The Actuaries webpage quite clearly states: The following calculators ONLY are permitted: * Casio FX85 (with or without any suffix) * Hewlett Packard HP9S * Hewlett Packard HP 12C (with or without any suffix) * Sharp EL531 (with or without any suffix) * Texas Instruments BA II Plus (with or without any suffix) * Texas Instruments TI-30 (with or without any suffix) So why then did the invigilator get me all stressed out before the exam by telling me she didn't think my calculator was ok? It is quite clearly a Casio FX85WA. I practically had to explain what a suffix was! Has anyone else found this to be a problem?
Yes, I think you could, but ONLY in, say, (I always forget the new numbers!) - 102,103,104,105,106,109 You could easily buy a very good programmable and have it preset to solve, for instance, black scholes, or matrix inversion, or move things from annual to daily or whatever at the click of a button. Some of them also do some statistical stuff more than others. BUT you'd have to go through all the effort of pre-programming the thing (built in functions aside). Since the yellow book superseded the green one, and all the little formulae got added into the yellow book, I'd say it wouldn't help you sufficiently so long as you have to show intermediate steps to get full marks (which I always thought you had to anyway). Also you're supposed to clear your memory at the start of the exam, which would wipe these programs, but clearly the invigilators don't know how to do that (seeing as they had issues with fraggle's suffix). So, yes, it might get you one or two marks. that's not enough to pass a bad student; but might get an FA through to a pass. In the early exams ONLY. And if you're lucky.
Getting away from the Maths stuff, you could also store reams of text in a decent programmable calculator, such as proofs or crib lists for CA1 etc. So I think it's sensible that they have allowed more basic calculators.
Perhaps the rule was no calculators that could store text, but then the examiners may have felt that invigilators would probably not be able to enforce the rule properly (along with clearing memory etc...) I think even myself would take a few minutes to check a unfamiliar calculator to see it's capabilities, never mind someone who doesn't know what a suffix is. I was upset about it because of the loss of certain functions, eg normal distribution, integration, algebraic substitution and so on. I feel that wasting time interpolating from normal tables in a CA1 or ST exam is not warranted. I'm sure those with matrix functions on their old calculator would miss these for CT4 exams. But perhaps it would increase the credibility of the qualification marginally. And while being a nuisance, it probably wont make a difference in selecting who can qualify or not. The biggest fault I have with it, is that they should have spent more effort in selecting the calculators, but it's already spilt milk.
nope. no problem at all. in fact the invigilators hardly check the calculators. In 4 exams I had, only 1 checked.
Mine were checked. I've heard of some enterprising students replacing the case of calculators to get around the rule. The Casios have the same layout I think - lets them sove matricies and numerical integration.
