Actuarial sheep

Is this a serious question? (Your why bother question that is?)

How do you know I have a good job in any case?

 

CA1 is the notoriously most difficult exam.

It used to be two st subjects and then it was merged into 1. Would love to see the stats on that. No one knows how they mark the papers. It’s easier to do one ST at a time than take CA1. When you fail, the thought of doing that 6.5 hour beast must be daunting. I passed it first time luckily. But then again I’m too slow and thick since I’ve been studying for 16 years right?

CA1 used to be two papers both sat on the same day. It was mysteriously then split over two days. No explanation was provided on this.

My guess would be disability discrimination which the IFoA doesn’t want to tell anyone about. It’s obviously not feasible to allow extra time on an exam which is 6 hours and 30 minutes long. That would make it worse...

There is a lot of things the IFoA does not want to tell us

 

I don't. I clearly said IF.

 

I think lots of people would debate that. It's certainly one of the longest and requires a lot of work. But conceptually it isn't that hard and pass rates also imply it isn't the hardest.

It's been a while but I think I remember many students asking for CA1 to be put on over two days and on that one they agreed. But 2 in a day was probably even more impractical for those who had additional time. So a sensible decision and there's no need to turn that one into a negative either.

But I've said too much. I'll let someone else have a go.
Good luck!

 

I don’t think you understand the concept of diversification. The pass mark for CA1 is not any higher than for the other STs. Therefore by taking two exams together and having them marked as one (with all the marking secrecy and deficiencies that other students have pointed out) it is certainly not better than taking seperate exams. If you fail CA1 which has the same failure rate as any of the single STs you have to pay Acted and the IFoA all the IFoA all the money again and study another 400 hours again. If it was somewhat easier to pass CA1 than a ST. (which most people would say is not true) then there would be some diversification effect.

If the IFoA allow you 50% extra time for CA1 it’s turns into more than a 9 hour written paper. This is beyond the concentration span of most people. They IFoA will not tell you why the exams have been split over two days.

Can someone else comment on whether 11 exams is easier than 9 or taking CA1 is easier than two STs? I think Jamie Brown would like some other option than mine

 

It could be interpreted both ways. Either you have some knowledge about my job or you were just assuming

 

Historical pass rates would suggest CA1 is a bit easier than most STs - save ST5: http://www.actuarial-lookup.co.uk/pass-rates

Comparing CA1 with two STs isn't that useful because CA1 has two papers, both examining the whole course. And I think this is what the new CM & CS exams will be like. If one paper examined the first half of the course and another the second half of the course, I think it would probably be easier (and in my view fairer) if they could be passed and failed separately.

So he or she arguing that if you do badly on one question, for example, it won't hit you as hard if there are more marks in total. Whether it's two papers or just a longer exam it doesn't really matter, Some argue that the SA subjects are harder because they only have a few questions. If you get something you don't like, it's tough. I think it's the same argument - sorry if I'm wrong Jamie.

Not sure if diversification is the right word - but I get the argument.

By the way - saying you have to study 400 hours again is very unlikely to be true. As long as you actually did some decent study first time, and have managed to retain something then you'd hope that you'd reach a higher level, even if you studied less. Though if you really want to pass then not a bad attitude to take I suppose - if you can find the time. But hey, you passed first time anyway - so smile and forget that one.

 

Do I think the transition rules are fair? Yes. Very unfortunate if you do effectively end up with half a subject, but given they're combining 6 subjects into 4, I think it's the fairest way to do it. I would be more incensed if someone was given the other half of CT5 despite not having passed it.

So it's a baa baa from me. I might as well join the fun rather than be offended.

 

Quite. The marking issue is a very important consideration here. I don't think the new double exams will have a very good pass rate.

 

No it would be fairer if people who have passed one of the CTs but not the other were given some kind of credit for that in the new double exam.

 

But how? If they have CT1, and gave them one of the two papers, A or B, they would still have to study all the course material as anything could come up in either exam. So I don't think it would make much difference. I don't think the number of exams is a big issue. It's the length and content/difficulty of the course that's more relevant.
It would be easier to pass a three-paper exam on times tables than one exam-paper on integration.

 

If no one at IFoA can figure out how then they should be replaced.

 

I don't agree. It's about competency. People who passed a CT have already demonstrated that competency and are now essentially asked to demonstrate it again at their own cost. That's out of order, especially given CEO pledge.

 

Two things:
1. if you have the competency then it shouldn't be too much of a problem to demonstrate it again. Is it likely to be easier to pass an exam with a fixed pass mark with 100% of the questions on chaos theory, or one with 50% on times tables and 50% on chaos theory? Replace times tables and chaos with CT1 and CT5 to get my point - which isn't really my point as someone else made it first.
2. The new CM1 exam will be £280. The current CT5 exam is £225 - I think. So would be a good move for the IFoA to give a discount on the CM1 exam cost for people with the half exemption. Any good as a solution?

By the way, ACCA insist on all their exams being passed in 7 years (used to be 10). If you don't you lose the old ones and have to do them again. Small mercies!

 

What for? Who pays?

 

LOL

 

Is there anything you can take from the DVLA introducing the hazard perception element to the Driving Theory Test? Similarities to be drawn here between most students passing in the notice period given with those that don't having to pay extra for further revision material, more time to study, a chance they could fail on that part and have to sit again - having already paid the DVLA for a provisional license on their initial understanding of what they would have to do to pass.

That affected the whole population rather than the niche area of actuaries so surely there must be a ton of legal cases based on your arguments proving the DVLA acted illegally with court orders proving as such that you can use as precedents? Unless the whole population decided that modernising and improving the exams was necessary and that it was impossible to introduce without affecting a few people in the crossover no matter how much notice they give (How dare they not cater for those who don't pass 8 CT exams in 16 years!). I'm sure out of the whole population not everyone would be sheep and there would be some enlightened souls such as yourselves who won at court, so I would suggest looking there.

 

Is a competency on R required to qualify as an actuary at foreign actuarial associations? If so could you let me know which ones.

 

Oh and your comments are not offensive? Making fun of my exam progress... even after explaining countless times, you don’t seem to get the point. 10,000 students out of 16,000 will potentially be disadvantaged. You make it seem like I’m in the minority but I’m not. You also seem to have missed the point about ordering of exams. There was no order to take exams and now there is and now there isn’t and now there is and hang on a minute now threre isn’t anymore. Or is there? This is why I’ve ended up in this situation.

 

From next year, ASSA and IAI. Sometimes we're the shepherd
And I'm too bothered about whether they are identical. IFoA and SOA/CAS often considered gold plated by many. Makes me feel smug even if it's not recognised by employers. If you choose to use your IFoA qualification in a country where other profession's qualifications are the norm then that's up to you. You could always do theirs.

 

Yes that’s the issue. The IFoA acknowledge they’re the gold standard. So there is a disparity which you will notice if you work outside of the uk. Or give it a few years and you’ll notice it in the uk too, even after Brexit.