I know a few people who successfully passed SA3 having only studied SP8 first (plus some very minimal skimming of reserving and capital modelling topics from SP7 , without going into full details or even the SP7 core reading), as well as going through many SA3 past papers. One passed on first attempt even. So it can be done. They may have just been “lucky” with the mix of questions in the sessions they passed in. One of them also said he had relied partly on CP1 knowledge for generating additional generic points, too.
The first third (approx) of the SP7 and SP8 syllabuses are almost identical anyway and I think those early chapters are the most important parts in later relying on for generating additional “generic” points to score in SA3.
Personally I prefer to have studied both SP7 and SP8 in full prior to SA3, so that there isn’t some psychological doubt in the back of my mind that I might be missing one or two marks/ points which I could have picked up or thought of if I had been familiar with some chapter I had missed by not studying one of the papers. One or two marks can be the difference between passing and failing if your final score is borderline. I also had a better overall understanding of GI by studying both SP7 and 8, and I had broader and more comprehensive mind maps going into SA3 this way.
You’re unlikely to be directly tested in SA3 on intricate technical details of things covered in later parts of SP7/ 8 though they reserve the right to, and you are still expected / assumed to know the concepts prior to SA3 and to think broadly around all of the topics (which might be hard if u have totally missed out on chunks of either syllabus).
The SA3 course notes are written on the assumption that students have studied SP7 and SP8 as well as triangulation methods from CM2. (But for SA3 itself, past exams papers are a better way of preparing than the SA3 course notes, though you need to go through the course at least once to know where to refer to for any basic bookwork questions).
In the introductory chapter of the SA3 notes (Acted) it does say, “Knowledge of the whole of the Subject SP7 and SP8 course is very much needed for the Subject SA3 examination…. If you have never studied one or both of Subjects SP7 or SP8, you will need to become very familiar with the material in both of those subjects in order to prepare for Subject SA3.” So that’s the “official” view. As I said, I know some people who have got away without fully studying SP7 and still passing SA3 but I think you increase your risk of being caught out by a question relying (directly or indirectly) on some material from whichever subject you have missed out.
I think the syllabus is constructed this way to try to encourage actuaries qualifying in GI to be well-rounded (to a degree) and not so siloed into pricing/ reserving / capital modelling to the extent of not knowing what the principles underlying the other silos are.
It would be interesting to hear the views of others, anyway.
Last edited: Jul 15, 2022
