My two cents

I have never posted on these forums before. Having just sat (and failed) this exam for the second time, I feel the need to vent amongst people who will understand the unique misery that CA3 brings.

I work at a large employee benefits consultancy where I have regular contact with clients and senior colleagues. I have never had any issues with communication and often present actuarial issues at client meetings. Having failed again, I genuinely have no idea what I need to do differently in order to pass. This is the last exam I need in order to qualify. I have applied for exam counselling, although though I am somewhat loathed to hand over even more money to the Institute at this point. I have a number of colleagues in a similar position: they are writing and presenting to clients with excellent feedback but simply cannot get through this exam. In most cases, this is the last exam they are waiting on and it is holding up their career progression. Judging by recent pass rates I suspect there must be a considerable backlog of senior students in this position.

I know I’m going to hear all the same tired feedback: get more things marked by ActEd, practice to colleagues etc. etc. but I feel there are some deeper issues here. I strongly suspect the vast majority of people who sit the CA3 exam already have good if not excellent communication skills in the real world. They would not have made to through an interview to be working in the profession otherwise. I also struggle to believe that pass rates of c. 30% are solely attributable to poor preparation, not answering the questions or the use of jargon. The consistency of the (low) pass mark in recent sittings is highly suspicious of some kind of quota in operation.

I get it, I really do… the Institute needs to be able to test communication skills. This is a vital part of what we do. However, CA3 in its current form has three big problems:

• Presenting to a webcam

Quite simply, this is artificial and stupid. There is an argument that in future we may all be presenting via video link etc. etc. but this is a flimsy excuse for what is effectively cost cutting by the Institute. The scope for evaluating tone and body language must be far more limited via webcam than it would be in person and the exam suffers as a result. Furthermore, the student doesn’t get the opportunity to build rapport with the audience, establish eye contact etc. and therefore we miss out on the opportunity to exhibit another layer of important communication skills.

• Lack of anonymity

As I understand it, all other actuarial exams follow the “double-blind” principle. There is a very good reason why you don’t know your marker and they don’t know you. A former senior colleague of mine marks the presentation aspect of the exam and he used to joke with me that he could be marking my exam. This situation is completely inappropriate as I don’t think it is possible for anyone to evaluate someone they know (or may have worked with) and remain impartial. It just isn’t possible. I would be very interested in hearing what assurances the Institute has in place for making sure markers declare any such conflicts of interest.

• Length of time to mark

These are not session-based exams with thousands of entrants. There are usually 35 to 40 scripts and presentations to mark. If the examiners spend around 3 to 4 hours on average per student, plus time for moderation meetings to agree a pass mark, I could understand the process might take up to 6 weeks. I think this is a reasonable timeframe, even allowing for the new influx of CA3 exams to mark on a rolling basis. Taking more than double this time is simply not fair on the students. I suspect the 12 weeks is a hangover from the session-based exams rather representing a timetable which could be objectively justified.

OK, rant over. I feel better. I would welcome thoughts from the floor.

 

On anonymity, yes it is possible that someone who knows you sees your efforts but they are duty bound to disclose this to the profession and this will almost certainly trigger an extra marking.

Regarding timeframes, these are qualified actuaries marking in their own time. Before criticising, think whether when you qualify you are prepared to do the same. So many people won't do it on top of a full time job.

Think whether your clients are the same audience as you are trying to address in the exam. You see clients periodically so they actually may know more than the intended audience which is where you may inadvertently start using jargon. Could it be your slides are the issue rather than the spoken word? Don't go in all guns blazing if you do get counselling. You need an open mind and be able to take on what the counsellor tells you. Otherwise, yes you are wasting your money and time.

So get over it. You aren't alone and victory will be all the more sweet when it does come.

 

Is this an appropriate response to the very well-written comments made by Ca3_ache, which include some extremely good points?

I have just received my exam counselling report (after failing CA3 twice) and am now even more surprised that I failed - the negative points are not at all substantial and I don't, after seven years of experience reporting, consulting and communicating to very large, professional, institutional clients, believe they are incorrect.

I will personally not ever get over this, because I strongly believe there are some serious issues with the principles of this exam.

 

Same boat

Hi

If it makes you feel better, I am in exactly the same boat

In my reviews at work, feedback on my communication skills with clients/colleagues is often very positive (supposedly excellent). I have thought it was one of my strengths until failing this exam NUMEROUS times. I am very comfortable communicating as I have pretty much grown up on stage - music/drama clubs etc.

It's my last exam since forever and I failed it AGAIN in March with an FA. It is almost as if the Institute wants you to communicate in a specific way, and if you do things any differently, it's a fail. Communications is so subjective and it does seem a bit of a **** take. Paying out 400 pounds each time is also painful. I have done exam counselling twice and been given different feedback both times. The first time, I was not emphasising my key points strongly enough and the second time, I needed to keep it simpler. There is a bouquet of reasons that they fail you on and I'm beginning to think I will never qualify because of this pointless exam.

I have been for the Acted mock day, the feedback to my presentation skills and slides were excellent. Got 2 of the 5 assignments marked previously and working through the other 3 of them now. Hopefully the feedback from markers will be helpful.

Sitting it again in a few weeks, so let's see.. fingers crossed!!! #notgivingup

 

Communication

A colleague of mine was in a similar position. He flew through the exams (passing 2 ST's in 1 exam session! ) but stalled for about 2 years with the communication exam.

I think the format of the exam needs to be reconsidered so that there is less subjectivity in the marking. The previous communication's exam (prior to 2010 I think) was a written format (e.g. letter writing, slide presentation etc.) with no requirement to perform or "act out" a presentation. I think this format ensured more consistency in the marking of candidates attempts at the subject.

Communication is definitely an important skill for members of the actuarial profession but I don't think should (implicitly) become a barrier to Fellowship qualification.

 

I suspect that's exactly it.

 

I totally agree with the excellent points made by the original poster. You'll see on my other threads that I don't feel we get properly prepared to pass this exam. I got one presentation marked at 80% and the next one got just over 40% after absorbing feedback, written went down from 46% to 37% (despite not answering one bit in the first letter... would have got 60-65% if I had included that) just how can one go from clear pass to clear fail like this? My approach was same as before adjusting only for feedback given. One shouldn't go from clear pass to clear fail from doing that.

If there's proper education going on this wouldn't happen, there would be an improvement. There cannot be genuine education taking place when they refuse to declare their jargon list & other crucial do's and don'ts.

As for hammering on alleged jargon, it's just another excuse to fail people surely. If you state at the beginning of a presentation any questions do ask, also you can ask questions at the end, then this should mitigate.

 

I really do empathise with you all. I've been through the pain. And alas, like you I had to work with the guidance and retry til I got there. Yes, it's a really good opener and indeed close in a presentation to say ask questions. But the idea even in reality, is that these will be limited if you pitch at a level that satisfies most. I do hope you took the opportunity to send feedback either directly to the Profession in its recent round of consultation or via your student rep. ActED are not the examiners, and prepare according to the syllabus, and their best interpretation thereof. know that doesn't help now, but you have to pass the exam in its current form. I'm sure you don't want to defer any longer. There is no defined list of jargon in the syllabus.
Regarding fluctuating marks I experienced this too, but with a deep breath, and looking at feedback and scenarios together, I made sense of it. But I can't offer any hard and fast rules for you that are the magic solution. In every correspondence, if you asked me to redo it a week later, I guarantee it wouldn't be the same. Such is the nature of communication. You are able to ask for a second opinion from ActEd of your script - if you really want one I'm sure if you called them when you REALLYneed it I'm sure they will try their best to assist, though priority will go to first marking as this is what you pay for. They like everyone who writes here wants success, not failure.
Finally I am sorry if my saying 'get over it' felt strong. No offence was intended, but when it comes to exam day, you need to go in with a positive approach and forget your misgivings about process. If you are 'worked up' about it, that alone can impact our performance. I was given this advice myself once and can actually now see some merit in it.
Hope this helps and that very soon the nightmare will be replaced by sheer relief. Good luck.

 

... and the next one down to 34%. Gets worse and worse the more feedback I absorb. This time I tried to keep it more high level and not baffle the admin manager with technical details that are of no concern to them, so I get done for not being technical enough. The admin team's job is to collect accurate data, so my letter explained who would use this data and for the mortality report that would influence big decisions on premium & reserves. It seems that's not good enough and acted think the admin manager in this case wants to know about mortality rates, exposed to risk etc. the question was "how will the figures get used" which is vague and doesn't suggest to us if the internal calcs process by actuaries should go in the letter or just state they will be analysed & processed by actuaries and put into a report for consideration by chief actuary...

It's just as well I keep getting the 5/5 for English grammar & spelling etc. Must wonder how only 5% for this. Nothing looks worse or more unprofessional than bad spelling & grammar. I'd love to see a letter that has passed CA3 that had a bad 0/5 on this category...

No wonder 60-70% fail this exam on each sitting. There's no way this letter can be fairly judged to achieve only 34% etc. of what is being asked, especially when the question is so vague.

So you put a summary in, just in case you lose marks for not doing so. Then you leave yourself open to getting done on repetition.

 

The 'overall' category in the marking schedule is the tool whereby non-substantial negative points, that they've already deducted marks for, get multiplied up and deducted even more here. It worries me how much the punishment can vary between different markers. It only takes 3-4 accusations of jargon for some markers to deducted 10-20 marks here and fail you.

 

Exactly. And letting these people with technical background and pretend they are Donal Trump in deciding whether something is a jargon or not....
Wait, did I just use a metaphor or an actuarial jargon on Trump?oh wait, I guess I have no idea what an actuary really is nowadays anyway, so couldn't define what "actuarial" really means.

Passing a CA3 exam and you could classify yourself to be a good communicator? And, become someone who could judge others' communication skill level?
Seriously, the profession needs to get some grip of how communication works in the real world.

 

... and they are yet to produce a list of the most common jargon from candidates, so that we can all learn what bothers them and do better in their assessment. Fair play to the student consultative forum for asking them for such a list, more than a year ago now.

 

Yes, I agree. The problem is if you get someone marking it who has a weird idea in their head that words like premium, lump-sum, actuarial etc. are jargon & incomprehensible to "non-actuaries", then it doesn't really matter whether you or I or every non-actuary out there disagree since THEY are marking your paper. This is why it's necessary for the IFoA to inform candidates, or at the very least acted, of their list of most common jargon that torpedo people's CA3 attempts. Their failure to do so will only fuel people's thoughts that they don't actually want pass rates to improve...

 

I am losing faith on the profession the more I am down this path of career. Not just because of the exam design.
There is simply a lack of considerations to equip actuaries to be well enough to even stand a chance against a rising number of technical expertise (with excellent communication skills that is for real) where these people can simply outperform what actuaries could offer at work.... by miles in many cases.
The thought process of creating some badly designed 2-day communication exam with minimal support to justify they have "covered it all" in exam syllabus is so backward thinking most non-actuarial colleagues I showed them the exam format they thought I was joking.

 

I find it weird that you have to wait until the next day to actually record a 10 minute presentation. I was ready to get it over and done with that evening. People are having to take time off work unnecessarily just for this on day 2. Again, I saw that the student consultative forum raised this with them already. The SCF have done well raising these things since June 2014 but it doesn't look like anyone's doing anything about these concerns.

 

Has anyone here made an exam appeal?

 

I read something on the IFoA website that appeals cannot be made to question the academic judgement / your grade any more. They only apply for mitigating circumstances or any process flaws in the exam. Best check the website for the latest on that.

 

although not everyone agrees: https://www.acted.co.uk/forums/index.php?threads/starting-preparations-for-ca3.12385/#post-48378