Hey, I just posted a thread on the CT6 page. Didnt realise there was a seperate one for exam discussions. I thought the exam was more difficult than other past papers. It had stuff that wasnt on past papers eg. the last questions on proportional reinsurance with those weird equations that you had to prove. The inverse transform question was non-standard as well, using the gamma/exponential relationship. I wrote stuff down but have no idea if I'll get any marks for it. And the Bayes credability factor question had some horrible wording and was also non standard, I couldnt get the answer in the form that they asked for, even though I can do it in all of the tutorial/recent past paper questions. Resit in September methinks.
Those are exactly my sentiments................... What else I can add is, while I could have studied more, I really doubt it could have helped me to pass this sitting! I came out of the exam thinking, "I knew the mathematics behind the question, but didn't get the mechanics" and as you said, some questions were not worded very well!
