The Validity of the Institute's Marking Procedures: Addressing Concerns and Clarifying Misunderstandings

The Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICAI) is legally empowered to revise marks, as stated in section 39(2) of the Chartered Accountant (CA) Regulations 1988. This authority is not merely an idle lease but a strategic tool to align with larger educational and professional goals, extending beyond personal futures. The method by which marks are revised may appear stringent, but the outcomes achieved align with rigorous standards, such as the percentile criteria in entrance exams like CAT for MBA admissions in India.

Recently, a CA student noticed that their marks were revised upwards by 15 points, which perhaps solves the mystery of why there might be concerns surrounding ICAI#39;s marking process. For those who might be skeptical, it is important to underscore that the approval processes in such an institution serve a higher purpose rather than personal gain.

A Personal Story of Mark Revision: Unraveling the Process

I, a candidate who had participated in the final examination of November 2017, discovered a discrepancy in my final marks. Initially, my aggregation stood at 391, with Group 1 scoring 208 marks and Group 2 183. However, a more detailed look at the papers revealed a potential for extra credits.

Group 2 Paper Evaluation

Upon requesting certified copies of my ISCA paper, I received the document with an initial award of 33 marks, which later increased to 35 marks, reflecting an additional 2 marks on my marksheet.

Verification and Further Revisions

Since I also requested the verification of Cost, DT, and IDT papers, my marked paper for ISCA was returned, and I was informed of the revision in my marks from 32 to 35. A detailed breakdown of the marks:

Cost: Corrected from 57 to 56, technically recording 551 incorrectly on the answer sheet DT: Corrected from 39 to 32 IDT: Stayed at 50, as it was correctly marked

After the re-evaluation, my updated scores were:

Cost: 56 DT: 32 IDT: 50 Total Group 2: 171, inclusive of ISCA marking

Summary: The Discrepancy Explained

Initially, my Group 2 score was 171, but the revised marksheet showed 186, reflecting an additional 15 marks. It is clear that the difference lies in the verification and corrections made by the scrutiny committee. This process ensures accuracy and fairness in the marking system.

Conclusion: Trusting the System

As a CA student, it is important to embrace the transparent processes and correction mechanisms in place. Trust in the systems built to ensure academic integrity often leads to greater overall satisfaction in the educational journey.