in his paper, it is the SOA's responsibility to deliver him/her a grade. Would SOA accept as an excuse for a late exam registration/fee that the mail service lost it? I doubt it.

How is this a contradiction? The SOA in both scenarios is saying that it is not responsible for lost mail.


Oh thank god, something else to argue with you about. You are of course right that the society is claiming no responsibility for lost mail. The difference is in who is being asked to accept the excuse, and under what circumstances. The mail service losing the exam should not be the problem of the student. The student has already fulfilled his obligation by hand delivering the exam to the society in the exam session. So why should the society force the student to accept the excuse from the society "the mail service lost it" when in fact it as far as the student should be concerned, it was the SOA that lost it.

In the second scenario, the society will not accpet that same excuse if offered by the student. Do you not agree that there is a difference?

[Griffin 1]

There is a difference only if the SOA assumes responsibility for the exam from the moment it leaves the student's hands.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2002-01-06 15:38, Griffin wrote:
There is a difference only if the SOA assumes responsibility for the exam from the moment it leaves the student's hands.


Since their proctors have the exam, I would suggest they have the responsibilty. Especially since they set up the procedures on how exams get from point A to point B.

[Steve White]

The issue is not just responsibility, but also remedy.

For example, when you buy software, the license agreement typically includes a statement that the vendor's liability is limited to refund of the purchase price. Whether such limitations are always legally enforceable may be open to question, but it is certainly common that the user may bear some risk even if the user was in no way at fault and the vendor was completely at fault.

Isn't that similar to what the SOA does with lost exam papers?

Is such an attempt to limit liability wrong for both the software vendor and the SOA, just for the SOA, or acceptable for each?

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2002-01-06 16:49, Steve White wrote:
The issue is not just responsibility, but also remedy.

For example, when you buy software, the license agreement typically includes a statement that the vendor's liability is limited to refund of the purchase price. Whether such limitations are always legally enforceable may be open to question, but it is certainly common that the user may bear some risk even if the user was in no way at fault and the vendor was completely at fault.

Isn't that similar to what the SOA does with lost exam papers?



Not that I can see. How does the SOA refund people for the time they spent studying, which is after all, the 'purchase price' of taking an exam?


Is such an attempt to limit liability wrong for both the software vendor and the SOA, just for the SOA, or acceptable for each?


There is nothing wrong with attempting to limit liability. However, in the case of the lost paper, I'm not sure how giving the student a '0' limits their liability. I think it just punishes the student for the SOA's mistake.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TDA on 2002-01-06 17:45 ]</font>

[jedekiah]

This is getting really confusing. Let me phrase it the simplest way I can - I think we're all in agreement that if said student passes, he benefits, perhaps unfairly but perhaps not, and if said student fails, he suffers, again, perhaps unfairly but perhaps not.

And, regardless of how either situation affects the SOA, I think we would also all agree that the fate of this one student has a far greater effect on the student him/herself than on the SOA. The benefitting or suffering on the student's part will pretty much dictate the overall benefitting or suffering. This would change of course if many students' exams were lost, but (thankfully) that does not happen - it's a very very small percentage of them.

So, whoever's fault it is that this happens, the question is really just this: is it worse to err on the side of more people BENEFITTING than really deserve to, or more people SUFFERING than really deserve to? It's as simple as that. The way the policy currently stands, it's the latter. I argue it should be the former. And so would a benevolent and caring organization, don't you think?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jedekiah on 2002-01-06 22:08 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jedekiah on 2002-01-06 22:15 ]</font>

[Troy McClure]

And so would a benevolent and caring organization, don't you think?

Unless that organization awards credentials, and seeks to guarantee that everybody who has that set of credentials has a certain set of skills (so as to maintain the value of the credentials), and said organization has no way to verify that this candidate has all of those skills.

[Steve White]

I hope this response is clear. To save space I'm not quoting all the background.

TDA wrote (re my suggestion that the SOA's refunding exam fees is comparable to a software vendor's refunding the purchase price): "Not that I can see. How does the SOA refund people for the time they spent studying, which is after all, the 'purchase price' of taking an exam?"

There are lots of reasons why the example isn't a great analogy, but I don't think this is one. The software vendor refunds what it was paid, but no part of any expense that the user may have incurred in the course of trying to install it. The SOA refunds what it was paid, but no part of any expense (including value of time, or actual cost of study materials) that the user may
in the course of preparation for the exam.

As an aside, the software user has presumably totally wasted those expenses. Without trying to claim this is not a tragedy for the candidate, the time invested does have some utility toward passing 6 months or a year later.

TDA wrote (in response to my post about the SOA's limiting its liability) "There is nothing wrong with attempting to limit liability. However, in the case of the lost paper, I'm not sure how giving the student a '0' limits their liability. I think it just punishes the student for the SOA's mistake."

My comments about limiting liability were with respect to the SOA's publishing its policy, available to all prospective candidates before they register, that if papers are lost, the probable result is that all that will happen is that your exam fee is returned.

In the case Ammie cited, I suggested that perhaps the candidate got a 0 when the SOA knew it didn't have the answers, but that at that time the SOA did not know it had lost answers that had in fact been submitted. I agree that a coverup, and/or giving the candidate a 0 if the SOA knew the paper had been lost would be reprehensible.

From the candidate's viewpoint, there's not much difference between the results of a 0 or "sorry, you don't pass, but here's your exam fee back". However, as a member of the E&E committees I would be ashamed if I learned a coverup had occurred and merely sad about the result when a paper gets lost and we follow our published procedures in a situation where no solution is good.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Your point is valid that a software buyer spends some time to install the software, and in fact, I had thought of that. I simply thought that the ratio of time spent installing software to time spent studying for an actuarial exam approached zero and rendered the analagy unhelpful.

Anyway, if the SOA, loses an exam I DO not think they should just automatically pass him/her but perhaps allowing a re-sit or perhaps some sort of special consideration at the next sitting, although I don't know what kind of special consideration. If not, yes, the time spent studying is useful six months later, but a lot of material will have to be relearned and practiced over those six months when it could have been spent studying for the next exam. It may also have cost the candidate a raise or study time. The bottom line for me is it just seems like the SOA could be careful enough not to lose ANY exams EVER especially since the only person to suffer is the exam taker who was not at fault.

Finally, I have never heard of the SOA losing an exam except for in this forum, so perhaps its never happened and these stories are urban legend.

[Cynic]

I agree that there is no good solution to this unfortunate situation. However, I think the SOA should try to do better than just refunding the exam fee. For example, it might want to compensate the student in question a reasonable amount of money for damage. I know that this would not make up for the loss experienced by the student, but at least it shows that the SOA does care about and acknowledge the student's pain.

On the other hand, all of this talk is based on the assumption that the SOA CARES. I'm afraid that this is too big an assumption to make.

BTW, who is Steve White?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Apparently someone on the E&E committee. Whoever they are (Education and Exams?)

Edit - less flip

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TDA on 2002-01-07 12:04 ]</font>

[Griffin 1]

On 2002-01-06 15:52, TDA wrote:
Since their proctors have the exam, I would suggest they have the responsibilty. Especially since they set up the procedures on how exams get from point A to point B.

The proctors are nothing more than volunteers, their affiliation with the SOA is usually at most membership. It's not the same as if SOA employees administer the exam.

If the SOA did give an automatic pass for lost exams, I can see a scenario, however unlikely, that a professor or librarian might proctor an exam, only to "lose" it.

[Ammie]

On 2002-01-06 23:26, TDA wrote:
Anyway, if the SOA, loses an exam I DO not think they should just automatically pass him/her but perhaps allowing a re-sit or perhaps some sort of special consideration...

It may also have cost the candidate a raise or study time...

Finally, I have never heard of the SOA losing an exam except for in this forum, so perhaps its never happened and these stories are urban legend.


A resit would have been a great idea if the candidate hadn't discovered the problem when he appealed his grade to the ombudsperson.

The candidate was not penalized on study time (his boss felt terrible), but had he passed there would have been an immediate raise involved.

No, not an urban legend (so long as you trust me to tell the truth :wink:)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ammie on 2002-01-07 00:33 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

Finally, I have never heard of the SOA losing an exam except for in this forum, so perhaps its never happened and these stories are urban legend.



I know that lost exams are NOT "urban legend", considering they once lost ALL the papers for an exam at one location. Fortunately, I had just graduated and chose to write at home that May, not at school.

There was no compensation as I remember it ... but this was what prompted them to advise people to jot down all their work in the book, even for MC exams, so they'd have SOMETHING to base a decision on if it ever happened again.

[Steve White]

"BTW, who is Steve White?"

It's my real name. I've been on E&E (yes, Education and Exam) committees almost continuously since Dec 1978; had no role for only one session. Almost all my work has been on the numeric multiple choice exams, though I was involved in the grading of the written answer part of course 150 once, and with setting written answer questions for one of the higher number exams once.

Since the mid 1990's, I've worked only on course 150 and now course 3.

I don't know how often exams are lost. I'm sure it's quite rare, but do know it has happened.

In one situation, MANY years ago, when all multiple choice papers from a site were lost in the mail, a retest was given perhaps a month later, using questions from actual unpublished past exams plus some questions that had been proposed for the current exam but were not used. That was obviously a much better solution than failing them all (and, IMO, a much better solution than passing them all). That would not be nearly as practical now, when all the course 1-4 past problems have been published.

[Actuary321]

First of all let me restate what I have stated a few times before: "Thank You, Steve. It is refreshing to have someone who is involved in the exam process who is actually willing to participate in these kinds of discussions."

I hope that those arguing with Steve understand that he is one of the only E&E committee members who openly discusses exam issues on this forum. Don't let this hold you back in your posts, but also refrain from making comments just to tick him off so he quits communicating with us.

That said, I would agree with Steve that TDA's argument with the software analogy is not a valid one. Suppose that the software in question was backup software and it failed not on installation but in use and your hard drive crashed with 3 months of cash flow testing for your company on it and you then found your backup was useless. The software company has stated that there liability is limited to the cost of the software. The actual loss is obviously much more than that.

Now let's look at a worst case senario. Suppose that the exams are lost between the SOA office and the ACT scoring facility. Then most likely not only has a few people been hurt but all those taking a particular exam. Should everyone who took that exam now pass? I would expect that precautions are taken to avoid this, such as making copies of the papers before they are sent, but if it is the case that the SOA feels there is enough of a chance that it might happen that they make copies then why would they not do this for each testing center? Is it a risk they are willing to accept because the "Class" is smaller? It wouldn't surprise me.

But the goal of the exams it to pass all those who demonstrate mastery of the material. You can argue all you want but without the answer sheet or the test booklet with information in it that can determine how the candidate answered the questions, I would have a hard time agreeing that a candidate demonstrated mastery.

[Griffin 1]

Exam papers are not copied before being sent to the SOA. There would probably be more lost papers if they tried to do that. Besides, it would defeat the purpose of a signed and sealed envelope.

[Me]

"BTW, who is Steve White?"

Though Steve answered this question one way and Actuary123 headed in the direction of what I have to say, I thought I'd still put in my 2 cents.

Steve White is a person with direct knowledge about the exam process who has for years been willing to share (the appropriate parts of) that knowledge and answer student questions. In the Desert forum he has consistently been the voice of advocacy for the students.

I, among others, greatly appreciate his participation on the bboards.

[The Drunken Actuary]

OK, fine, the software analagy is great (I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the type of software I would buy, games for my kids and simple stuff mostly). I really didn't mean to get into this much back-and-forth over this issue, mostly because I do not think the SOA loses exams very often. If they do, I hope they will make honest attempts to consider the effort that the student put into studying for the exam when they figure out what to do about it. I guess when I heard the story about giving the student a '0' and not even telling him they lost part of his exam I became jaded. And Ammie, with so many people loving you, I certainly trust you. Steve, I hope my 'arguing' with you has not caused you to abandon the forum as some have suggested.

[jedekiah]

Hear hear, I too am greatly appreciative that someone from the committee is willing to talk with us.

That being said, I still feel that there's got to be a better solution to potential problems such as these than just refunding someone's exam fee and making them wait until the next sitting to take it again. Perhaps an "emergency test" could be written like was done in the past. Even if it can't be immediately compiled from unpublished questions, how long could it possibly take for a new (perhaps shorter, if it's a question of not wanting to use up all the good question ideas on one person) test to be made?

It actually kind of bothers me that this was done in the past, but that no effort was made to do it for this recent case. Sure, it was only one person instead of many, but how does that one person feel?

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2002-01-07 13:20, jedekiah wrote:
......how long could it possibly take for a new (perhaps shorter, if it's a question of not wanting to use up all the good question ideas on one person) test to be made?


It takes them two months to grade a fill in the circle scantron test. Actually writing the tests probably takes decades. :razz:

[Actuary321]

TDA: I hope you weren't offended by my post. For some reason everytime I read one of your posts it comes across with the worst possible tone to me. Probably just how I read your posts. But I did like that last one, I was going to say something along that line too. :smile:

[The Drunken Actuary]

321,
No, I wasn't really offended. I am a little concerned that you take everything I say 'in the worst possible tone' because I do not mean things to come across that way. IRL people say I have a bit of biting sarcasm to my comments, but I only mean it to be humorous. I suppose if you can't see the smile on my face, you might think I'm being a jerk. Anyway, if you could point me to a few specific comments that you took the worst possible way, I'd like to re-read them with this perspective with the goal of toning it down a little so people will take me in the best possible way. Feel free to send me a PM on the topic so as not to clutter up this thread.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TDA on 2002-01-07 15:07 ]</font>

[Steve White]

TDA: "Steve, I hope my 'arguing' with you has not caused you to abandon the forum as some have suggested."

No, I'm here for the duration. And I haven't been offended by anything you've said in this thread.

TDA: "And Ammie, with so many people loving you, I certainly trust you."

I likewise trust Ammie (would even count myself among those "loving" her, to the extent I know her from the forum), and have not challenged many of the facts, even though I have no personal knowledge of them (SOA lost the paper; candidate was given a 0; SOA didn't acknowledge that it had lost the paper and offer refund until candidate asked for a regrading.)

I did question the use of "coverup". Just the facts above above lend themselves to interpretations (ranging from "rare honest mistake" to "typical gross incompetence") milder than "coverup", because the SOA may not have realized it lost it.

Ammie or the candidate may have information that would justify "coverup". I hope not.

I do feel bad for that candidate, and any others in similar situations.

[Cynic]

Here's a question for Steve White:

Is it possible to contest the exam results? I read somewhere that the CAS has such a procedure, but I'm not sure about the SOA. Do you know of any cases where the SOA granted a student a second review of his/her exam? Just asking for information.

[Steve White]

Cynic,

I think (but am not sure) that you can request verification that your paper was processed correctly. I do not believe there are any procedures for getting a paper regraded. (E.g., you are told you got near 0 on a question you believed you aced. You may be able to get them to verify that the two graders - it will have been graded twice if your overall score was remotely close to the pass mark - each gave you near 0 credit, but you cannot, AFAIK, get the question graded a third time.)

Long ago, meaning mid 1980's, you could get a multiple choice answer sheet hand scored to check for machine errors. I'm not sure if that's still available. I was chairman of parts 1 and 2 (later called course 100 and 110) then. We had about 5 requests per session for the two exams combined, and never found a single machine-scoring error.

In any case, inquiries should be addressed to the omnsbudsperson.

I don't really want to debate whether this is how it should be. It's how I think it is.

[anon789]

On 2002-01-07 22:19, Steve White wrote:
I think (but am not sure) that you can request verification that your paper was processed correctly. Long ago, meaning mid 1980's, you could get a multiple choice answer sheet hand scored to check for machine errors. I'm not sure if that's still available.

I believe it is. I requested and received a confirmation that my answer sheet was read correctly, as recently as 1999. And yes, I didn't request this because I got a 6. (I got a 5, but was expecting an 8 or 9).

I don't really want to debate whether this is how it should be. It's how I think it is.

Why? Are we wearing you down? Huh? Are we? Huh?
Take heart, many of us here understand that you are providing knowledgeable opinions and advice and not defending inane policies. Thanks.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

For Course 1-4, you put an answer down and it's either right or wrong. Mr. White's example above sounds more like a WA situation.
I would even speculate that all the scores in a small neighborhood of the pass mark are sent through the machine one last time. It can't possibly take long to double-check some 300 exams at 50 per minute (my estimate).

All the questions have been available for review by the whole actuarial community. Any unusual issues with the questions have been discussed and rectified.

I know of a person who misaligned his answers and questions -- he skipped an early question, but not the answer. This guy was so sure he did well, only to get a 0 or 1. He had to take it over again. It was old Course 150.

[Ammie]

I have no evidence that *screams* cover up. I do find it strange that nothing was said to the candidate before he appealed. When he appealed, he was told that he was not the only candidate that this happened to for that exam for that sitting. Perhaps bad communication is the problem here.

[Anonymous]

On 2002-01-08 00:04, Dr T Non-Fan wrote:
I know of a person who misaligned his answers and questions -- he skipped an early question, but not the answer. This guy was so sure he did well, only to get a 0 or 1. He had to take it over again. It was old Course 150.


I know of someone who had a similar problem, except her exam booklet was missing question #3, and she didn't realize it until "pencils down", so all her answers were off by one. The SOA's response was "the proctor had extra exam booklets. you should have asked for 1"...after haranguing, they agreed to refund her exam fee, and she had to retake it.

Lesson learned: check that you have all the pages as soon as they say "go", and always check that you're filling in the answer on the correct line.

[jedekiah]

The following, I swear, is a true story:

When I took the SAT in the spring of my junior year in high school, I made a similar gaff - one math section had 30 questions, then the subsequent section was verbal with 55 questions. I did questions 1-30 and 46-55 first, saving the reading comprehension questions (31-45) for last, but accidentally answered questions 31-45 in the ovals at the end of the previous math section. So when my answer sheet was scanned in, it read questions 31-45 as being omitted, and there were 15 filled-in ovals for non-existent math questions in that previous section.

I received the answer sheet back and immedately discovered what had happened. 14 of the 15 questions I had misplaced were correct. I wrote Educational Testing Service and explained all this, trying to convince them that I clearly had meant to fill in the ovals in the verbal section, since questions 31-45 on the previous math section didn't exist. But I didn't really expect them to do anything, and I was fully prepared to take the test again the following fall.

And guess what? They counted my answers! Even though the SAT has tens of thousands, maybe more, test-takers, ETS cared enough to review my individual case and use logical common sense to give me credit where credit was due. Thus, it pains me to hear that the SOA, a much, much, smaller organization, can't do the same when someone does something like transpose all the answers one bubble up when there wasn't even a question #3 in their booklet. The mistake I made on the SAT was largely my fault, but they gave me credit anyway, because they discovered my true intentions by examining the case. The mistake on the actuarial exam noted in the posting above wasn't even the student's fault, and yet the SOA still wouldn't give her credit.

This is what I meant by opening up this can of worms. It just seems that they are so hung up on procedure that they are unwilling to bend when unusual circumstances may force them to change their procedure, even when doing so is clearly the humane thing to do.

[The Drunken Actuary]

SOA has no competition. If stories like your about the SAT kept cropping up, people might start taking the ACT, or worse yet, people might abandon standardized tests altoghether, if the results weren't reliable. That's just my theory anyway. Please don't take the above comments as confrontational. :smile: :smile: :smile:

[Griffin 1]

On 2002-01-09 08:14, TDA wrote:
SOA has no competition.

They have plenty of competition. Or did you think that being an Actuary is the only thing a Math major can do?

[Actuary321]

On 2002-01-09 08:41, Griffin wrote:

On 2002-01-09 08:14, TDA wrote:
SOA has no competition.

They have plenty of competition. Or did you think that being an Actuary is the only thing a Math major can do?


Exactly, think "Big Tent". :smile:

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2002-01-09 08:41, Griffin wrote:

On 2002-01-09 08:14, TDA wrote:
SOA has no competition.

They have plenty of competition.

Who else offers exams that will allow you to become a life actuary?

[Cynic]

This is what I meant by opening up this can of worms. It just seems that they are so hung up on procedure that they are unwilling to bend when unusual circumstances may force them to change their procedure, even when doing so is clearly the humane thing to do.


"Wherever there is centralisation there is stupidity." Amen.

[Griffin 1]

On 2002-01-09 10:57, TDA wrote:
Who else offers exams that will allow you to become a life actuary?

Think a little more broadly.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2002-01-09 17:57, Griffin wrote:

On 2002-01-09 10:57, TDA wrote:
Who else offers exams that will allow you to become a life actuary?

Think a little more broadly.

I understand your point but I think mine is valid too.

[G. Ringo]

There is a difference between answering nonexistent questions, which has no explanation other than the one that Jedekiah gave, and shifting answers to existing questions. There is a remote possibility that someone could have intended those wrong answers.

[jedekiah]

Not if the candidate's test booklet was missing question #3 there isn't! =)

[G. Ringo]

Do the graders have the defective test booklet?