100% Exam Pass Rate

[Muppet]

Most actuarial students will not have an English A'level. Hence not a disadvantage.

 

[Calum]

I wanted to ask how disadvantageous is it not taking an English A-Level and only doing numerate subjects?

The short answer is not at all, considering that probably the majority of entrants to the Profession will not have done one.

My answer would be that improving your communication skills will never be a bad thing, and having strong writing skills in particular is valuable.

 

[jrpfinch]

The short answer is not at all, considering that probably the majority of entrants to the Profession will not have done one.

My answer would be that improving your communication skills will never be a bad thing, and having strong writing skills in particular is valuable.

This reminds me of the most depressing quote I've ever seen in The Actuary or, for that matter, any magazine:

"Approach writing as you would Solvency II model validation and you shouldn’t go far wrong"
http://www.theactuary.com/features/2012/11/it-pays-to-proofread/

Admittedly, the quote is out of context - the article is about spelling and grammar - but I think it sums up how most actuaries approach writing.

To the original poster, please do English A-Level. The Profession desparately needs good punchy writers.

 

[cjno1]

To the original poster, please do English A-Level. The Profession desparately needs good punchy writers.

Couldn't agree more. All actuaries are good with numbers, it's the ones who are good with words that are most valuable.

 

[Infinity]

I think it's misleading how the profession's website say:



http://www.actuaries.org.uk/students/help_support/student_handbook/study_hours

I know a few people who have passed them all first time, but those without exemption have taken 7 to 9 sittings i.e. four to five years.

I'd be interested to see the profession's stats on how many students who have no failures, and no exemptions, actually qualify within three years. I think there might be a mis-selling scandal here

To qualify "within three years" you would need to do it in 5 sittings! I don't think that is something that it is reasonable to say "could be expected".

The IFoA refuse to publish these statistics. What is quoted on here is misleading and most people cannot study and work at the same time. 10 hours of study on top of work for 6 months while having a relationship or family, forget it. No wonder 82% of women quit the profession within 7 years.

 

[almost_there]

Little Miss Actuary was correct all those years ago in 2009. Ten years later finally an actuary complained to the ASA and they got the IFoA to remove that false and misleading statement. That's 10 years of mis-selling the qualification.

 

[Sweetactuarialprincess]

Plans are good, but I'd stick with a rolling twelve month one. Remember to plot the courses in - CA2, CA3 (if after Apr 10), CT9 because there are limited number of places and people are applying up to 12 months ahead.

With the Sep exams, don't wait for results. Start at least one other subject beforehand. Any work you do on it isn't lost and you can decide to carry on with it, double up, or just do a resit. It can be very difficult to do nothing pre results then find you pass but really have to cram the next one.

Having a plan is a general reqt most employers look for, but it is right you need to balance it with good office performance too, particularly if you want a promotion.

Hi Bystander, I like reading your informative posts... I wanted to ask you, which exam did you find the hardest to pass??