Nov 2016 paper issues

The Nov 2016 exam paper has now been published on the IFoA website.
The description of the CA3 exam on the IFoA website says:

CA3 Communications is an online exam which examines how to prepare and communicate actuarial content to both an actuarial and a non-actuarial audience.​

&

Day 1 - you sit the written paper in the morning (10.00-11.45 UK time). This involves the creation of a written document, such as a letter or memo, conveying an actuarial topic to a non-actuarial audience​

Complaints:
1. I believe the topic for Q1 for the November exam - Coffee sales proposals - failed to meet the criteria of being an actuarial topic.
2. Graph was requested. This seriously eats into time - very unfair! This is meant to be a written assessment. No acted preparation for any of this.
3. Asking people to comment on marketing proposals, then at the end of the question ask us to suspend business reality by ignoring reselling value is just ridiculous in this ebay age.

We're still waiting for the minutes from the student consultative forum. It will be interesting to see how many of these complaints were discussed there.

Q2 - I have no complaints. It was about a new life insurance product.

 

mmm - difficult for the examiners with the topic I think. If they set it on pensions, GI folk might complain etc. If they try to set it on something generic - others complain. Lots of numbers; a data analytics department - wider fields.
Is a graph the same as a chart? "like tables and charts so please use these where appropriate". I don't think this is a big deal. Any you use would have to be very simple. It is a written exercise, asking for 600 words.
And they are trying to help you in saying not worry about the resale value - or it would become even more complicated.

Having said all that - lots of information to take in and digest and I doubt few would do this in 1 hr 45 mins in the real world. Glad I didn't have to sit this and have that time pressure.

 

When there's at least 3 graphs required for Q2 then I do question why they ask for them in Q1 now as well. All it really does it eat into the 90 minutes even more. So we have to write 600 words but with less time - so unfair.

Look at the topics for Q1 all the way back to 2009 and they've been actuarial topics
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studyi...a3-past-papers-examiners-reports-and-syllabus

 

I don't think it helps at all. One proposal was a free coffee machine and you have to compare this with other proposals with more capsules. If the coffee machine has no resale value then the market value of this offer is zero. This makes no sense when they charge what $200 for it.

Plus why are they using $ in questions now?!? What's wrong with the £ ?

 

Chart sounds more American than British. An Excel chart is what I'd call a graph.

 

Although the coffee context makes it look non-actuarial, to me it looks like a similar scenario to an old pensions question where you had to consider interacting factors, like fixed/variable, or fund up/down. Or even comparison of different products (life, general, pensions, coffee machines...).
We know 'written exam' has a loose meaning for CA3. None of it is truly written, as it's all typed! I'm not sure that cutting and pasting from powerpoint into Word is tricky? I think you just 'insert' picture or something. Lots of practice at creating graphs within the traditional ppt questions. But yes, time pressure may have been an issue with this one.
$ and £ - aren't they the same thing now anyway?

 

It's not an actuarial topic. It's not even a real life business topic when there's no resale value for a $200 coffee machine.
Pede- you do a graph in Excel then put into Word. This is not as straightforward as pasting it into Powerpoint. All this wastes time when people have 600 words to write.

 

The issue of this not being an actuarial topic is very important. There's no opportunity with this question to demonstrate your skills of communicating an actuarial topic to a non-actuarial audience. All that preparation of avoiding actuarial jargon etc. a waste of time here.

Plus with the graph request, given that we're told in our preparations that a non-actuarial audience would struggle to grasp everyday terms such as lump-sum, premium etc. then who's to say they could comprehend a graph?

If they do, then wouldn't a paragraph of 100 words below the graph explaining to them what the graph shows be waffle, repetition? Or if the candidate assumes the reader can understand a graph and neglects to include a 100 word explanation below the graph, that candidate could lose marks from failing to hit the 600 word target.

In the August 2016 examiners report the IFoA solution used 88 words to describe the graph in their memo.

 

I just created a graph (albeit v simple) in Excel. Selected it. Ctrl C. Opened Word. Ctrl V. Bingo. Maybe I'm missing something but it couldn't have been simpler!

 

Pede, it doesn't always fit right in the word document right first time etc. if you paste is as a picture so you have to make adjustments. The point is even if that part is quick for you, candidates have to input all the data in, make the graph, label it, format it etc. and that is significant time removed from the exam for writing 600 words. None of that time is a test of written communication.

 

You can make a graph as simple or complicated as you like. Ones with double axes for example may well not be clear to all non actuaries, so I wouldn't choose that. Some people prefer graphs others like words. The two actually go together well. The words summarise key features, the graph gives the whole picture. If you don't want to embed it, I would have thought it's ok to write your piece so there is an appendix. Never seen it as a model solution so maybe that's not what they would like - or even if it's feasible if you'd have to upload 2 documents. The question only hints at using a graph and does offer alternatives. As for the scenario, it's about comparing marketing slant with financials so fair game.

 

not fair game at all, it's not an actuarial topic, if the IFoA concede this then suddenly bystander would agree with it, since bystander is uncomfortable with any criticisms made, yet is patronising to non-actuaries implying they wouldn't understand a 2 axis graph

 

or maybe bystander thinks managing coffee machine marketing is something actuaries do... funnily enough I don't see an ST or SA paper in such actuarial topics as that

 

Almost there - were you taught to read graphs that had for example 2 y axes at school? I very much doubt it. Line graphs, bar graphs, pie charts are all in common usage. As for your comment on the scenario, look past the product and consider what offers a marketing manager could propose in insurance and then maybe you will see. Its not the product that they are testing. I may be an actuary but I make my own conclusions and at times have written direct to the profession where I disagree. Believe me, I am no Professions puppet as you imply and in fact, I find that suggestion offensive.

 

bystander no one taught me to read a graph with two y-axis but I seem to be able to, no actuarial training required it seems, so I think non-actuaries could cope just fine if they're a fan of charts and tables as the question implies.

There has been a step change for the August and November exams to ask for graphs, then in November to move away from an actuarial topic for Q1. This is a very badly thought out exam question and for people sitting this at £435 each then it's simply not good enough.

Look at the question itself, there's very little to graph and write about it apart from the absolute obvious that high usage customer will spend more on coffee capsules and their machine will wear out quicker lol seriously this exam question looks like it was put together in 10 minutes.

 

It's not just a written exercise since they want graph and table, as the recipient has been such a fan of your charts in the past. Basic unfairness here that people who sat this exam before August didn't have to include these things, just concentrate on the writing.

You don't go to a chip shop and ask for fish and chips only for the guy serving you to bring fish and chips then say you want a can of coke as well for the same price.

 

I was promised a response by Friday 9th Dec. Couldn't give it to me then, busy with exam results, so it would be end of the next week but still no response nor minutes from the student consultative forum meeting of Nov 18. I suppose next week they'll be too busy with the exam results and before you know it it's 2017...

 

Just an observation, almost_there...

If you spent as much time and energy preparing for your exam as you do complaining about everything, I suspect you would have more success with the exam.

Although I have no idea how many times you've sat CA3, maintaining this angry "poor me" state of mind doesn't strike me as the most effective way of proceeding. It may mean that you miss the bigger picture.

Sorry - just think it had to be said. And no, I don't work for IFoA and have never had anything to do with the CA3 exam so have no reason to defend them.

Make the best of the question given - there will always be unexpected aspects to test you, and this will be the same for everyone.

 

Maybe you tolerate poor standards & unfairness, interested. I don't. There's no poor me here.

 

No poor preparation either, interested. People pay good money to go through the acted system for coaching and shouldn't then be faced with an exam not as described. Catch people out, moving the goalpost lotteries are not acceptable at £435 a go.

 

Well I doubt very much whether ActEd tutors have a crystal ball anymore than you do, so a bit unfair to blame them (and no, I don't work for them either!). As I understand it, they don't get to see any of the papers until after they've been sat.

It's ridiculous to think, in an actuarial exam, that you could only be examined on things you've seen before. If your boss asked you to do something that you hadn't seen/done before, would you complain about doing that too?

From what I have seen of the exam system in the past (not CA3, admittedly), the process is extremely thorough and rigorous. The markers are under a lot of pressure to get scripts marked in a short timeframe and for not much money, but nevertheless operate in a very professional manner.