J
jm_kinuthia
Member
How did you find this period's diet ?
I think it was fair but time pressured as usual.
I think it was fair but time pressured as usual.
How did you find this period's diet ?
I think it was fair but time pressured as usual.
H
I think it was fair but time pressured as usual.
... which is just silly isn't it?.........What is the time-pressure thing supposed to prove?
I agree entirely DS. I remember CT5's ridiculous time pressure. Seems nothing much has changed, then.
Pass rates for the last sitting:
Exam April 2014 pass rate
CT1 69%
CT2 48%
CT3 59%
CT4 56%
CT5 52%
CT6 60%
CT7 66%
CT8 57%
CA1 43%
ST7 34%
ST8 41%
SA3 45%
That's 48 people out of every 100 people sitting CT5 failed!
How can this be justified?
What do you reckon the ideal pass rate should be?
I will give you something as food for thought ...
For CFA, average pass rate for the last decade has been 46% (with this being 42% if you consider Level 1 only) [Source: CFA Institute]
For CIMA, UK pass rates range between 40 - 60% [Source: CIMA]
For ACCA, the pass rates range between 40 - 53% for paper based exams on fundamental papers. [Source: ACCA]
I hope you are not thinking of pass rates for professional exams to be at levels close to university degree exams!!
Time pressures are not unique to actuarial exams (or even exams for that matter).
You need a fast pace but I think it's possible to finish the complete paper in time allotted, and you only need to do a little more than half to pass.
It's not enough to just sign up for the exam and show up.
Would you be happy going to a financial professional with your money and trusting their advice knowing that they got half of their "financial arithmetic" wrong?
If I remember correctly Acted claims higher pass rates for those who purchase their products, but I don't remember where the statistics are. Purchasing additional study material may be regarded as more preparation so higher pass rates are reasonable, but again this on its own is not an indication of a well prepared student, or even one who meets the required passing standard
You clearly didn't get it.
Sorry pal![]()
*PERSONAL OPINION ALERT*
I think the pass rates are fine. As bapan highlights, they are not markedly out of line with other professions, and all of the people I haven known who put in the effort and are dedicated to passing the exams get through them reasonably quickly, with perhaps one or two fails. It's one of the jobs of a profession to satisfy itself that a candidate has enough of the required skills and knowledge in order to be effective in the field. And, as much as people might not like it, the profession gets to decide where that bar sits.
If you don't like it, then there are only really two things you can do. Firstly, you can raise it with the profession; moaning on these forums won't really get you very far, even if it makes you feel better. You need to go direct to the examination teams.
Secondly, if you feel mistreated and are so unhappy with the profession, there are plenty of similar roles which don't require sitting actuarial exams. You can be a quant, or a CFA, or a risk analyst, and any existing exam passes and experience you've gained to date will stand in your favour. It's not that difficult to leave the profession, I know a couple of people who have done so and now have very successful careers in totally different fields.
But, like my warning above says, this is all personal opinion. Feel free to disagree.
Thanks for your opinion.
Could you indicate which fields the two people you know moved to? Thanks.
One is now the technology director for a startup company in London, and the other is working in the strategy department for a major bank.
That's 48 people out of every 100 people sitting CT5 failed!
How can this be justified?
I disagree with this. I don’t think that after studying CT5, first sitting wise, for less than 6 months you can complete the whole paper. You may pass, but complete the whole paper, I think not.