I think that students start sitting CA3 around about 18 months into the profession. a) they may not have read about immunusation in their studies yet b) they may have looked over past CA3 papers where the extra info given by assistant/summer student is not normally so off-beat c) they may not have the confidence - IN EXAM CONDITIONS! - to go with their own knowledge of immunisation due to a and b...... What is the exam testing? Imagine you don't know anything about immunisation....then try sorting what is needed versus what is crap from the question Tougher than if you already know what it is or if you have vast experience of the later exams STs etc where that type of thinking is practised more. Anyway, what about the pet insurance question? Did you make up a sensible way of analysing the info and keep the explanation simple? I imagine there are several ways of interpreting the data??
i agree - the deciphering of the immunisation information (relevant or just plain crap) was a more high level skill typical of ST/SA.
I passed also....I do not agree that the exam was pure lottery!....just common sense and having your wits about you.....the trick I used was to combine knowledge about immunisation and the info from the question...the write up was not all crappy as some are suggesting. the tables gave you a simple example to use in your memo For question 2..was more straight forward than qn1 but you had to have covered the questions asked. All the best for those who did not make it. Just write from the heart.
Did you notice the solution for April 2009 immunisation question: The example of two 10m bonds is disconnected from the rest of the text. In fact, the sentence below the heading "when it can be used", the example and the last sentence in this section are all disconnected. How is the example connected at all? And the last sentence in the section isn't much explained either. Just read that section and answer "when immunisation can be used". Do it yourself.
Clear Communication And here I was thinking I was the only one wondering if that can be called 'clear' communication. Something seems missing there somewhere.
and the report says that candidates did not get marks for making up their own examples (point no 11). i dont see why, not even if they are good? this is childish...
i can bet i wrote a better answer: i said.."consider a payment of 100 u need to make in 10 years. best thing=buy a 10 year bond which pays 100. but u may not find one. u may find either too short term or too long term. both problematic. say 8 year bond, need to reinvest. but interest rates could be low. not enough money. or say 12 year bond, need to sell that to raise money. but interest rates could be high. not enough money. immunisation: invest 50:50 in both.. covered both ways.. bingo" and that was my example..
I am totally disappointed with the answers from the report. The solution to immunisation is unclear and as you guys said "disconnective".
But heading south all the time. Well below 50% for the last two sittings, and nearer 40% for Institute students (curiously, not one Faculty student has failed yet - though that is a fairly small sample size of 8).
I have read a number of threads complaining about the confusing information given in the CA3 exam questions. I did not sit the April 2009 paper but have just read question 1 and the examiners' solution. What people seem to be missing out on is that the information given is supposed to be over-technical and too sophisticated an explanation. It is being set as a trap. Use the language and explanation in the exam question and you will fail. My approach to this question would have been exactly as many here have said - I would have just written my own simpler understanding of immunisation. I was taught it protects a bond portfolio from small changes in interest rates in either direction. After giving my opinion I must confess that I have yet to pass CA3, but then I have made only one attempt
