Calculation error in CA3

Hello,

Does anyone know what the repercussions would be if you made a calculation error in a letter / memo? Say instead of 500 pounds you said 400 pounds. Would this result in a straight fail-no-matter-what, or a more indirect deduction of marks through the marking scheme, e.g. -5 for technical content, -5 for unsatisfactory response, -5 for view as an actuary, etc.?

Heard people saying there are some circumstances in which the examiner would fail you immediately (for actuarial incompetence, etc.), but surely if this was due to a simple calculation error this may be a bit on the harsh side?

Any thoughts?

 

CA3 calculations

That sort of fat finger calculation error would only cost you a mark or two in a CT exam, so would cost you no more than that in a CA3 exam, if anything at all. The notes are very clear - its a communications exam, not a technical exam, so they don't really care about the accuracy of your calculations (although I suppose it may indirectly affect the examiner's view of you).

If you check the marking schedules for old exams you'll see what marks are allocated for.

 

I doubt it would be an immediate fail in its own right. Once the number is in the right ball park then you'd only loose a mark or two. There will be differences in all scripts from rounding and different approaches so I wouldn't worry too much if your number isn't the same as in the examiners' report.

If the error is a symptom of lack of planning or understanding then it would be one of several things that might contribute to a fail grade.

 

Thanks mattt78 / b_colgan

The kind of error I meant was more of a fundamental error in calculation than typo or rounding errors, e.g. if you had applied a 5% inflation for 2 years instead of 3 years, so you simply arrived at the wrong answer and thus gave inaccurate (or totally incorrect) advice to the recipient.

I was told by an experienced exam-taker (who was possibly an examiner) once that marking schemes were followed, but only to a certain extent. He was saying that ultimately someone could get 80% but still fail this paper, if the examiner thought there was a critical error which misrepresented the profession, e.g. giving recommendations when you shouldn't be, etc. Just wanted to know if you've heard something similar, and if so, whether this extended to calculation errors as well, which misrepresents actuaries in a way.

I'm just concerned obviously, because having made that mistake it's easy to see how this would fail in many ways: (1) not achieving objectives of adequately explaining the issue. (2) not satisfying recipient's requirement for correct advice, etc. It just feels a bit harsh that all your good work over two days could be wiped out with a single, but major, error! Or am I just being paranoid...?

 

I think it's still possible to pass even if your calculations are wrong. For example, point seven of question one in the Examiners' Report for April 2007 says students were still given some credit for the overall reply if it was communicated properly even if students came to the wrong conclusion from wrong calculations.

I think if you fail despite 80% then it would have to be a really bad mistake which would make someone question how you had gotten this far in the exams. For example, using the square root of -1 as an interest rate. In that instance I think you would fail on a "not fit to proceed" criterion.

You might consider raising your query directly with the Profession or asking about it on day one of the course. There is time on day one for such questions.

 

calc error in communications exam

I think you just slightly misunderstood what you're friend told you. I'm sure it works pretty much like this:

1.) if you make a simple calculation error (like the one you described) in a communication exam, you won't lose more than a couple of marks. (Its a communications exam, so it would be pretty silly if they penalised you more for something like that than they would in a technical exam).

2.) if your calculation error leads you to the 'wrong' conclusion, and to therefore give you 'wrong' advice, it doesn't matter. (Again, its a communications exam, so it would be pretty silly if they penalised you for this when they wouldn't in a technical exam (since in a technical exam you'd pick up all the follow through marks)).

3.) however if your conclusions and/or advice are not consistent with your calculations, e.g. if you are comparing two projects, and you show project A has a higher NPV and a higher IRR than project B, but then say that means project B is the best choice, then in that situation you would look pretty dumb so maybe they would consider failing you for that.
(It is a communications exam, but if you seem completely incompetent and failing to grasp fairly basic actuarial ideas, they're not going to want to pass you).
However, they're isn't likely to be anything too techically depanding in a CA3 paper, and I expect you'd have to have a major misunderstanding for them to consider failing anyone on these grounds.

 

If you communicate to students that the exam is called COMMUNICATIONS... then test people on their COMMUNICATIONS not their CALCULATIONS! Otherwise you've not communicated properly! Doh! The calcs bit is an ambush that eats up your time in the exam room that you should spend COMMUNICATING !

Given the embarrassingly low pass-rates, around 45%, it seems the pre-course workbook & 'coaching' on the first day that (UK only) people are forced to pay for is a total waste of time that just lulls people into a false sense of security. Clearly, most do as prescribed then fail (55%). Any claims made by the coach that 'everyone can pass tomorrow' is not borne out in the stats at all. Most people will fail almost every time.

Just as well that the resits and exam counselling are so cheap... oh maybe not... that's another £225 for exam counselling to find out the 'reasons' why they branded you a communication failure then £500 for a resit. Another £750 for the profession, kerrrrching! And who's going to give up just one subject away from qualification? Kerrrching !

Then it's a 3 months wait to tell 20 people the results. There is surely no justification for this huge amount of time IF they have a MARKING SCHEDULE & PASS MARK (which they refuse to tell you) consistent for all people on all courses, where they use the same old questions over and over again.

Funny though that you never see more than 12 of 20 pass on ANY course. How do they attract at least 8 communication failures on each course? That's some skill.

Remember that failing CA3 denies you both an Associateship & Fellowship. It's the only exam where you can't hide your identity from the examiners.