Investigation into possible plagiarism

I'm in two minds, not sure if I should submit evidence or not?

 

I too am in this situation. I have been accused of plagiarising from the Core Reading.

The more I have looked into this issue, the angrier I have become. I have received little to no communication from the IFOA, only a basic "you will not get any info out of us" email response to which I believe they are sending to every student who asks for additional information.

I have looked through many past exam paper questions and examiner's reports and have found various examples where the solution provided is an exact copy and paste from the Core Reading. I am so confused how the IFOA can produce this in each exam sitting as the optimal solution that is needed to gain maximum marks, and yet can then turn around and accuse students of plagiarising if they have similar terms in their answer?

If anyone has any extra advice on what evidence we should produce, then that would be much appreciated! Thanks

 

How about an email to the IFoA General Counsel copying in the "putting things right" email address and IFoA President. Ask politely yet directly if he/she, as IFoA General Counsel and a SRA regulated solicitor, is satisfied with the approach taken that appears contrary to natural justice and the presumption of innocence. State you require a substantive response on this within 7 days. Asking them to personally intervene and order the full cancellation of this approach if they are not satisfied. This would be more effective if it had lots of people signing it and a copy shared with the media. There are many ways to skin a cat my friends.

 

What about the guidance issued on 17 April in the FAQs which states that notes were permitted even just as a reference point? Are we allowed to include this as evidence? The March 2020 assessment regulation still states that all exams were located in an exam centre and has many other points which are not true as they are not specific to online exams, so t\I think this guidance alone is not appropriate to how we were made to sit the April exams

 

The FAQ should not be referred to only the assessment regulation (March 2020) is what the case should be based on. The assessment regulations in july were updated to state notes should be used for reference. The march one did not. The copy and paste was also not in the march document.

 

It is a very difficult one to approach. Firstly, what does their letter actually say? Does it state that you are being accused of plagiarism and definitively show what part of your script has been highlighted? Does it show a comparison of your answer with that of the relevant document they allege you have plagiarised from? If they are alleging you have copied from a past examiner report then is that report publically available (one referenced earlier was from 1995)?

I would also caveat that you don't feel able to provide a full response as you have not been availed of all of the facts. The IFoA have a "putting things right" complaint process - I would certainly be considering raising a complaint via this avenue.

The exams were open book which means that, by definition, you can refer to notes (quote exactly what the IFoA define by open book as per their FAQ document online and also the exam regulations document). If you have complied with the spirit and letter of these documents then I would state that you believe you have done so.

I'd also illustrate using a relevant example, for example, consider what is meant by an equity:

I would quote the core reading/Acted definition.
I would then quote an online resource or two (from a credible website).

I would then comment how it's perfectly reasonable that there are similarities between the definitions - this is to be expected as there are certain terms that have a universal meaning!

Definitely speak to your employer/actuaries in your office to get a steer from them - there may be more than one person affected at your organisation and your employer may be preparing a statement to send to the IFoA.

The above are just my thoughts, and how I would approach the situation however there are many ways to approach this so please speak to people you trust. I don't want to be accused by any poster of providing this information in anything other than good faith. All the best - I think you will have a lot of support from actuaries and your employers over what seems an untenable position from the IFoA.

 

Leaking things to the media can damage personal brand etc so it's a course of action that isn't without merit but has to be thought through very. ver carefully - certainly not as blase as this poster appears to be. It should be a very last resort rather than a "go to". I've posted my thoughts above but please take a considered, sensible approach - this will help to clearly demonstrate how ridiculous the IFoA's current approach is.

 

ProudActuary's approach will not work with IFoA. All it will achieve is you waste another few weeks of worrying and receive a letter fobbing you off after you all spent that time writing to them. Also it is not advisable to start justifying your exam answers - that can be considered 'evidence' and it can be used against you. Perhaps contact human rights organisations with your concerns about natural justice.

 

That sounds threatening. The only brand damaged by this matter going into the media is IFoA.

 

It is a very difficult one to approach. Firstly, what does their letter actually say?

It states they are investigating into possible plagiarism and breaches of the assessment regulations. Then states where they believe the exam submission contains content from e.g. Acted notes, Core reading

Then it states the investigation will consider a breach of the Assessment regulation (march 2020). To see if there are any breaches.

Does it state that you are being accused of plagiarism and definitively show what part of your script has been highlighted? No

Does it show a comparison of your answer with that of the relevant document they allege you have plagiarised from? No it doesn’t just mentions the sources


If they are alleging you have copied from a past examiner report then is that report publicly available (one referenced earlier was from 1995)?

I don’t believe that one is, but things like Acted notes doesn’t say specifically what has being taken.

The exams were open book which means that, by definition, you can refer to notes (quote exactly what the IFoA define by open book as per their FAQ document online and also the exam regulations document). If you have complied with the spirit and letter of these documents then I would state that you believe you have done so.

Yes I think it should the correct avenue should considering an argument against the Assessment Regulation march 2020.

 

It might be easier if people upload their letters here, best to redact for personal information of course....

 

If they are alleging you have copied from a past examiner report then is that report publicly available (one referenced earlier was from 1995)?

Just in addition to the response above, I know of cases where they are stating that past examiners reports - much more recent than 2005 and which are available on the institutes website - were used.

I believe the same principle applies though that these were allowed to be part of a student's notes

 

Hi Admin,
Can you expand on your point that April wasn't really open book and what you think is the difference between the April regs and Sept regs?

Thank you.

 

Not sure if this provides any help to the cause of replying to the IFoA for those who have received these letters but in a past examiner's report (ST7 Sept 2012), the examiner has made the comment:

"Candidates should aim to be able to give near exact glossary definitions as incoherent or
vague descriptions will be marked harshly. If candidates struggle to remember definitions
verbatim they should take the time to properly analyse the glossary definition to ensure
they have fully absorbed all the nuances of the definition."

This shows that word-for-word learning is/was encouraged so being able to recite core reading shouldn't be punished in my mind.

 

For people who did receive this letters, is it definitions and part of answers or only definitions? Because I wonder if their issue is only part of answers being equal to past exams etc. Even then a fully prepared student who has practice lots of papers may simply recall a good point that he/she read before.

 

Not impacted myself, but am pretty upset for all who are, I hope it gets sorted out for you asap. It's a very stressful situation.

Link to the March Regulations (Not easy to find)
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system...Assessment_Regulations_FellAssoc_202003_0.pdf
Section 7d – Permitted Materials Online

62. Candidates are allowed the use their own Formulae and Table books during the examination. Personal course notes are permitted other than those which include etemplates and any electronic files which contain pre-existing calculations which are prohibited.


and the July ones (linked from Sept FAQ)
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system...A_Assessment_Regulations_FellAssoc_202007.pdf

 

Seeing as I’m happy to acknowledge my plagiarism.
I copied definitions from glossary word for word (as I wanted those marks) and in sept 2013 paper I had 4 bullet points which were similar to an answer in that paper. The question was general with no particular case study and it was a repeat question. I knew it was from a mark scheme so was actually relieved when I saw it and knew it was in my notes but specifically didn’t know which one. And one question I use an acted mock paper mark scheme to develop my answer so not verbatim but around 70% of what they were saying. Which tbh were great points so props to whoever did develop those mocks.

 

Thank you for your answer!
I see, and they highlighted both the definitions and the bullet points then?

 

Hi rstokes, they didn’t highlight anything just mentioned 2005, 2013 examiners reports, acted, core reading

I dug out and compared my the submission against the relevant mentioned ones. Core reading was difficult as who knows but I’m assuming it was definitions. Acted notes is also difficult so again I’m making an assumption on the areas where I feel are from their notes.