Nov 2016 paper issues

OK I'm having to repeat myself now but just for clarity:
I'm arguing that for CA3 in Aug, then in Nov, there's been a fundamental shift in the nature of Q1.

• First with the introduction of graph requirements (data entry, graph creation, labelling, inserting tidily into document etc.) in addition to 600 words, without corresponding increase in exam time- unfair.
• Secondly in Nov by not having an actuarial topic. Whoever wrote Q1 didn't even fulfil the description of what the exam is meant to be. This means the acted preparation had become inadequate.

I ask why acted were not informed of these developments & given the chance to update their materials? Why do the examiners suddenly want to waste our time with graphs in Q1 & want us to communicate coffee machine marketing instead of an actuarial topic? That's not fair compared to all the CA3 exams for many years. I'm not asking to be only examined on things I've seen before but that Q1 satisfies its description and is in line with what we've been prepared to do by acted. Q2 I have no complaints about.

You made a jibe about me wasting energy. I'll tell you what wasting energy really is - spending hours and £ sending assignments to be marked by acted, stressing over whether the words I've used are too actuarial 'jargon' or not, having to explain to acted markers (& some of them used to mark the CA3 exam) that 'premium' and 'lump-sum' are not jargon that I shouldn't be punished with 20 marks deductions etc. when in the end the exam paper failed to give us an actuarial topic in Q1. Now that's a waste of time and energy.

 

Despite being told to direct these concerns to the student consultative forum; having just read the minutes from the meeting on Nov 18 I can see that none of these points were raised at all. I am still waiting for the promised response from the exam team, almost 2 months since I raised concerns. At this point my feelings are that they just don't want to deal with these complaints because they simply cannot provide a credible response and would prefer that the complaints just disappeared into thin air.

If the SCF is only going to be an exchange about some technical issues or exam dates then it is clearly not a serious forum for raising proper complaints and getting them seen to. What a waste of time!

 

I agree with you. I find the service provided by the Education Services team as a joke. You rarely get a response, unless you constantly send chasing emails or keep ringing them up.

I have still not had any news on my 3rd marking of CA3, so yesterday I emailed asking how I can take the matter further, because the way I see it they are currently cheating me out of my qualification.

 

Could it be it wasn't third marked? Or maybe just one subsection of it was remarked. Or maybe it was 'reviewed'. Or maybe the whole thing was remarked but they haven't told you yet... the possibilities are endless but I know which one my money is on!

 

We haven't seen the results of the November sitting yet. It might actually be a better than average result, despite being a non standard topic. Wishing all expecting results tonight the result they deserve. And if unsuccessful, don't automatically blame someone else. Take time to reflect on what you did against model solutions and make a balanced judgement from there. And in the Meantime, enjoy the spirit of Christmas - goodwill to all men.

 

Merry Christmas bystander. It's not just down to how individuals perform since clearly it's really how you do relative to others, as the pass mark is determined after seeing how everyone's done. Sadly this means it's against anyone's interest to help other candidates since you're all competing against each other for the limited passes handed out.

For example if you perform equally well and get say 60 in April and September, well if the April exams had better performance by candidates generally then the pass mark would be higher in April than in September, so your 60 would have better chance of getting a pass in September. I consider that very unfair.

 

Forget a target mark. Give each question you face your very best shot. That's the way to give yourself the best chance and not have regrets. I never tried to count How many marks I thought I'd got. Just took it a question at a time, tried to assess what it needed and apply my knowledge accordingly, bearing in mind time pressure as I felt answering all questions gives you a better chance of proving fitness to proceed if I was borderline. Once you've sat the paper you can't change anything. And remember questions are reviewed/Guinea pigged by recently qualifieds so that gives the profession on how they expect someone at that sort of level to perform if that question is used in an exam.

 

almost_there, I really agree with you on this. It feels horribly unfair to fail an actuarial communications exam when you're good at communicating actuarial issues and yet you haven't even been given the chance to communicate a topic that is even remotely within the actuarial realm of things. It just seems like the most bizarre sort of question to set - out of the infinite range of actuarial things they have could have tested. And this is over and above the general feeling (on a "normal" sitting) that passing is a lottery for CA3 (because numerous people have stated that they never knew what they did differently in order to eventually pass).

And to your point on how expensive it is - my gosh! How does the Institute honestly justify their fees? Are they really telling us that the exam settting and exam marking for a paper delivered ONLINE costs THAT much when the expectation is that around 60% of candidates will fail and have to fork out another 435 pounds? Depending on where you studied, there are university courses that don't cost that much (and those could include a full semester of lectures, assignments, marking, tutorials and an exam).

 

Geraldine thank you. It's about time people speak up about these things.

 

And yes, I'm disgruntled. And @interested, I think it's a condescending remark to tell anyone that they should spend as much time or effort on their studies as they spend "complaining" here. To take that to it's literal, absurd conclusion, almost_there would have passed all exams in far less time than is officially suggested for a CT.

Besides that, there's something to be said for using the voice you're equipped with to call out something that needs to be addressed, changed or spoken about. Nothing good ever came out of a system that could not be questioned and challenged, and I think almost_there has some really valid points.

 

For CA3 only 50 hours are suggested anyway. It's not like the other subjects in terms of preparation, there's only so much you can do but then the preparation is a waste of time if they can't even come up with an actuarial topic for you to communicate in Q1!

 

Geraldine, it would go some way towards restoring trust if retakers could get a reduced exam fee, especially in something like CA3 where you can't do all that much next time to improve your chances. I just watched something on the news saying that tuition fees for universities could go up to 9250 a year or something - wow I just think education generally has become such a rip off business nowadays and honestly if a young person asked me should they go the white collar or blue collar route in life I'm increasingly inclined to suggest the latter

 

Couldn't agree more. Feel like some of the experienced posters are used to the status quo and yes men/women. No one's ever got anywhere by doing the norm. It's should be about improving the process rather than stating what is currently in place is acceptable.

 

Absolutely 100% agree - our exam fees are high even without repeating subjects. But to require that we pay the same fee for a repeat just feels like blatant, shameless robbery. And just like at university where you can get supplementary exams if you don't fail by too much, there should be something of that sort.

Blue collar work is increasingly more lucrative in some parts of the world - Certainly here in Australia you'd be amazed at how much you can earn if you're a qualified tradesman. Definitely not unheard of for qualified tradesmen in the mining industry in Australia to earn as much as professionals like actuaries (just to put things into perspective in the context of earnings for example)

 

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/about-us/corporate-publications

 

To me the trend doesn't seem to be that people not bothered are yes men/women, more that the people complaining are repeated failers? I've failed 3 exams so far and I'm sure I'll fail again before I'll qualify. The exams are designed to be hard - the point is that their equally hard for everyone. The general gist I get from everyone complaining is they are sick of repeatedly failing, this thing about third marking just seems like something they can grab hold of to complain about. Anyone thinking they're going to get a retrospective pass or it will get easier is kidding themselves. At the end of the day, you have to be better than 60% of the other candidates to get a pass. Same for everyone. Will be the same for everyone if they start doing a more rigorous third marking. Sorry to burst the bubble.

 

I don't understand why complaining about service failures seems to embarrass some people? The IFoA are no sacred cow, nor are acted, nor are any other service provider in this country. Plenty enjoy a nice career at these places and sorting out problems is part of their job. I feel that people are being very patient and understanding in bringing issues directly to the IFoA rather than other methods such as litigation.

 

I think you have missed the point of peoples complaints. I think all the 'complainers' are in agreement that the exams need to be hard otherwise the value of the qualification is diminished. Most 'complaints' here are process complaints and not about the content of the exam (apart from the one where a question in CA3 was not actuarial). and yes i agree with your point that you need to be better than 60% of people to pass. However if i am paying for my paper to be third marked then i expect it to be third marked (btw i've never had a paper remarked), if i am told the pass mark is aimed at 60 then i will try my hardest to get above 60. If i get 65 and later find out the pass for that exam was 67 then i think i have the right to complain as i was led to believe the pass mark was 60. If i fail an exam i want to have the same opportunity to book on the next session as new takers and retakers, not have to wait a whole year because by the time results have come out the space for the following session is full (this was the case for CA2 and CA3 which i believe is now fixed). People are 'complaining' about that it is not clear what is jargon and what isn't. People are complaining about technical issues experienced when using online applications. People are complaining lack of transparency. People are asking whether testing communications/modelling skills is best done through an exam or some other way via WBS. In my eyes hardly any of these are complaints about the content.....

 

Absolutely correct. This is why on another thread I'm unhappy that continental actuaries can get FIA with just a year's work experience over here, when everyone knows their qualification regime is nowhere near as tough as the IFoA. Can you believe they even told me they don't think any inequality is taking place against British students since nothing stops me going to Spain to get qualified there then using the agreement to get FIA back here. I'm absolutely stunned with that response. Just because it's theoretically possible for me to exploit a terribly unfair agreement by taking that course of action does not in any way justify the correctness of the agreement they have made & the risk to devaluing the qualification they have brought about.

 

almost_there, My feeling is that if the exams are about a generic topic, then it only gets simpler. A GI actuary need not learn about pensions in detail or mortality rates and charges for that matter and spend time on improving the communication skills.
Having sat through multiple exams without graphs and one with graph, I don't think it was particularly different or time saving not having the graph. The objective of the exam is that you are given this big load of information, which you read, filter and provide a report/letter/paper/memo to the customer such that they are happy that all their questions are answered in a clear and concise manner.
And you don't/can't prepare for a specific mark. As bystander mentioned you give your best and expect to get better results. Although I can't explain the logic behind how IFoA determine their pass marks, it is not correct to expect the pass marks to remain consistent. It is expected to change depending on how easy or how difficult the question paper is.
Yes...it is painful to fail. I've felt that acutely. But there is light at the end of the tunnel. If you are expecting a letter from your insurance company or as a customer in any context, I am sure you would appreciate if the letter is understandable in the first go with all your questions answered clearly and quickly. See your responses with that critical eye and if it satisfies that I am sure no bureaucratic process would stop you from passing.

 

Generic topic? Non-standard topic? All that is just spin. They clearly state Q1 is about making a written communication explaining an actuarial topic to non-actuaries. Not generic, not non-standard but actuarial. GI/Life/Pensions counts as actuarial.

Making a graph is not written communication and its inclusion in mid 2016 was a step change away from the norm. It does take time to make a graph and put it/them in the report, where they still want 600 words too! If they want to know about our graph skills there was at least 3 to do in Q2. Or are they wanting even more people to fail Q1 ?

Earth, the pass mark is informed by student performance and 2/3's always seem to fail this exam. Pass marks may not be consistent but 2/3s failing this is fairly consistent. It's odds on the next set of results will be along these lines with most failing to due Q1.

To those who are uncomfortable about people complaining- do you think people should just stay silent? What good would that do? There's far too much on the line for people with this exam - £435 down the drain and in many cases getting FIA or delaying it by another 6 months and all that brings. In return we're only asking for high, consistent, transparent standards.