CA3 acted materials - any changes for 2017?

Discussion in 'CA3' started by almost_there, Feb 2, 2017.

  1. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Have acted changed their CA3 provision at all for 2017?

    The 2016 CA3 exams for Aug & Nov introduced graph requirements in Q1 and a non-actuarial topic in Nov '16 too. I guess all this means quite a major re-write of the acted materials? None of acted's 2016 materials prepared anyone for Q1 like that.

    Practicing communicating actuarial topic to non-actuaries was a complete waste of time for Nov '16 Q1. How could we show our skilful avoidance of actuarial jargon when the topic had no actuarial jargon possible?

    It seemed acted's materials were faithful to the CA3 syllabus but the last two exam papers were not. So acted, there's a problem here isn't there? How are we meant to prepare for a resit of this?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2017
  2. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    After spending hundreds on acted tuition for this CA3 resit, getting things marked, taking up all the advice etc. not only did I fail this but I achieved a mark so bad it would translate to a WORSE fail grade than the previous attempt. I think acted have some explaining to do but I think the exam papers Aug & Nov have really stitched you up on this subject, for one.

    Surely the more people invest in acted materials and the more they resit an exam the better you'd expect them to do, not WORSE! To be fair, for the written exams certainly acted's provision improved my chance and turned fails into passes but clearly that doesn't hold at all true for CA3!

    To date the net costs for me attempting CA3 are: Acted £408, IFoA £1175 with next resit fee £450 on top. £2k !!!! Boy do I feel short changed!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2017
  3. Tarbuck

    Tarbuck Member

    And my ST8 exam had a question about a charity fun run! They never mentioned that in the syllabus! If I'm honest it's getting slightly cringey. Having to apply actuarial techniques and the methodologies they teach you to a non actuarial problem is standard practice in most exams, as with a lot of exams! Next you'll be writing to the primary school SATs exams saying its unfair because the syllabus only mentioned pure addition and nothing about grocery transactions about the number of apples Steve has left after Debbie bought some off him.

    So far the reasons you have failed is poor marking, inappropriate teaching, bad feedback, bad exams, failure to adhere to the mark scheme, the IFOA purposefully keeping the pass rate down to aid foreign actuaries, third marking not being thorough enough, exam moderation not being fair, the SCF not doing enough to change things, the institute not doing enough to change things.

    From what I've heard from colleagues who have sat CA3 and from what I've read in the SCF about it, it sounds like there are genuine problems with the exam and people not knowing what they have to do to pass, but the constant scattergun of criticism about anything and everything, including things which seem entirely reasonable and normal, is cheapening the whole argument.

    Seriously, a graph should not be the reason for an actuary to fail an exam, nor should communicating a non-actuarial subject in a communication exam. The exams in every subject are designed to have some element out of the ordinary to test and differentiate the better candidates - all you can ever do is deal with it the best you can...everyone else will have the same problem!
     
    Alan Newman, Pede and dubactuary like this.
  4. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Tarbuck, you seriously don't get it.
     
    Lapsed_Student likes this.
  5. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    There are problems. They are not being listened to. We are discussing them. You are obviously uncomfortable with these problems being highlighted and wish it ain't so. So what? You don't seem to grasp that a fair game does not include moving the goalpost, and I feel sorry for you in that.
     
    Lapsed_Student likes this.
  6. Tarbuck

    Tarbuck Member

    I get parts of it! I'm seriously concerned you're unhealthily obsessing and looking for flaws in every area while damaging your own chances of garnering positive change in the other parts! I'm not trying to be harsh or defend the institute, as I said on balance from what I've heard the CA3 exam isn't fit for purpose....but there are points in what I've read it descends more into mania than reason.
     
    Pede and dubactuary like this.
  7. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    They are not changing anything except fobbing us off so what are people supposed to do, sit quietly and trust they will make changes when changes were asked years ago and promises not kept?
     
  8. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    By the way, the content of syllabus is CRITICAL in any exam you take, anywhere. This is your guide to prepare for an exam. It's not on to violate these specifications; that just shows unfairness and incompetence on the part of whoever sets the exam paper.

    Following your casual logic on this you think the IFoA should be able to come up with some stochastic or hard stats stuff randomly in say a SA paper? That would not be fair.

    Also don't bother telling us not to be legalistic in our approach, since this is how THEY treat us, referring to strict processes and remits etc.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2017
    Retrieva likes this.
  9. Tarbuck

    Tarbuck Member

    They are changing it....they announced wide ranging changes to CA3 coming in in 2019. You seem to want them to just wave everyone through by arbitrarily raising the pass rate or rushing untested changes at the first opportunity - I would say that is a much greater risk to the integrity of the exams than exam moderation, trying to introduce unfamiliar/ difficult examples to exams or not having an open marking system where they tell/ debate everything with you....all 3 of which are part of any examination for any institute or body in the country yet you suddenly seem to have an issue with when it comes to an exam you've failed a few times.
     
  10. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Tarbuck : 2019 is not worth waiting for, they've changed this exam before and the same issues still persist! What integrity are you describing when we see examples galore of unfairness, lack of transparency and incompetence listed here by so many people! Nothing gets improved except the CEO remuneration!

    Answer me this Tarbuck : how come CT1 has a consistently much higher pass rate than CA3? Ever thought about that?
     
  11. Tarbuck

    Tarbuck Member

    I could give you many reasons. There are lots of maths exams, whereas there is only one communication exam and only one hurdle to prove its ok. Actuaries have a great reputation for maths ability but terrible for communication. The exam sittings for CA3 are awkward and hard to concentrate on fully when an ST or 2 CT exams are a month before. It could be any, all or none of those, but I suspect every one will fall on deaf ears and it'll be a corruption scandal.

    As I said, lack of transparency is in any exam body because otherwise they are inundated with people failing complaining...like.....no, I can't think of an example to point to.....

    As for unfairness or incompetence, I encourage you to go after this if its seen and complain away. I just think your efforts will be much more fruitful and gain much more public support if you isolate it to these genuine incidents, because I fear the attacks are getting a bit far fetched.

    That's my last post on this thread now too I think and probably overall as I don't feel like I'm just saying the same thing in a different way now. Good luck for the next sitting.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2017
    Pede likes this.
  12. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    By your logic pass rates on CT1 should be lower, then. They're not. Also they'd insist on CA3 in their mutual recognition. It's not there. It's a total shambles.
     
  13. Watt (formerly Carter) v Ahsan [2007] UKHL 51

    "The notion of an "authorisation or qualification" suggests some kind of objective standard which the qualifying body applies, an even-handed, not to say "transparent", test which people may pass or fail."
     
  14. This type of stuff is better examined using different methods of assessments. At imperial they give the students course work for 53% of the ST7 & ST8 exams.

    Requiring candidates to apply actuarial techniques to non actuarial problems might be standard practice, but it is not assessing the essential requirements for working in the profession. Therefore it cannot be objectively justified.
     
  15. The only way I think this can be challenged is by indirect age discrimination. This is because pre 2005, the older actuaries did not have to demonstrate these competences.
     
  16. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Sweetactuarialprincess has nailed it: it's about testing the essential competencies for working in the profession.

    Thus communicating non-actuarial topics to non-actuaries has no relevance. Yet many people have been denied conferment of FIA on this basis.
     

Share This Page