CA3 - scrap it

Again, bobbathejobba, I think you have missed the point.

The point here is that, to some extent, CA3 is trying to fix a problem that does not exist: actuaries and trainee actuaries are actually on the whole good communicators, but as a profession we have talked ourselves down and convinced ourselves that we are poor communicators. This is the same problem as actuaries perceiving themselves as unsociable - it's not true of course, but if we believe it then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To give a similar analogy - consider kids in schools. There's a major problem in the UK whereby kids are told by their parents and teachers that maths is hard. The kids then believe maths is hard and so do not do as well/pursue maths study. This is what we mean by a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

To be clear - we do not mean (and I am not saying) that there is no causal link between failing to prepare for an exam properly and failing an exam - who would ever suggest there wasn't?! - it's self-evident that increasing prep is correlated with increased performance, even if the exam questions are questionable!

 

This is not something a few examiners dreamt up one day while deciding what further exams to inflict upon hapless students. It was a key outcome of the Morris Review.

 

Indeed, as was a criticism of the lack of transparency by the IFoA. A problem that persists, sadly.

 

People do prepare for it and still fail. In fact the training day was supposed to prepare people for it. Or should everyone have gone on the Acted course to learn the magic words?

 

That is correct; and I am aware. If you read my post, my quibble is primarily with the form (of training and assessment) of the CA3 exam: I'm not quibbling about the existence of CA3 or any exam that tests a trainee actuaries ability to explain technical information clearly.

I say "to some extent" because the issue can be looked at as the sum of two elements: an actuary's actual communication shortfall and an actuary's perceived communication shortfall. The paragraph

"The point here is that, to some extent, CA3 is trying to fix a problem that does not exist: actuaries and trainee actuaries are actually on the whole good communicators, but as a profession we have talked ourselves down and convinced ourselves that we are poor communicators. This is the same problem as actuaries perceiving themselves as unsociable - it's not true of course, but if we believe it then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy."

purely refers to the latter. The former (ie. the actual) is addressed my my prior post.

These matters are all hyperbolae anyway. The real issue here is that the CA3 exam (and in fact the entire actuarial qualification process) desperately needs an overhaul to be brought in line with credible modern professions like accountancy and law.

 

You keep saying this but you never answer the question:

How many hours preparation did you do for the exam?

How many marked assignments or mocks did you do?

The latter in particular are critical for passing - unless you have someone else reading your work you will never know whether you are communicating or not.

 

What really amazes me is how low the pass rates for CA3 are.
Why are they kept so low? I've seen a lot of good communicators fail this exam for no reason.
The pass rates for CA2 are twice as high....Why such a huge difference?

 

I think the profession set a pass standard (i.e. set a level of communication which they want people to achieve in the exam before they can become actuaries) and then it just so happens that not as many people meet this standard as meet the standards for modelling in CA2 or whatever.

I think the correct question is not why rates are "kept so low" but whether the pass standard is too high? And if not, whether the current standards are being enforced consistenly across all examiners.

Remember, just because someone seems like a good communicator, doesn't mean they will handle exam conditions well. I've seen people who are great communicators but fall apart under exam conditions and fail. You might say that's a failure in the system but I don't know what the alternative is, you could say the same about all exams.

 

Or whether candidates are adequately prepared? Either through the effort they put in, or the training available.

 

Of course, it could be a combination of the two. Higher standards and/or less well prepared students.

 

I've been reading these comments for a while and have a few to add.

I think CA3 is possibly the best CA exam in the lot. I failed it on my first attempt but passed it on the second. I studied a lot for it on my first attempt but not so much on the second. Just for background, I'm fairly adept at communicating and I've presented at the Congress of Actuaries in South Africa, read papers in Greece, Russia etc. But I still failed CA3 on my first attempt.

So let me share what happened between those two attempts. I actually took a step back from all the grammar, the slide formats et al. to see why this exam was created in the first place. It was only then that I realized the examiners were looking for-simplicity. This is exactly the same as CA2. Most people who focus on complexity of models in CA2 fail over and over again and those who focus on simplicity pass.

Personally my communication methods changed a lot after this exam. Both my clients and friends have noticed this change and it is quite amazing how their replies are rather emphatic when you address their issues in one single well structured email.

 

Being a late starting actuarial student gives me many years of previous work experience, the first five of which spent with one of the top management consulting firms. There, preparing memos and giving presentation to transform complex analyses into convincing action items is the daily job, so communication is a BIG deal.

My key lesson learnt there was that hardly anyone is born a great communicator. It takes a lot of work and exercise to become one, but with commitment most people can get very good results.
My Firm invested heavily in communication trainings, had a large number of my presentations individually analysed by staff in the Communications Dept (yes, there is one), funnelling my messages into a proper structure and removing redundancies, choosing the right chart type for each message, and ensuring each slide was in perfect format (describing spacing, font type, size, underlining, colours, etc for every possible situation). My key presentations would be reviewed by peers and seniors as well. I also spent time with actor coaches preparing to address larger audiences. I must say I never came across this level of commitment to communication in any other industry.

IFoA tries to make actuaries better at communicating, which is right, but the current CA3 exam is a bit of a whitewash. While it does say some of the right things, it is a long way from being a full blown communication course, the quality of the material is questionable and it lacks feedback. Failing to show the mistakes leaves the job unfinished, hence many of the comments here about actuaries being "on average" good at communicating but the exam failing to recognise it. With all due respect, in my experience actuaries are not that good at communicating, particularly to non actuaries, and many don't care.

There is no substitute to the level of coaching I was describing above. The best surrogate for that is to prepare the CA3 exam in pairs or small groups and have your work revised by other students, if not tutors. This is not an exam that you can easily self assess.
Maybe, without fully redesigning the course, IFoA could put candidates in groups of 2-4 people and give them some joint assignments and an opportunity to receive feedback from each other before the final individual exam. Similarly, ActEd could provide a similar pairing service. Sharing essays is easy. To assess presentations, there is free software like movenote.com to upload videos and slides side by side. It would be easy to share a link and receive feedback from other students, maybe conditional upon reciprocity.

I am soon to go for my first CA3 attempt. If I fail it I may have some time to work on this.

 

Very good comments from giulianog.

It took me 3 attempts to pass, though as a 'late starting actuarial student' also, I would have hoped my experience would have made it easier.

I would agree the lack of feedback is a big issue. Perhaps I could have sought help from colleagues & other fellow students (however I suspect most similar to me would be too self-conscious to do this).
Otherwise I was limited to exam counselling and mock exams.

 

I started the exams late too, having started off in accountancy.

I don't have a problem with what the course is trying to achieve, although there is definitely room for improvement. I believe there should be a lot more feedback in the process. This course is about learning a skill, and the only way to learn a skill is to practice and improve through feedback.

I think the biggest problem is the turnaround time from sitting the exam, to receiving results. 12 weeks is far too long in my opinion and it should be closer to 4-6 weeks.

I understand that the exams are marked by actuaries in their spare time and there are resource constraints. However simply put for £400+ this is a terrible service.

Either the fee should be lowered or the turnaround time decreased.

 

before criticising turnaround times, think about this: When you qualify are you prepared to put your time into the profession? Not everyone will because of the demands made of you at work. Quicker may mean less scrutiny and not going to the lengths currently gone to to decide who passes who fails. Would you be happy with that? I guess not. Its twelve weeks because of the lack of volunteers and the rigorous standards the profession has and should uphold. Getting to know sooner won't actually help students

 

I already noted that I appreciate actuaries mark the papers in their spare time voluntarily. My point is for the fee being charged the time taken to get results is unacceptable.

It absolutely does make a difference to students not having to sit around for 3 months waiting for results.

As for your point about lower levels of scrutiny - well there have already been many complaints about ambiguity and potential biases that may exist within the current system for marking. I don't see how an extra 6 weeks will solve that problem.

So the compromise is to give students their results earlier, so they can retake.

 

Its a catch 22 situation. Part of the fee goes to paying the markers. Many I know who do mark say its not a good rate though that's not why they mark. But reducing the fee will almost certainly drive down marker fees and that in itself may drive away some markers.

The best thing is do absolutely everything you can to pass. On exam day and afterwards, retaking should be the least of your worries. If you are well prepared and give it your all, retake hopefully doesn't happen. Positivity is always a great attribute.

Why not write direct to the Profession stating your concerns or do this via your student rep. Its not likely the profession reads this forum.

 

I agree that reducing the fee might reduce the quality of marking.

It goes without saying that you should do everything possible to pass. However, there is an element of subjectivity with CA3 that is not there in any other exam.

At the end, it really boils down to someone's opinion of you. Opinions vary, from person to person and even from day to day with the same person. So really you can prepare as much as you like - but to pass you need a slice of luck that's bigger than the luck you need to pass any other exam.

I think that subjectivity should be accepted as a fact that's inherent in the process. In that instance, getting your results faster helps you have another crack at the lottery of CA3 that much quicker.

I think reducing the turnaround time is a practical way to help students with the frustrations of CA3.

 

It's harder to build simple models and communicate simply than it is to build complicated models and waffle.

I think that's why people fail. They don't appreciate that simple is difficult.

 

Maybe some people. I think a lot of students do appreciate that fact, and still fail.

That's where luck comes into it.

 

They do all they can to reduce subjectivity. That's why scripts are seen by at least 3 independent markers. But if you fail fb or worse that's not luck. There is something more fundamental. To me repeating too soon can mean there is resentment going into the exam and that negativity is unhelpful. Many people find with retakes that actually missing a sitting helpful just to regroup.

My advice if you really don't know why it's a fail get counselling and do so unblinkered. There is always a reason because the profession generally do want people who deserve to pass to get just that