(Opinion) The mark system for Case Study is massively flawed

Just wanting to throw this out there to get other people's thoughts on it now that we've had a bit of time to decompress from the last sittings.

To clarify as well for transparency, this isn't a moan because I think I've failed Case or that it causes any disadvantages. I think I did okay but hardly spectacular, and of course the exam is the same for everyone each sitting.

Regardless, I just don't personally think Case ends up being a test of enough relevant competencies. The way to pass it is to type as quickly as possible and essentially repeat as much as possible back to the 'client' from the new exhibits provided in the exam.

Look at any model answer for R1 for example, and about 2/3s of it are just repeating the information given to you. The bulk of R2 and R3 will be general points that could be applied to any client, with just a handful of specific ones.

The issue for this is that you get the same number of marks for repeating the revenue increase as you do for finding a reason that actually drove that. You get the same number of marks for 'well all these assumptions might change because forecasts hard' and 'inflation is a thing' as for example identifying a specific number that looks strange and using historic figures to support that conclusion.

I get you can't pass just from reformatfing and repeating stuff from the new exhibits/prepopulated spreadsheets alone, but we still end up in a situation where I feel the majority of marks are awarded for simply putting things that would add no value for a client in real life.

It's mainly because of the insane time pressure, which means the best choice is just to go for the simple marks for things that require no thought and will apply to 99% of situations, and then spend whatever alloted time you have left to maybe say a couple things that could actually make your report worth a fee.

There's also no punishment if any of the brain dead points are completely irrelevant, or even just wrong, beyond the wasted time writing them.

This all directly conflicts with the justification for time pressure being about identifying the most relevant things to say. What are the most valuable things to say in real-life go to the back of the priority queue. There's no negative marking for a scattergun approach spitting out some paragraphs that are a waste of everyone's time.

I think having a case study that requires us to study and understand a specific company and industry for an exam is a great idea that clearly overall is very relevant to what we do. I just think the execution takes away from that.