CA3 - scrap it

Communication is of utmost important. I can't speak of trustees as I'm not in that world but I have been surprised at what some underwriters I speak to don't grasp but I've learned it's my job to communicate to them at an appropriate level that they will understand. That means I need to judge how much I need to 'dumb down'! Maybe that's been tested in CA3 (I don't know much about the exam). My manager told me recently that in an insurance company the brightest people are often to be found in the actuarial department; inevitably that presents communication challenges.

 

I find it's rarely a case of dumbing down. Usually the issue is being concise and tailoring the level of detail.

Many actuaries think it's impressive to generate a long technical monologue or biblical report. They want to show off what they know. This is lazy and easy.

It's difficult to be pithy and draw out the most important points. This is why actuaries fail and the outside world mocks them. It's why The Economist is such a successful publication.

Supposedly Mark Twain once received a telegram from a publisher: "NEED 2-PAGE SHORT STORY TWO DAYS". To which he replied: "NO CAN DO 2 PAGES TWO DAYS. CAN DO 30 PAGES 2 DAYS. NEED 30 DAYS TO DO 2 PAGES".

Good communication is challenging and takes time.

 

For the first time in years the topic makes me angry enough to actually write something on a forum
I think the discussion is not about communication skills as such. It is about the exam, which is very different.

I think the way it is set/marked is not appropriate and I am glad to see that I am not the only one.

In particular, I found following things very frustrating:
- information from tutors and profession is conflicting
- lack of past exam papers
- I didn't find the ActEd exercises useful for actual exam (although they are useful if you want to improve your communication skills in general)
- marking schedule is very subjective
- people who fail (at least those I know) don't have a clue why they fail and when they pass later - they also don't know what did they do differently to pass

I know at least 10 people for whom it is the last exam and they've been waiting to qualify for a long time now. For some of them having excellent communication skills is a must for their job, and they certainly have them.

 

As someone who has recently taken CA3, I think it is very important for the profession to test communication skills. The CA3 exam should be maintained although I would be in favour of keeping a presentation as a face-to-face exercise as I don't think presenting to the webcam is the same test.

However, I do think CA3 should be revamped - in particular the entry requirements should be relaxed so there aren't so many people taking it as their last exam.

On ActEd materials, I found the study notes contained good pointers, but cannot be relied upon on their own. The key to passing is practice and I have to say I found doing the ActEd assignments and mock exams PLUS getting feedback very useful. Without the feedback you can leave yourself in blissful ignorance as to yourself you will always make perfect sense!

The tutorial was also excellent helping to pin-point common mistakes and thinking about how to explain complex things in simple terms.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about that. Those legal types are mostly spinning for a living, which would explain why so many politicians are from that background. When caught lying they'll somehow explain that what they said wasn't really what they said.

For me, that is not good communication. That is deceptive, which is sadly the norm nowadays.

For dodgy big company employers then it's probably exactly what they're looking for.

The IFoA are rather fond of spinning as well, especially on CA3 and other criticisms.

Therefore I submit that 'good communication' is very subjective.

 

I also think that the biggest reason people fail CA3 is because they don't take the exam seriously enough. There are plenty of people I know who have gone to the exam with little or no preparation because they thought they knew how to communicate. They were proved wrong.

Moaning about failing CA3 in these circumstances would be like moaning about failing an SA where you did no study "because you already do that stuff at work". But most people would reasonably expect to fail their SA (or any other exam for that matter) in those circumstances so why not CA3?

And while there will be a certain bit of luck with any one CA3 exam that could alter your result on that day I don't see how that is any different to any other exam.

Yes the exam isn't perfect, but what exams are?

 

Alternatively, they are already good communicators given the hold down actuarial jobs where they do this on a regular basis.

Perhaps the exam system has a pre-determined pass rate, which means no matter how good the ActEd teaching or how good people prepare: people will be failed.

 

Perhaps we are all used as puppets by an evil race of lizards who appear in human form.

That might explain David Wilkie, anyway.

 

But could you not give the same argument for the SA exam that is related to someone's area of work? Yet no-one would expect to pass their SA exam with little or no study so why expect to pass CA3?

 

Yes, same criticisms apply.

 

Hey mypan1 I agree with all that you write. Keep up the great posts as they help to cheer me up! Knowing that I'm not alone in hating this exam process and the time I've wasted on it thus far is very uplifting.

I wish that I had not been fooled by the marketing that led me to this profession. Had there been more posts like yours then I would certainly not have joined. Keep up the good work to ensure no other suckers are conned into this obsolete profession.

 

Thanks DS. All I'm trying to do is provide the perspective that others think but dare not say. It's only right people get to hear both sides of the story. I'm not trying to put people off. On the contrary I believe in letting people make up their own minds.

I don't understand the reluctance by so many to question things in this profession, compared to other professions. Some have tried but have realised no one's listening. They're rather skilled at making you think it's only you that is complaining, or feels things aren't fair.

The difficulty is once you're in this profession for a while, the routes out of it are far more limited than one thinks. As for CA3, no one outside the IFoA will care about this exam.

 

Hence my disgruntlement. Once your duped into entering this profession, together with the time spent studying, failing and passing exams, there's almost no leaving. Hence why most actuaries are miserable as fcuk!

 

Has anybody read David Wilmott's post, particularly the bullet addressing why people fail?

The "not answering the question" aspect goes back to actuaries showing off what they know instead of putting themselves in the audience's shoes.

 

A very good point. I have worked in various different companies and currently work with actuaries, CFAs, accountants and lawyers. The first 3 in this list do essentially the same jobs within my current department. Are actuaries who have passed CA3 valued more than the others? No. Are actuaries that have passed CA3 considered better at communication than the others? No.

All of us have to communicate with clients, are involved in presentations, drafting emails etc. Passing CA3 provides actuaries with no competitive advantage over the others whatsoever. Of course communication skills are essential for the job - no one is disputing this. The fact is, other professionals are just as good as actuaries at communicating "complicated topics" (and we can actually measure this because we get client feedback) and CA3 is basically an irrelevance to the company. The CFAs don't have to take a communications exam yet they are just as good at communicating as actuaries. So why do we alone have to take a formal exam?

Personally I think this exam is hurting the profession and its quest to expand out of the traditional areas of pensions and insurance. We have had some people fail this exam several times holding them back for a year or two. New graduates would have a choice between actuarial exams and the CFA course. Historically quite a few would do the actuarial exams. Not so much recently - the issues with CA3 (and SA6) mean new students stay well clear of the actuarial path. This is sad because the technical side of actuarial exams (where our true competitive advantage lies) is really quite rigorous and worth doing.

 

Bear in mind that common actuarial exams are exactly that, common to all practice areas.

Yes, it's pretty likely that an actuary at a consultancy doing client facing work is unlikely to need much coaching in how to write and present. However, there are plenty of actuaries in life valuation who are rather more comfortable talking to their shoes than other people. Less so nowadays, but it was a serious issue at the time of the Morris review.

As for people not passing, it seems to be a pretty common theme that those who don't pass don't follow the instructions. Yes, it's an exam, and yes, it's a bit artificial. There's a lot of things in exams I don't do in my daily work. Nonetheless, if you play the game you pass.

Are there really that many people who choose between CFA and actuarial exams based on a couple of later exams? Seems a bit odd to me.

 

Do you really think around HALF or more of the people who attended the 2 day course, where people were trained on the first day how to pass it, somehow neglected to follow the teachings on the second day?

 

I'm sure it can't be the only reason, but it does seem to be a factor for the ones that have a choice. Is it really that hard to believe? You can do the CFA in 2 years (CFA 1 in December, CFA 2 in June and CF3 next June) whereas actuarial will take a minimum of 3 years and probably longer. CFA is 3 exams, actuarial is 15. CFA is also mostly multiple choice so it appeals to a lot of people who don't like writing, nor does it have a WBS requirement. Add to this the fact that CFAs don't have to put up with the lottery of CA3 and SA6 and you can easily see why a new entrant might prefer the CFA over the actuarial path.

 

Thanks Angelina. I will look into CFA.

Lottery is a good description of CA3 and the SA papers. The expensive exam counselling explanations for failing those papers can be unclear, trivial, contradictory and lack credibility.

It's a bit of a giveaway when you attend a SA tutorial. Compared to other tutorials, you'll come across more people who have already sat the exam a few times. You'll sit in that tutorial perhaps wondering how it is that those people with great knowledge and communication skills have been failed at all.

 

This is the killer point that I understand has been put to the IFoA and specifically to Trevor Watkins, the Director of Education, at least two years ago.

Seems they're not too bovvered what 'students' say.