ST/SA vs. CA

hi smart people =) I am trying to decide whether I should work towards becoming an Associate or fellowship..... By the look of it fellowship is only an additional of 3 papers on top of Associate and it is a more valuable qualifcation. But how much harder are the ST/SA exams comparing to say CA1??? Anyone?

Thanks!!

 

By my understanding CA1 is not hard but voluminous. ST subjects vary in terms of difficulty and pound for pound when looking at the pass rates they are on average harder than CA1

 

why not go for both?

 

I also asked the question earlier about differences b/t associate and fellow, more exams for fellowship yes, but in terms of responsibilities/salaries, anyone?

Thanks.

 

Things may have changed by now but a long time ago I used to work somewhere were basically you were not really considered a proper actuary unless you had an FIA, even if you were very useful and knowledgable in the department otherwise. I think this associate thing and other certificates are new things. Nice though, as previously it was a bit of an FIA or nothing mentality in some places.

 

Sound advice from Darrell.

Another factor is what does your employer expect? Is there a precedent at your company? Some expect you to go the whole way and don't really accept Associate as an end.

Just keep moving forward for now

 

I reckon the STs aren't harder than the previous exams, and the SA is certainly much more useful in my day to day work than the earlier exams. The lower pass mark is probably due to the increased work load you'd expect as you accumulate experience (so reducing the time/energy/inclination to study). Just taking the SA for the first time though so don't want to get too confident!

One caveat however. I can't imagine anyone actually passing the SA subject in an area they don't work day to day. It's just too much based on real understanding. Bookwork isn't enough. But if you've years of experience in the field I can't see how passing 2 related STs and the SA would cause too much difficulty based on those I've seen sail through them.

Go for the big one!

 

I'm not so sure. Many students quit the career at the CA1/ST stage and the proportion passing the exams drops a fair bit at that point too.

It can certainly be done. I know a small handful of people that have passed the SA subject and work in an entirely different area (they just took the other one because it interested them more - ah, what job satisfaction!). But I agree, if you work in the area, it must be a big help.

 

SA are harder for non-uk students.
There are different so some people will find them easier and other not so much.
I don't suppose the subjectivity of the later ones help much but then the marks are probably just more closely bunched.

 

STs dropouts

This is apparently true, but I find it a bit difficult to understand. From what I can tell STs are technically less difficult than the CTs, and half the size and similar in style to CA1, so I can't see why a well prepared ST student would struggle if they've passed the earlier exams. (And apparently the pass mark for an ST is lower than CA1 and CTs too.)

Do most people taking STs take one at a time though? I think alot of people seem to take two together, or take one with an SA or something, which could stretch you quite thinly I think.

 

STs technically less difficult than CTs? Well I'm not so sure. If you mean 'mathematically' less difficult, then I think you're right, but if you mean easier to understand, then no. STs are more demanding in terms of working out what the examiners are after and how to apply your knowledge. CTs have an answer and that's it (he says, generalising awfully).

I would have thought most take one or two STs at a time. Or one ST, then the ST/SA combo.

 

2279 (out of ~12,370 unique students) have passed 2 STs and 1 SA since April 2005 and of those 5 have done it in one go, 668 (29.3%) over 2 sittings. The remaining 1606 (70.5%) one at a time. The average travel time for this combo of passes is 4.047 sessions, but if you drop the bottom 25% the avg is 3.2 sessions.

(So it looks like if you're capable (as we all are ) completing the Fellowship can be done rather quickly.)

796 students have passed exactly 1 ST and 1 SA. Of those, 100 (12.6%) in one sitting. Avg travel time is 3.065 sessions. Drops to 2.23 sans bottom quarter.

And 655 have exactly 2 STs, with 74 (11.3%) in one session. Travel time: 2.992/2.240.

If people do indeed attempt 2 of the uppers in one sitting then they fail a lot. But I think the data points more to a strong majority simply doing it one at a time.... (maybe after initially trying out two and receiving the right medicine for such "folly"?)

 

STs/SA vs CA

I'm loving the stats from zhin - they reinforces my decision to attempt just one ST in April anyhow, which is nice

Based on the one STs i've read (which is just one (ST7), so admittedly not much of a sample), they're certainly technically easier (i.e. mathematically less difficult) than CTs, so its mainly a test of interpreting the question and applying the material, similarly to CA1. So my point was really that since the STs are technially less difficult than CTs, and non-technically easier than STs (since its a similar kind of test, of about half the volume of material), then if you've already passed the CTs and CA1, then I would conclude that you've proved you're fully equipped to pass the STs, and therefore say that there's little excuse for dropping out at that stage.

However, since the evidence apparently shows that plenty of people do drop out at this stage, i'm obviously missing something. The increased responsibility and workload etc would explain some of the drop outs though, but I don't think all of them.

 

From your experience did you really have to put in more time into preparation for SA rather than ST? The Institute points out that SA demands more study time, which would imply it is more difficult to pass SA than ST.

 

The problem with SA (or at least SA3 (general insurance)) seems to be that they can ask almost anything - from the course notes, from ST7, ST8, giro papers, or anything they feel like. Consequently, there is a fair degree of luck involved as to whether the exam questions happen to cover stuff you are familiar with. So studying for this paper is pretty open ended - you could study for 50 hours and pass, or 200 hours and fail.

I just sat ST8, having sat ST7 at the previous sitting, and will sit SA3 next time, but in hindsight I wish I'd had a go at SA3 this time (along with ST8), as I think I would have had half a chance of passing without spending a great deal of time on it

 

So pretty much if you cover ST series then doing SA is not a problem but you wouldn't do SA before doing STs?

 

I don't understand why anyone would stop at associate. 2ST and a SA are not that bad at all. I found ST exams are quite easy to learn. The flash cards worked a treat.

SAs are a bit of a lottery. There are so much to prepare but the exams only cover a very small area. I did SA5 which is not directly related to what I do. I find it ok. My normal interest in the workings of financial markets was able to carry me through.

Sometime too much experience can work against you.

 

I don't think its quite that clear cut, but that's pretty much what I think, yes.

For general insurance, my understanding is that SA3 (which i'm just about to start studying) assumes knowledge of ST7 and ST8, and I think (but I haven't seen many past papers) the exams regulary cover this material, so it would seem much more sensible to do SA3 after, or alongside the STs. That's certainly the conventional approach, but i'm sure some people manage to do things the other way round

(I have no idea of the same applies for life, pensions or investment STs/SAs though)