I agree with what CapitalActuary has said. I've been saying for years in Council that exams should be moved to open book: in practice over 95% of actuarial (and I would say most business work, with the obvious exception of research) is not a memory test, but relies on "what have we done before that we can reuse and adapt as needed for this problem).
Even if the IFoA were to insist that everything be done from memory (as Microsoft does with some of its Professional exams) it could still be done as follows (and this would also work with open book exams to prevent any collaboration with others):
I sat a Microsoft Professional exam a couple of months ago, and that cost about £113 and was 2.5 hours online. It was proctored (i.e. Microsoft paid for someone to watch me [possibly for the whole time] on my video camera, and with very strict rules: in a closed room, with no one else there, no extraneous sounds (so I took it at midnight). I had to signin 30 minutes beforehand, show photoID (passport or driving license), take pictures in front, to each side, and behind the desk.
I was only allowed to use one monitor, and only allowed to have one window open on the pc: the PearsonVue exam site that Microsoft were using for the exam.
My face had to be within the webcam frame at all times, I was not allowed to cover my mouth (something that took a bit of getting used t-, as when I am thinking I often put my hand on my chin/lips, presumably to stop me talking to anyone outside the room to get any help). The questions were a mixture of multiple choice and drag and drop of code. No screenshotting was allowed (so no possibility of taking a record of the questions asked and my answers, presumably to stop people sharing their answers with others).
There was no freeform writing (and obviously no handwritten/scanned stuff), but the IFoA could adapt the above to allow some freeform text boxes. To pass you needed a mark of 70%. I found the exam very tough and actually thought I had failed, because there were several questions which were not covered by the course materials, or else which I found slightly ambiguous, and mainly because I am no longer used to working this way (entirely from memory, and making sure I kept my face within the webcam frame when normally I move about/stretch when thinking) and because of an eye problem sustained earlier in the year (detached retina leading to significantly reduced visibility in one eye). As a result, I had no time to go back to check my answers. (So don't let anyone tell you that multiple choice exams are easy - they can be, but well structured multiple choice exams can be a really good test. Also, just an indication that the IFoA is not the only organisation whose exams can be frustrating
. Fortunately I passed (informed immediately after clicking the "Submit" button - another advantage of multiple choice exams - clearly this can't apply to IFoA exams with freeform answers being required.
I don't think the proctors need any specialised skills, they just need to be paid to be vigilant for the exam duration (2-3 hours). They could be paid say £15 per hour to do this. The cost (say £45) would be saved by reduced plagiarism software costs (how high are there? to live up to its Member Pledge to be transparent the IFoA should disclose these and other exam costs) and by IFoA staff not having to trawl through dozens (hundreds/thousands?) of scripts.
So I think such a proctored system could be introduced in due course by the IFoA, and the proctor could allow candidates to copy and paste from their notes or other materials: I know the IFoA guidance on this seems to disallow this, but in future personally I don't see anything wrong with copying definitions verbatim. After all that is what an actuary would do in a report to clients. They wouldn't reinvent the wheel as this a) wastes time (how could it be ethical for the client/employer to have to pay for that?) and b) introduces the risk that the revised wording is not as good as the one that experts have presumably spent long hours deliberating over. Similarly, if you're going to quote legislation, you want to quote it verbatim, and not mislead the client/employer by paraphrasing it and possibly getting it wrong.
I think a large part of being a good professional (in any profession, not just actuarial) is having a good store of knowledge of previous work (and this was something I learnt very early on in the excellent training I received at what is now Willis Towers Watson, but was then R Watson & Sons): what have we done before in a similar situation that we can learn from? Is there a previous set of instructions/report/draft that we can reuse and adapt appropriately? Yes, of course you try and think outside the box/sometimes try "blue sky thinking" to see if there is a completely different approach that might be better/think of improvements to the previous process, but I would say that at least 75% of professional work starts with "what do we already know that we can reuse and adapt".
So knowing
where in one's notes, or in the textbooks/coursework, a significant part of the answer is,
is a significant professional skill for an actuary, and I really don't think the IFoA exams should penalise people for this.
In my view, the exams should be adapted as much as possible to test the skills actuaries need in their work. Rote memorisation is not a very significant part of these at all.
