MGN
07-07-2009, 06:26 PM
This is fun.
So on this one, candidate 236 got .5 out of 2 and I think that makes sense. I'm guessing the .5 was for part b because none of the others are well explained or really make sense.
882, on the other hand, got 1 point, and I think this could be argued.
For part a, his answer is very close to the sample answer and doesn't seem to miss anything. +.5
Part b, it seems like he should get at least .25. He says "when there is a major growth in policy selling", which despite the awkward wording is close to the sample answer, though he does not say anything about the resultant shift in average accident date, which is important. +.25
Part c is tougher, he says "When there is a major change in economic environment because sometimes losses tend to emerge on a calendar year basis after, for example, news emerges about asbestos danger." The sample answer says something about changes in the social and legal climate causing severity to correlate more with report date. He doesn't quite say that it can cause severity to correlate with report date, but has the general idea right. I'd say +.25 here too.
For part d, he says "if there is a major change in reporting patterns...claim counts will distort projections." This is not what the sample answers provide, but it seems correct to me. If there's been a change in the claim reporting pattern but the exact nature of it is unknown, using earned exposures seems much wiser than using claim counts. +.5 if I'm grading it.
So I don't know, it's possible that the last question got 0 pts and the middle two got .25 each. If that's the case, I'd say he could have a case for an appeal. Of course, if he got his scoresheet and saw "50-74%", three months of waiting to see the sample solution would likely dull his memory of it well past the point where that's possible.
On the other hand, it could be that he got .5 for the last one but 0 for the middle two, in which case the rubrick must have not been assigning partial credit, period, because he seems to have the right idea for those but the rationale is poor in both cases.
Thoughts?
So on this one, candidate 236 got .5 out of 2 and I think that makes sense. I'm guessing the .5 was for part b because none of the others are well explained or really make sense.
882, on the other hand, got 1 point, and I think this could be argued.
For part a, his answer is very close to the sample answer and doesn't seem to miss anything. +.5
Part b, it seems like he should get at least .25. He says "when there is a major growth in policy selling", which despite the awkward wording is close to the sample answer, though he does not say anything about the resultant shift in average accident date, which is important. +.25
Part c is tougher, he says "When there is a major change in economic environment because sometimes losses tend to emerge on a calendar year basis after, for example, news emerges about asbestos danger." The sample answer says something about changes in the social and legal climate causing severity to correlate more with report date. He doesn't quite say that it can cause severity to correlate with report date, but has the general idea right. I'd say +.25 here too.
For part d, he says "if there is a major change in reporting patterns...claim counts will distort projections." This is not what the sample answers provide, but it seems correct to me. If there's been a change in the claim reporting pattern but the exact nature of it is unknown, using earned exposures seems much wiser than using claim counts. +.5 if I'm grading it.
So I don't know, it's possible that the last question got 0 pts and the middle two got .25 each. If that's the case, I'd say he could have a case for an appeal. Of course, if he got his scoresheet and saw "50-74%", three months of waiting to see the sample solution would likely dull his memory of it well past the point where that's possible.
On the other hand, it could be that he got .5 for the last one but 0 for the middle two, in which case the rubrick must have not been assigning partial credit, period, because he seems to have the right idea for those but the rationale is poor in both cases.
Thoughts?