CT6 April 2011

I don't mind having an exam as hard as the one we just sat, but it's a bit annoying that it was particularly harder compared to previous exams. It doesn't set up a new breed of actuary since it's just one exam, and I can't imagine that any future employer would look at the year I took CT6 and congratulate me for passing that sitting (as I think I did enough to pass this sitting). Setting an exam like this does nothing for the profession since those that didn't pass will retake (probably an easier CT6) and pass that. There's just no sense in these kinds of papers other than a slight buzz for the handful of those that actually passed.

 

From pass stats since 2008: The average pass rate across CTs in one diet (total passes/ total takers of CTs in a diet) is about 56% and this has a std dev of only 1.39%!! But the average of std devs of the individual CTs is about 7.6%. So, while some CTs in a diet might have lower (tougher) pass rates than usual, others compensate by having higher (easier) pass rates. After that, I reckon it's a matter of your luck as to the CT you are appearing for.

CT6 and CT 8 have the the highest std dev of pass rates at about 10% (max and min pass rates for CT6 are 73% and 43% and for CT 8 it is 30% and 60%!!!). CT5 and CT7 have consistent pass rates with a std dev of only about 4%. Std devs are in the 8% range for CT 1 to 4, probably because of ill equipped initial eager aspirants for CTs 1 to 3.

Someone else on the forum had compiled data since 2005 and the results were similar. Some interesting stuff from the data since 2005, CT8 and CT1 have a high negative correlation. CT6 and CT8 have a decently high positive correlation.

 

In my experience each exam I have taken has seemed significantly harder than the past exams I studied as part of my revision!

I think the reason for this is that when I revise I become familiar with the format of the past questions (and how to answer them) because I have the benefit of the examiners reports. This problem is compounded when the syllabus changes (as has happened recently with CT6).

I have learnt that you do not need to get 100% on any paper to pass. With this in mind I have found that when I come up against a difficult (or very computationally long) question to just focus on maximising marks and to not get too bogged down in the detail.

Another key skill I have picked up is to learn to cope/expect unusual questions (i.e. to expect the unexpected). This is particularly important in the later exams when you are asked questions that are not in the core reading.

 

I think you have a point here.. the people failing some of the harder exams arn't scoring 100% on the easy stuff (ie. giving loads of incomplete answers). If you have prepared pretty well and can get 100% on all the easy questions, and at least make some inroad to answering the harder questions you will pass.

 

I think that this entire post is simply spot on!

However much I’m annoyed by this recent CT6 exam and however much I’m currently despising the entire exam setup, it’s clear to me that if progress is to be made with the exams that still lie ahead that this approach/advice must be kept at the forefront of my exam strategy and preparation. Obviously the exams yet to be tamed are only going to get harder (CT8 and CA1 seem to stick out as perfect examples of the treacherous exams that lie in wait) and clearly these lessons learned by oneandonemakestwo will help any frustrated student cope with them.

A very nice post. Thank you for that.

 

To be honest, oneandonemakestwo is really just stating the obvious - your exam strategy should be to maximise the number of marks achieved. Also, studying past papers (with solutions) should help you understand the best way to achieve this, and 'expect the unexpected'.

However, I do think its valuable advice, as i increasingly get the impression that many actuarial students have pretty poor exam technique/strategy, for all sorts of reasons, and that this may be one of the big factors that distinguishes those that pass from those that don't. In earlier exams like CT6 this may be more about time management, and in later exams more about interpreting questions and structuring answers, but I suspect if people thought about these things a bit more the pass rates might improve a bit.

 

Well , I saw the paper, and most of the questions were quite doable ...you can go through the Indian Actuaries papers...most questions very similar to what are given regularly..

 

Phew, I made it through.

 

I back to square one....I felt good about my performance but I guess did not fit into the 44% best papers....

 

and when are the reports going to be published?

 

Although I knew that I'd failed given that my name wasn't on the pass list on the website (I went on holiday the day the results were delivered by post), I've just emailed home to find I got an FD. Now I can't say for certain, but given that I answered a bulk of the paper and most of my lost marks would have come through calculation error, I really really don't think the FD is justified. The Institute website says:

"An FD grade (or repeated FC), after proper and full preparation, suggests that the candidate should consider their plans carefully and seek advice where appropriate."

I am confident in both my ability and my performance in the exam to assert that I do not fall in that category for this exam paper.

I've looked on the institute website and it says that applications for remarks need to be received within 10 working days of results coming out, which is this friday. However I get back from holiday on Friday so that means it will be too late. Is there any advice on what my procedure should be?

Thanks.

And congrats to those who passed!

Edit: The handbook says there are two types of appeals: an administrative/procedural error, and dissatisfaction with the grade awarded. Considering the exams are marked twice, I doubt that there was an error in the marking. However surely if there was a procedural error I would have been given a 0 as opposed to an FD?

Furthermore, if there was an error in the candidate details on my exam sheet, would I be notified of that during the appeals process? If I wrote my details down incorrectly and received an FD then I can accept that since it's a major error on my part. But I'd want to know that rather than think I got a legitimate FD. Similarly if my candidate details had been ruined after the paper had been collected and sent off for marking.

Sorry for the obsessive questions, but I'm sure you can understand my feelings!

 

in case of an FA, does the remarking ever help?

 

Thanks, John. I had read from here, here and here that FD is <60%, but after reading your post I see that it says in the Handbook that it is <75%. Another thing is that in the 2010-2011 Handbook it says that an appeal costs £150, whereas on the appeal form it says it's £165. What's up with these inconsistencies? It seems like the Handbook is wrong on both counts.

Even if an FD is a mark of <75% of the pass mark, I've looked through the paper and, making sure I marked myself harshly (by which I mean giving myself marks when I fulfilled a "show that" question, but deducting a few points for each question I'd answered with the correct technique but may have had an error in my calculation), I think I received around 50 marks (52 to be precise). This gives a pass mark of 69% for the FD=75% criteria, or 86% for the FD=60% criteria, both of which I find hard to believe!

I will appeal, but I'm confused by the deadlines they set for appealing, yet if I look at my exam paper or receive counselling and I see something wrong then I still have a right to appeal. Why set up the deadlines at all?