Is it really necessary to ask ambiguous questions in exam?

[Praveeraj]

I have been looking at the past exam papers for CA1 and i came across lots of ambiguous questions.

"by ambiguous questions i mean questions that can have different views"

I know my acted notes and the core reading very well but when it comes to answering ambiguous exams questions, i am stuck.

I can't see the point in asking these questions in exam because if you intepret the question in a different view to the examiner, you get zero for not understanding the question.

I think the panel of people who prepare these papers should ensure that students taking the exams understand exactly what they have been ask in the questions.

Is there anyone else out there who thinks the same?

 

[fischer]

Agree to an extent.
Some questions - there is onlyone way to interpret it. But the range of ideas may be different. The examiner may focus only on a few "key" ideas and elaborate on them. A student on the other hand will bring out more ideas. Some may not be "key" (but that does not mean they are irrelevant) and don't think the examiners give credit for those points. Of course, the examiners report will mostly say that credit is given to a points not on the schedule, but I think it is rarely is the case.

For other questions - we may be expected to highlight advanages and disadvantages of a suggestion. Again, if you interpret a disadvantage as an advantage or vice versa, it is most probably wrong.

So, the trouble (for me atleast) is not the interpretation but getting the "key" points. I had gone for counselling the first time I failed for CA1 (FA). The counsellor said that I wrote many points that were not "key" and wrote very little on the key points. I was not completely satisfied with the counselling session because there is no sure way of knowing what the "key" points are. That probably explains why I failed CA1 for the second time as well with an FA!!!

 

[bystander]

The thing with the later subjects is they test application not parrot learning.

You will be asked for opinion and have to justify your case. Its a different skill and feeling hard done by because you feel somthing is ambiguous won't help you on the day.

You just have to make the best judgement you can and get on with it.

In a way it is rael life. How often do you come across a vague brief from a boss etc and have to make your best stab?

Examiners do actually award marks not on the original schedule though you will be expected to get the main points as discussed above. I think this was brought out in the counselling session mentioned above.

Comfort yourself with the fact that all are in the same boat.

 

[Praveeraj]

Hello again

Hello, many thanks for replying....

I do agree completely to what you mentioned...

• That we should try to make our best judgement to what have been asked.
• Try to get the main points and elaborate on them.
• Spend less time on points that are less relevant to the questions.

Ok that's easy said than done.

The point that i really wanted to get across is "why ask these questions in the first place".

An exam is supposed to test the candidates' understanding and interpretation of the core reading materials and not the understanding and interpretation of the questions that's been asked. This is different and i guess this only happens in the actuarial exams.

That's the reason why there is so many people who fail the latter exams, not because they haven't understand the core reading and seriously attempted exam style questions but on the day of the exam, they didn't look at the questions in the same perspective as the person who wrote them.

I think it's really time for a change. I am not asking for the exam to be made easier but a system change.

• Examiners should give full points for misinterpreting the questions as long as they can see a clear reasoning behind the answers.

• There should not be a standard solution given to the examiners but instead examiners should be allowed to use their own judgement. Otherwise what's the use of an actuary marking the paper?

• For students who fail the exams, they should be able to view their marked scripts.

• And some kind of format for the CA1 exams such that students won’t have to resit both papers if they managed to pass one of them.

I really want to change things here and it will be good to know how many people think the same.


Acted, I will be pleased if you could send everyone in the forum a brief note to have a look at this post. Thank you.

 

[capitalH]

An exam is supposed to test the candidates' understanding and interpretation of the core reading materials and not the understanding and interpretation of the questions that's been asked. This is different and i guess this only happens in the actuarial exams.

I disagree. The purpose of actuarial exams is to ensure that you are properly qualified to do the work of an actuary. Real problems are not always explained fully. Real world problems generally do have multiple answers though, with varying degrees of "correctness". I would rather suggest that the marking be accommodating to the different possible interpretations, which may already be the case.

Examiners should give full points for misinterpreting the questions as long as they can see a clear reasoning behind the answers.

Not necessarily full points, but some points, and only if this leads to a valid solution. As per above - correctly interpreting a problem is a critical actuarial skill.

There should not be a standard solution given to the examiners but instead examiners should be allowed to use their own judgement. Otherwise what's the use of an actuary marking the paper?

I understand this is already the case?

For students who fail the exams, they should be able to view their marked scripts.

I agree. It would not be difficult to make available a scanned copy (for overseas students).

And some kind of format for the CA1 exams such that students won’t have to resit both papers if they managed to pass one of them.

I want to agree, but I will rather disagree. The split into two papers will essentially mean that it becomes two subjects. Although the volume of work do justify this approach, I think the subject should remain as it is.

 

[Praveeraj]

Thanks for the reply

I don't think that the examiners give any marks if they can't find the answers in the solution booklet.

I met an actuary whilst on an actuarial society meeting; he was in his 50's, works part time as a consultant and is one of the CA1 markers. I asked him about the marking procedures and etc.

He told me that if he can't find the answer in the solutions booklet given to him, he does not award any marks. When i asked him why, he replied....

...."if i have to understand each candidates answers, that will take too long and we don't get paid that much to mark the papers"

We also said that this time round, he had to mark twice the number of papers in the same time period compared to last year. When i asked him how you coped with this, he replied....

...."i just had to go quickly through each paper as we get a deadline from the institute"

I was shocked that day and felt pity for me and all the other candidates who put so much effort in these exams.

I think instead of paying actuaries to mark the exams, who do not put too much effort in marking the scripts as the reward to them is very low. The institute should consider, for example outsourcing the marking to ACTED.

 

[capitalH]

That would be shocking if it is true.

Failing an exam because of inadequate preparation - ok
Failing an exam because of a "bad day" - ok
Failing an exam because the marker is in a hurry - inexcusable

Making the scripts available upon failure (and then having an appeal process) might help to solve this - maybe only for the Non-CT subjects?

 

[Praveeraj]

I know that's is shocking but that's really what's been going on....well, consider this:

How much does a consultant with a few years of experience earn in 1 hour?

£500 p/hour approx

How much do actuaries get to mark a 3 hour paper?

£100 approx or less

Do you think it's worth the effort from the actuary point of view?

I personally don't think so....

 

[Zebedee]

Making the scripts available upon failure (and then having an appeal process) might help to solve this - maybe only for the Non-CT subjects?

Failed scripts are already available through exam counselling. There is already an appeal process also. Scripts are double-marked and, when the difference between the two markers is outside a set range, or when the candidate is borderline, are then third marked. The best advice I can give you is to focus on your studies and question practice - not to get bogged down in reinventing the system. Good luck.

 

[phantom]

its very simple: no accountability means no quality assurance.. there needs to be transparency.. so I would not only want to be able see my script, but also the marks for each question..

that, more importantly, would also help me see my weak areas and work on them...

if it becomes this transparent, the marking system would also be vindicated from all accuses..

 

[capitalH]

Failed scripts are already available through exam counselling.

Although the script is available the marking is not (so you cannot see the allocation of marks). This is also only available for UK students - unless I fly to the UK.

The best advice I can give you is to focus on your studies and question practice - not to get bogged down in reinventing the system.

I do agree with you (even considering my statement above). But it does not mean that the system should just be accepted.


I tried searching for why marked scripts cannot be made available, but cannot find a reason, so I am speculating here that the reasons may be:

1. Administration (originals will need to be kept, so copies/scans will need to be sent out).
2. The pass mark will then be semi-public (students will be able to infer the pass mark).

 

[bystander]

You clearly have very strong views. Why don't you contact your student rep who can bring it up a student consultative discussions in London? Or contact Trevor Watkins who I believe is in charge of education matters at the Institute.

I look at your suggestion to use ActEd. They also have volunteer markers who have sometimes full time jobs so the time pressure wouldn't be eliminated. If you pay markers the same as consultants then the exam fees would go through the roof. Don't think 'ers would be happy and certainly those unsupported individuals would never be able to follow their dream.

There has to be a deadline for results. Already students complain it takes too long so there has to be a compromise. Everyone is treated the same both now and historically.

If you write succinctly, trelevantly and clearly you will get the marks. many moons ago you used to get a breakdown qn by qn - a bit like the overall FA-D - so yes you could see weaknesses. But if you omit a question how can marks be awarded. On marks, the scripts are marked at least 3 times (blindly) so no-one is influenced by others opinions. Naturally there will be deviation in marks.

So I'm afraid you'll have to live with the system. Better to put your efforts into finding weaknesses. Gut feel is generally if its a qn you don't like, there's some of your problem.

Hope its a pass next time.

 

[Praveeraj]

hello everyone

There been mixed reviews....not everyone agree with me but those who do, i will be contacting the institute shortly and i will need all your support.

And those who advise me to concentrate more on my revision instead of trying to change the system, thank you very much...

I think we students have been treated unfairly regarding the exams and this been going for too many years now and something need to change. But if we do not complain, nothing will change…

The fact about the exams is that you are more likely to fail than pass, see the exams results stats....overall just 40% of students pass and 60% fail and it gets even worse for later exams. Why do you think this is the case? Most actuarial students are nuts, surely not…..

And for most of us, this is the first time we ever fail a subject....It can't be that all the students who failed, haven't understand the questions, didn't do the questions under exam conditions, didn't study or for whatever reasons the institute mentions in the exam report....

I don't know about other students’ view but i think that a big part of that failure is due to "Examiners” not taking the marking seriously".

Many people suggested that exam scripts are marked at least twice and a third time if you close to the pass marks but how do we know that this is true. Even if that true, why the institute can't just show us our marked scripts when we go for counselling?

Either the institute is not sure on the competence of the markers or what been said about the marking system is not true.

There hasn't been much response to this debate but everyone out there, i will be pleased if you could reply to this post stating which of these you will prefer:

1) Exams questions to be set by an educational body (e.g. Acted) rather than working actuaries and scripts to be marked by the same body.

2) Exams questions to be set by working actuaries but marked by an independent body (not working actuaries).

3) Current system – Exams questions set by working actuaries and marked by different actuaries.

 

[Busy_Bee4422]

Exams or Exemption?

I have seen this thread evolve from being a critique on the exam questions to one on the overall exam system. I suggest a different take on the exam problem. There are two ways of getting through the system. Either through the exam route or through the exemption route (too bad for some coz the profession won't give exemptions for an exam failed with them ). Why not avoid the exams by going through the varsity route? Most people who I know who have had it easy had a lot of exemptions from City or Heriot (admitted I am on the exam route ).

There is a lot of investment by the profession in the image and standards about being a sharp bunch. There is even greater investment in some traditional things such as the exam system which buttress the proffession. I only see a change of tactics as the best way of getting the qualification(still FIA for me? ). I imagine they have already had lengthy correspondence with heated failed students.

Of all the actuarial bodies it seems only Casuality Actuarial Society seems keen to talk about exam marks. But then again GI is not a cup of tea so crossing there might not be a viable option(for me ).

Personally I intend to qualify and become an examiner and try change from there.

 

[bystander]

I wish you well with going to the Institute. My final piece of advice however would be not to accuse the profession of lying about the exam marking procedure.

As a profession it relies heavily on integrity. I don't think suggesting otherwise will get you anywhere.

Regarding counselling, go along - try it for yourself. You will see your script but no it does not have anything on there except notation in the margin to say whether the examiner has seen that page. As I've said before, there has to be an element of judgement on non-mathematical qns therefore I feel the system is right to 'blind mark'. Nothing can ever be perfect - they are just seeking the best compromise achievable.

 

[PittaPan]

I agree with Zebedee.

These exams are like a big game. You may as well focus your energies on trying to get through them, flaws and all, rather than changing the rules.

As for the argument that “if we do not complain, nothing will change…”, nobody is forcing anybody to sit these exams and expose themselves to the current marking system. I have failed different papers several times and understand the pain involved but you just have to keep trying and remember that there are others who passed - so there’s obviously a way through.

Once you’ve qualified, volunteer for whatever committees are responsible for setting the exams and lobby to change them that way (if you’re still bothered by that stage).

 

[didster]

Perhaps a private poll (anonymous) would attract more voters.

I believe actuaries are best placed to say what qualities future actuaries need.
An external body (eg Acted) as markers isn't magically going to be much better. I've noticed many errors/flaws with Acted Marking myself, although that isn't nearly as important nor subjected to same quality control. Anyone qualified to mark exams is likely to be qualified to be an actuary, who will have similar remuneration expectations.

The current system is far from perfect, I agree, but the needed improvements aren't immediately obvious (at least to me as well as the powers that be). Perhaps the use of more guineapigs (who sit paper as trial beforehand) may help to identify areas of ambiguity.

 

[Praveeraj]

Why do you think a private poll would attract more people?

I thought a public poll is transparent and should suit everyone who got an opinion.

 

[Praveeraj]

[I believe actuaries are best placed to say what qualities future actuaries need]

I completely agree with you that qualified actuaries are in the best position to set and mark the exam questions. Acted tutors are qualified actuaries too.

 

[capitalH]

Acted tutors are qualified actuaries too.

Not all - I think there is some that is still students.

 

[didster]

Re public/private poll: there are usually people who would give a response more easily if it's anonymous. It was just a suggestion. This site is fairly anonymous anyway.

If you agree that actuaries should set exam standards, I'm at a loss on your original suggestion. What is Acted or an independent body going to achieve? I thought you wanted to move away from working actuaries doing exams.

In reality,
I'm pretty sure that there are some non-actuaries who mark (and perhaps assist setting papers) eg academics, but they are experts in the area so not really an issue.
At the end of the day, whichever entity has responsibility, many of the same individuals will be involved because of scarcity of those willing and able to do the job.

I also like the current policy of separating the tuition and exams. If this wasn't so, some people may think (even if it's not true) that teachers might train students for a particular exam, rather than the subject as a whole. This might increase the divide between "passing exams" and "fit for work".

This last point is the real issue. I don't think people will complain (as much) about failing if this was an accurate reflection on their ability to work as an actuary. Problem is that exams only test ability to pass exams.