I know all the projects are different, but my exam didn't require anything more complicated than SUM(). What "signigcant knowledge" did you find you needed?
by significant knowledge I don't refer to functions such as sum, sumproduct etc but applying all these to the numerous 'small' tasks within a spreadsheet environment. I believe getting around the spreadsheet is half the battle and then writing summary and audit. Since marks are awarded mainly for the altter it is very disproportionate. Back to your question, theres more to writing a good spreadsheet than knowing code and excel based functions, which is required to succeed.
I agree. Maybe CA2 Student was just lucky in that you only needed to use SUM. The LARGER matter is not the actual formulae that you finally use, but putting it all together in a spreadsheet that works; being able to expand it (in EXACTLY the way required for the additional knowledge) can be followed relatively easily (both by a marker and yourself to check errors) For an unfamiliar topic, this can be quite difficult (and I don't think I'm alone in this thought). Creating good spreadsheets at work is a lot different than a random unfamiliar exercise. Work may not be appropriate to get experience because day-to-day work is fairly standard in most offices and you have the benefit of set in-house procedures, add-ins etc. The profession's site has only 2 exam type examples to attempt. Acted has another one, but that doesnt leave many ways to get experience (If anyone has more examples to try, please post them) Without a decent spreadsheet, I think your chances are pretty slim, even though the spreadsheet itself isn't worth many marks. That being said, I think it is a good skill that actuaries need. We just need to work on teaching those who don't yet have it. And there aren't many simple ways to improve it. The topics need to be unfamiliar because it has to be accessible for everyone (which means general work that you probably never did before or will do again) More time, more tuition, and more help on the day are the best obvious improvements to be made.
You can ask as much as you like and will only loose a maximum of 5% of the marks. I think that's quite generous (better than any other exam I've taken!!). Don't get my wrong, I *did* find the exam quite hard, but that was purely because I felt under quite a lot of time pressure. I was rushing to write my summary at the end of the day.
Yes you can ask for as much help as you want, and I certainly recommend it. What I should have said is more people to help. Having to wait half an hour to ask a question (then to think about the response for a few more minutes only to wait in queue again) doesn't help much with the time pressure. (Come to think of it, a little more desk space wouldn't hurt either - I barely had room for the keyboard, mouse and one A4 paper. I usually find spreading pages out helpful.) Don't get me wrong either, I don't have only negative opinions on CA2. It does attempt to test a certain level of competance in a very useful skill area, and the "actuary standard" needs to be a certain height - we should simply try to make sure that the hoops are the right shape before we jump through them.
Fair enough. I only remember one guy asking anything in my exam so he didn't have to wait! I must have taken one of the easier ones I couldn't agree more! I had to move my keyboard out the way every time I wanted to write something on paper. Crazy.
I would agree that it's helpful to ask a question if you're stuck. I did the exam about 15 months ago and spent a lot of time "going down a blind alley" on a small aspect of the problem. The assessor quickly helped me change my perspective on how to approach the problem, without actually saying very much at all. I did run into time pressures - I struggled to finish the slides and I didn't get chance to check anything that I'd done (except for the little "self-checks" I applied in the spreadsheet as I went through - small tip). Time would have been less of a problem if I had sought a bit of help sooner - so I would say it's definately worth forfeiting a mark or two and I did pass by doing this. The staff actuary also explained (as I understood it) that the pass criterion sat separately to the total marks awarded, although clearly the two are usually associated. I'm not sure if I misunderstood this, but I got the impression that the paper could be recommended for a pass (fail) with a relatively low (high) mark depending on how the attempt stood up to the overall pass criteria. I'm not sure if this may have changed, however, because the pass rate seems to have fallen - to around 40% at recent sittings. They are also now introducing FA/FB type grades so perhaps the system is more mechanical than previously so. I do wish the Institute/Faculty would make clear their requirements for this exam because I don't think they have been so far. And, personally, I don't believe the overall quality of attempts could have fallen so much in the circa 18 months since the days of 95%+ pass rates. What's happening there?
My understanding of the pass criteria is as follows: If the assessor(s) have the "feeling" that the overall project(summary/audit trail etc) gives a good impression that you followed good audit(/commmunication/etc) principles, then you pass. The marking scheme is designed in an attempt to remove (some) of the subjectivity involved in the above. From this my feeling is that they look at the marks and pass/fail answer to the "main criteria" to arrive at the cut off point. Possibly, there pass/fail results may not be in strict order of marks, but even then I doubt the leeway would be large. I am not in favour of only getting a P/FA/FB/FC/FD especially as it is not clear what is required. I understand that detailed failure points were highlighted in a letter in the past, so that you can improve. But I suppose this information was a bit too demanding on assessors. I am a bit worried at the large drop in pass rates myself. (fingers crossed for my own results in a few weeks)
It's the actuarial driving test - if you appear like a good/confident driver but make a few mistakes they'll pass you... if you are *technically sound* on the test but they think you're still unsafe, you'll fail for mirrors! In saying that, I think the historically high pass rates, coupled with being able to do it about a year earlier (i.e. no need for a CA1/3 sitting) and a higher number of people with exemptions (again reducing *driiving practice*) time has meant more people are going in when they're not ready... ...since it's not a box-ticking exercise (not saying normal exams are like that but exam technique can make up for lack of knowledge!) i think people have started to eneter without enough time behind the wheel /rubbish analogy
I don't agree with experience being the reason for failure, its all down to technique and marking. Example a student with 1 yrs experience passed CA3 first time, whereas a senior manager is retaking it for 8th time!!! I think if they gave more than FA/FB etc and tell us exactly what we missed then the pass rate would be higher for retakers at least....currently the only way for that is exam counselling which is 225 pounds a time.
I didn't mean it to be a hard and fast rule - some people have the knack, others don't, most learn over time. I only comment from having spoken to a few people who have failed and where they have slipped up are areas (I feel) that they probably wouldn't if they had more experience - checks etc. I think people have a shock of moving from using spreadsheets that have been fully developed to having to develop one themselves. Didn't realise that they even did exam counselling/gave grades - maybe things are changing for the better. Tho I doubt we'll ever see the day exam counseling is free....
I also find it hard to believe that the drop in pass rates (since inception) is primarily because the entry requirements have been lowered. Experience may not NECESSARILY help. Eg, with experience most people move towards more specialised tasks. Moving to a generalised (dare I say simplified) task can be challenging. While the exam was certainly difficult, I found that parts of the method were oversimplified (which had me confused at some point) I don't think moving to fail grades is better, but rather the opposite. A list of areas for which you failed (which I understand used to be given) is far more useful and informative. Ok counselling does this, but at a large price. Personally, I wouldnt consider counselling until after failing multiple times.
I have luckily passed my CA2 a few months ago. I do agree that experience doesn't seem to help very much - a lot of people who sat the exam with me (and have failed once already) are pretty experienced and are waiting to qualify on CA2. I don't know why I pass but I remember I put in stupid amount of comments everywhere, much more so than I would have done at work. And also it helps to try to do the questions as quickly as possible and then just add comments here and there and everywhere...
I just got my result for CA2 distance learning version and unfortunately failed. What bugs me is that I don't have a good understanding of what I need to improve to pass. Can anyone share their experiences - comparative benefits and usefullness - of the following: 1) Travel to UK to take 2-day course/exam 2) Acted Mock Exam 3) Exam Councelling or is there anything else I could do? p.s. well done to those who did pass!
I have also failed recently (having done the 2-day course). I strongly agree with didster below that "A list of areas for which you failed (which I understand used to be given) is far more useful and informative" than fail grades. Although it was my first attempt I feel I have no choice but to do the exam counselling, at my own expense. Otherwise I won't have a clue about my relative performance as between the spreadsheet, the audit trail and the summary. But I'd be interested to see if anyone can convince me that I'm over-reacting ...
I wonder if the exam counselling helped in the end? ie. helped you to improve your weak areas and pass?
