Exposed to Risk - The Great Deception ?
Does anyone get the feeling that actually "exposed to risk" (E2R) in real life isn't half as complicated as the notes make out?
I used to do exposed to risk in my last job and I never had any problems with consistency between deaths and E2R.
Is it just a case of examiners representing something as more complicated than it is in reality?
Also, I'm interested to know who in their work has come across a definition of "age next birthday at policy anniversary in next curtate calendar year minus curtate calendar year of policy inception"? (And that is actually what you call it - why use five words when you can use 20?).
Personally I think it is a real shame that all the students I talk to say they don't understand it, and also those who have passed ct4 say the same thing. If they could just drop the silly complications and just be realistic I think we could all learn something useful. Insread, students just say "oh I can't do it" and don't learn anything!
What a joke! It would be funny if it wasn't us students who had to suffer the abuse.
Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2007
