I agree with LastHurdles that CA3 is mostly pot luck. It all depends on how you understand and interpret the question. If you get that bit wrong ironically no matter how good your Communication skills are you will probably fail.
I passed second time round. I spent the vast majority of my time going through each and every available past paper and reading and interpreting the question. I grouped papers into categories and got a reasonable sense of the different types of questions asked and the typical responses required. This helped me in the actual exam as I was quickly able to identify what the examiners were looking for in the final answer.
However the fact that I mostly avoided spending time improving my communication skills and focused on understanding and interpreting questions, suggests CA3 is not fit for purpose to me.
I 100% agree! I've just failed this exam and I think that's a joke. If I look at how the marks are allocated then, in my opinion, there's just no way I could have failed. The mark allocation that we're told about in the CA3 guide rewards a LOT outside of the actual accuracy of the content of your answer. Or so it seems, unless I haven't understood the Institute's underlying intentions . I mean, I don't think they make it very clear that marks for something like "points which are logically grouped into sections and follow a logical order" are dependent on correct, accurate content.
And if this IS the case - i.e. if this content accuracy really IS what is primarily required before the examiners can award the bulk of the marks for the contents sections, then you'd have to feel like this exam isn't primarily about communications. And let me give an example. I struggled in the last exam to understand what was required for the slides. Specifically, I couldn't figure out how to formulate the simple rules they required for determining annuity prices. I've never worked in pensions and besides that, who the heck ever requires "simple rules" like this? I just don't believe this is a thing you see in practice all that much. It's asking you step outside the comfort zone of your work experience and then further consider stuff outside of the normal sphere of things that actuaries would do there!?! Wow.
The result was that I ended up rushing my last slides, making mistakes as I linked my charts to Excel, and had to fit in an explanation in my oral as to why my slides weren't correct - not professional. At work, there would be ample opportunity in general to revise things, to get your work reviewed and to validate your results. You'd then be able to really focus on how to communicate everything!
I'm really very disappointed! I'm often told I communicate issues really well at work and, indeed, I really do take pride in how I communicate and make a concerted effort to appreciate who my audience is. In any case, it's not as if the institute doesn't drum that into our brains from CA1 and onward, so I think it's hardly surprising that most of us are probably very aware of this. CA3 is one big, huge, extraordinary FAIL!
