C
ca3_ache
Member
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.
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.
