Banned terms, words

[almost_there]

It would help enormously if we knew what words, terms that CA3 examiners consider off-limits to non-actuaries. Let me suggest a few that I'm never sure of:

Assumptions, basis, conversely, actuarial, valuation, economy, economic, financial markets, mortality, longevity, persistency, equity, shares, bonds, gilts, assets, liabilities, solvency, projection, factors, ....

 

[bystander]

Firstly there is no set list. You start by considering who you are addressing and what they may be expected to know. You can use technical terms so long as you define them. I don't think a word like assumption is banned. I think that is in common usage anyhow. Step back and think if you were a non actuarial graduate would you understand? I think that's a good rule of thumb. A good idea is to develop a back up list of alternatives. Eg probability perhaps chance. Solvency - able to cover payments due. You really do have to use your judgment. Perhaps a more definite no no is avoid abbreviations. Not least because sometimes they have different meanings - a light hearted example for you AA Alcoholics Anonymous or Automobile Associaton!

 

[David Wilmot]

I agree wholeheartedy with bystander - they key is to consider the perspective of the recipient and to simplify language wherever possible.
I'd add that the syllabus says you can assume the recipient has "some level of business knowledge" and, as such, although actuarial language should be simplified, more general financial terms are likely to be acceptable (e.g. "shares in company" "the economy").

 

[almost_there]

How can the marking for this exam be consistent and fair without hard and fast rules on these things? Ultimately it's not our opinion that counts on what jargon is. We don't mark our own exam...

 

[David Wilmot]

How can the marking for this exam be consistent and fair without hard and fast rules on these things?

Unfortunately, the real world isn't so easy in that there aren't hard & fast rules for everything. In our professional lives judgements must be made without having a rule book to hand. Communication is one such area where we are required to apply complex judgments that can't be distilled into a series of simple rules. This is why, currently, computers can't answer CA3 exam questions!

You need to use your judgment... the key question to ask is... do you think, under the particular circumstances of the question, that a particular term or phrase:
- would (or would not) be understood by the recipient(s) - 'the who'
- could (or could not) be simplified in order to make it easier for the recipient(s) to understand the communication.

One purpose of the CA3 exam is to test whether each candidate can distinguish between what is, and what is not, actuarial jargon. Another is to test each candidate's ability to simplify language, whilst still meeting the objectives in communicating. The CA3 marking schedule isn't black & white - the more complex the language you use, the more difficult the recipient(s) will find it to understand, so the lower the marks awarded.

So, the bottom line is, to minimise risk in the CA3 exam, keep your language as simple as possible - whilst still answering 'the why'.

OK???

 

[bystander]

Fairness comes from being at least dual blind marked as with all our exams. And, I think there are also lay assistant examiners ie some markers in this subject aren't qualified actuaries. You have to accept the reality is in professional life you won't always be talking to fellow actuaries and have to be flexible in speech and written work. Yes, it's not easy but it's a vital skill

 

[almost_there]

Thanks. It would be handy to see example presentations / letters of what got passed and what didn't...

 

[almost_there]

OK so just got an assignment marked by acted and I lost marks, for writing a memo to my actuarial manager, for using the words "premiums" and "lump sum" as these are jargon apparently?!?!?

• So there does appear to be a list of jargon... why aren't we told what it is?
• When writing to an actuary manager we have to write as for a non-actuary?

I've had enough of all this.

 

[almost_there]

You need to use your judgment... the key question to ask is... do you think, under the particular circumstances of the question, that a particular term or phrase:
- would (or would not) be understood by the recipient(s) - 'the who'
- could (or could not) be simplified in order to make it easier for the recipient(s) to understand the communication.

I certainly did that and thought an actuary manager would be familiar with the terms premium and lump-sum.

 

[almost_there]

Firstly there is no set list.

There is. The marker claimed words like lump-sum and premiums were considered jargon and penalised in CA3 mark schemes.

If there is a genuine effort to educate and improve pass rates, then please reveal the jargon list. Otherwise we're throwing darts at a dart board that has no numbers on it & wondering why our score isn't good enough?

 

[almost_there]

In one mock exam solution, acted say premiums is acceptable for an accountants magazine... so why would an actuarial manager not get it?

 

[almost_there]

Also what about those ridiculous comments by acted sometimes that we are not there to 'educate' the audience. Well, yes we are, otherwise what's the point of the presentation? Why is it so wrong to make a friendly definition of say Net Present Value (NPV) as "Value today" then refer to it as NPV in the rest of the presentation etc? As sometimes acted don't mind us defining something like Transfer Value say and using TV for the rest of the presentation.

 

[Anacts]

I've had enough of all this.

Don't give up. It does all feel a bit artificial at times but you can get the hang of it. It's best to err on the side of caution, even if sometimes you might personally feel a word is OK. Defining things can sometimes work but if the definition isn't easy to understand and you then use this new phrase lots of times - a phrase that the reader isn't familiar with - then you can see how/why it might be confusing for them. "Value today" could mean many things in itself - eg the value in the shop, the value allowing for future interest etc etc, so I'm not sure your example works well.
Best of luck

 

[almost_there]

Acted are presenting two contradictory teachings to us and this is unacceptable.

On one hand they say use your judgement, consider what terms the recipient described in the question would understand.
On the other hand they say just pitch it for the lowest common denominator, regardless of who you write to, use no jargon whatsoever to be on the safe side.

Pursue the former and they can do you for jargon. Pursue the latter and they can do you for lacking sufficient detail, not enough technical content etc.

 

[Anacts]

one thing is for sure - it's a bit subjective. But I think you're more likely to come unstuck if you make it too complicated than too simple - so I reckon it's best to keep it as simple as possible - just like me

 

[almost_there]

They need to decide what they're teaching. If it's the "no jargon at all" version, then an obvious way to improve pass rates would be to compile a list of terms to avoid, so that we know what gets penalised. Yet they won't do this & won't explain themselves why terms like shares or economy are fine but premium or lump-sum are not.

There we go acted. An easy way to get the pass rates up: a jargon list, with a column next to it of alternative ways to say it.

 

[almost_there]

Even the word actuarial has been classed as jargon by an acted marker. This despite you presenting yourself on the opening slide as an actuary working for an actuarial department etc. yet stating "this is an actuarial calculation" would cause huge confusion apparently... lol

 

[bystander]

Regarding the scenario of an actuary speaking with an actuarial audience, could it not be that in using the word actuarial it's not jargon, but perceivable by the audience as being condescending. In that scenario, it may be that simply saying 'I have performed a calculation, 'or 'I calculated that?' I'm just trying to offer you an alternative. So perhaps a mark is being deducted for 'feel/tone'. It's really difficult to categorise every deduction that they feel appropriate, otherwise your feedback may be too long to digest. Overall, on this one did you get a 'pass'? If not, I doubt this was the make or break.
Any help?
I know you have queried premium before so just a story for you rather than a Ca3 lesson. I worked for someone who every time I wrote or said premium, would come back with 'what premium? Single, annualised, gross, office, and if you said net he would say net of what, tax, reassurance, expenses. Drove me insane for ages. But the point was it was going to a board so precision was crucial to give clarity and not lead to misinterpreting attaching numbers.

 

[almost_there]

Hi bystander. Thanks for the tips. The context here I was referring to there was not to an actuarial audience btw. So they say they want high level yet won't accept it if you describe something as "...an actuarial calculation which gives us these results..." etc. They say we shouldn't be educating non-actuaries on actuary things on one hand yet expect us to talk through the internal actuarial calc to them... more and more confusion.

I have direct experience of communicating to admin managers and staff of what question X3.1 asks for i.e. to explain where their works fit in, why it needs to be accurate, where it gets used. Obviously my communication worked since they did a great job, took care of the accuracy and had more job satisfaction knowing where their work fit in.

I got this marked and only 34%, clear fail. I can safely say that the acted solution X3.1 here again would not work for them. Remember acted also like to say oh you can't assume the person they describe as any experience, or that you should consider them the least experienced and pitch it for them... well with all due respect to admin managers there's no way such a person would get the acted solution that talks about exposed to risk & the nitty gritty of what actuaries do with the numbers, as they wouldn't consider that of interest to them or their responsibility. They would however get the explanation that data errors can lead to bad information processed by actuaries, which leads to bad decisions e.g. incorrect premiums.

 

[bystander]

One more thought on the word 'actuarial' and again this isn't a rule, but it's an adjective and sometimes these can evoke emotions that some people won't like. What I mean is people know you are an actuary and it's appropriate to state that if that's your scenario. But saying I do actuarial calculations could be felt by some audience members as either stating the obvious, or, put colloquially, 'rubbing your status in their face' or 'showing off. So broadly speaking, if you don't need an adjective, drop it. To any audience it's ok I think to say calculate ( or worked out with f you really want to dumb it down, but personally I don't like that term). Othe adjective that can be equally emotive to some may be complex, simply or simple. Large, small etc are fine.

On marks again my experience was I rarely got a clear pass in any but mathematical subjects. But I know it's no consolation, but was pleasing that I did pass. The assignments aren't coursework so not affecting exam marking so in that context the score is wiped from your history. And you've had one clear pass grade (or more) on assignments from what I've picked up on. Would having the same marker every time help you so you can see progress? It may be possible, I don't know for certain how it works these days but I believe it's whoever is free. There are pros and cons to having different markers or same markers. You could perhaps put a request on any feedback you give if you think it will help you.

Does either of these things help? I'm trying to give high level strategy/thinking/encouragement.

 

[almost_there]

My point is that if you get marks for deducted for alleged jargon, this can end up being multiplied and deducted at the overall category, as a harsh marker would interpret this marking category as "due to jargon, the overall objective has not been met, the letter/presentation would not be understood, so let's give 4/20 here". A more reasonable marker would conclude that the jargon would not be a barrier to the audience understanding the presentation, especially if the presenter has made it clear that questions can be asked during the presentation, and/or if a friendly definition of the term has been given etc.

I am not interested in responses that say "use your judgement" as that doesn't answer the question, as we don't mark our own papers.