technical actuarial knowledge needed and consistency across exam sessions?

[Smith]

Failed again, although thought this session was easier than the Sep. 2021 one, in terms of the background topic. But I was really confused about what a difference across sessions in terms of the difficulty degree there was, and what kinds of technical actuarial knowledge would be required. Would appreciate if some tutors or buddies could kindly advise something.

As a candidate, we were given clear instructions in the exam papers that "Remember that CP3 is a test of your ability to filter information and communicate it to a particular audience. Use only information that is contained in this examination paper and the scenario material provided. Do not draw on prior knowledge of a particular market, legislation or company."

When it comes to the Sep. 2021 session, as per the examiners' report, there were quite more points/marks (c. 10-15 marks) required in the "content" section, which were not given by either the SM or the exam paper, e.g. in the explanation of experience analysis, involvement of underwriting loadings. I fully understood such information actually need to be derived / generated based on the information given by the SM and exam paper. While if we compare the session of Apr. 2022, such degree to which we need to derive / come up with the underlying ideas out of the information given by the SM and exam paper seems significantly lower than that of the Sep. 2021 one, seemingly only the explanation of what the lower PER of the Energy Fund means bears similar requirement (less than 5 marks). In another word, the task for this session seems more of sorting out the information given and then determine which is relevant, while compared with those of Sep. 2021 session, need to derive / generate more rather than just sort out and organise accordingly.

Presumably, we should assume the consistency across sessions in respect of such information derivation requirement is supposed to be literally in line with each other, right? Otherwise it seems unfair to students sit in different exam sessions. I'm not demanding the degree of difficulty across session s should be exactly same, but... just confused how should we understand the requirement to pass the exam in terms of deriving some points out of the information given by the SM and exam paper.

 

[Lindsay Smitherman]

Yes, it is inevitable that there can be some variation in the amount of technical content from question to question, and you may well find some scenarios more challenging than others. Remember that it is assumed that you understand the material across the earlier core subjects, including CP1 (Actuarial Practice), and any of this could be relevant within the scenario. For example, an understanding of CP1 content on the basics of experience analysis, underwriting and pricing will help you to communicate clearly the relevant points in the September 2021 exam. It isn’t so much about ‘deriving’ additional ideas, but allowing the knowledge you have acquired from those other subjects to help you communicate effectively the technical aspects included in any scenario.

There might be different balances between the levels of 'challenge' across the various CP3 syllabus components from paper to paper, as indeed is the case for any of the other exam subjects. For example, some CP3 papers might require more thought about the 'adequate explanations' than others, whilst some papers might require more thought about visual representations than others. Just aim to do the best you can across each of the syllabus requirements.