Is it really necessary to ask ambiguous questions in exam?

I certainly agree with you. The exam issue should be viewed with the objective in mind - to train people to be "fit for work". Whilst there may be an ideal situation in mind it certainly seems quite difficult to achieve. I rather think the way the system is tends to err on the side of prudence more often i.e. not letting out those who are incompetent in large numbers. I hastily add that the big problem now seems that the set of qualifieds seems to be a subset of the "fit to work" hence the angst at the exams (incidentally I know a chap who is the ceo of a life company who couldn't get the fellowship paper). But I dread to imagine the consequence to the profession's standing to employers if we get a situation in which the "fit to work" are a subset of those qualified.

So the big question still remains. What do ambiguous questions have to do with the training of competencies? That I think is not a question which we should take lightly and can give quick answers to. Indeed the exams process will benefit greatly by being revised but in a thoughtful manner which doesn't dilute the professions brand. Honestly that is what attracted most of us.

Can we change the exams process and still maintain the brand? That is my biggest concern in this whole matter. Don't want to go through a set of exams and find that I might as well have spent a year doing an MBA and got better gains.