Additional reading versus past papers

[Entact30]

Is there any evidence from recent SA3 exams that the papers are based on "hot GI topics" at the time of the exams such as material from GIRO.

It doesn't appear to be worth the effort to trawl through these resources - would it not be better to just use this time to oerfect exam technique by going over more past exam papers??

 

[td290]

Based on my own experience of SA3 I would certainly agree with you on this. "Reading around" tends to be a lot of effort that translates to very little gain in the exam. Solid knowledge of the ST7-8 and SA3 Course Notes and good exam technique are far more important.

 

[Ian Senator]

Of course there's no definitive answer on this one. So let me just spell out a few facts...

There have been questions set in the past (although admittedly not in the last few years) that have been taken directly from 'background reading'. Seeing that reading would most definitely have helped!

There have been many questions over the years where background reading would have helped a little. In the past year or two there have been many questions on legislation and flood, both of which are topical and where reading around the subject may have helped with understanding of the topic.

The examiners have in the past said (in their Examiners' Report) that "the best students showed that they have read around the subject".

There are also many past exam questions where background reading would not have helped at all (apart from arguably increasing your general awareness of issues of interest to GI actuaries).

So I think there's a risk in not doing background reading, but I can understand some people (particularly those short on time) taking that risk. And I perfectly agree that doing past papers is far more important!

Hope this helps.
Ian

 

[td290]

Ian - thanks for this. Out of interest, when you refer to questions taken directly from the background reading, do you mean they were taking from papers that were on the reading list at the time or from papers that were not there at the time but have been added since?

 

[Ian Senator]

My memory's being challenged here!!

There's been both, although I think most were NOT part of the suggested reading at the time (the background reading list has only been part of the Core Reading for a relatively small number of years).

One example that immediately springs to mind is a question on ART around 2000, where the solution was based on a Swiss Re Sigma report (not part of the Core Reading).

But there have also been questions that examine topics that are covered by the Core Reading list. Examples include material from the FSA (now PRA) website, and reserving methodologies based on GIRO papers.