Nov 2016 paper issues

Education services said they had passed these concerns to the SCF but they were not raised in the Nov 18 meeting. They have not come back to me at all on these concerns, which were first raised Nov 2nd. Swept under the carpet?

 

I think ES should reply to you directly - even if to say sorry don't agree. The SCF receive hundreds of comments and can't be expected to discuss them all in a 3-hour meeting. I understand they discuss and focus on what they deem the biggest concerns. You may have to let the topic issue go (not everything else though). Nothing wrong with complaining but sometimes the majority or those in authority won't agree.
BTW: CA3 pass rates varied between 15% and 61% in 2015 and 2016.

 

I don't expect them to agree or concede anything, because they never do... at the very least they ought to forward concerns about Q1 & time pressures to those who determine the pass mark.

 

? http://www.actuarial-lookup.co.uk/exams/4

 

even more data to show it has varied .
They've combined pass lists from courses held in the same month. If you look at individual courses you'll see my numbers (I think). More grouped now anyway.

 

The privileged are always the first to defend the status quo.

 

I've had the following response:

Unfortunately there wasn’t time to raise the issue with regards graphs with the Student consultative forum and that’s why this was not in the minutes. However the Deputy Registrar did raise your concerns and issues to the Principle Examiner and Head of Learning and they both confirmed that graphs and charts are frequently used in the exam and this was not considered to be any different to any other CA3 papers.
​

Erm...

1. I raised issues Nov 2nd the meeting wasn't until Nov 18th, that's 16 days to pass it to SCF.
2. Graphs and charts are not frequently used in Q1, the question I was complaining about. I can only think of August 2016 when they suddenly asked for graphs. One time is not 'frequently'.
3. This was very different to other CA3 papers since Q1 was not an actuarial topic.

Fob off FAIL.

 

For the "Q1 was not an actuarial topic" complaint, well they've not even attempted to answer that! FAIL.

 

Allow me to just quote some more evidence in support of my assertion that Q1 was not fit for purpose.
CA3 syllabus https://www.actuaries.org.uk/documents/subject-ca3-communications-syllabus-2017-exams

Subject CA3 – Communications consists of two parts as follows:
CA3 Part A – Written communication
CA3 Part B – Oral communication
​

Clearly this exam is split into two distinct parts. Each part has its own specific objectives.

The examination will be based on material taught in Subject CA1 – Actuarial Risk
Management which, in turn, builds on the principles and tools introduced in subjects CT1 to CT8​

Well I've studied and passed CA1 and never located an actuarial topic named "coffee sales proposals". This is because it is not an actuarial topic at all.

Past topics were as follows, and clearly actuarial:-
New life insurance product, Paper for Rectifications Team, Price inflation index , Portfolio management , Trustee training , Policyholder querying projected fund illustration, Employees SAYE scheme, Member's ill health quotation , Mortgage training for graduates, Motor insurance policyholder, Annuity purchase at retirement, XYZ Compulsory insurance scheme, State invalidity benefits , XYZ Pension scheme , XYZ Pet insurance.

In the specific objectives, only for part B, not mentioned in part A at all, it states:

(vi) Demonstrate an appropriate use of visual aids where required:
Be able to include appropriate visual aids which might include any of:
1. charts (bar charts, pie charts, graphs)
2. diagrams
3. pictures
4. tables of numbers
5. slide presentations
6. bullet points
7. flipchart pages​

Therefore exam paper November 2016, and indeed August 2016, have violated the CA3 syllabus as prescribed by the IFoA. Anyone who failed these exams due to Q1 have a very good case in my view. I welcome contact from people who have failed Nov 16 and Aug 16 papers as perhaps a group effort would be better here.

I think ACTED should go to the IFoA and point out that their exam papers of late are not in accordance with their syllabus for this subject. Stand up for your students please!

 

I'd like to congratulate the40% that passed today. Perhaps some would like to post helpful tips on how they tackled the question to pass this demonstrating the required skill level on the questions posed

 

It's sad it doesn't bother you the profession can't even set an exam question in accordance with its own syllabus. Very incompetent and unfair on those having to sit the exam.

Tell us where in CA1 is the 'actuarial' topic coffee sales proposals?

 

I agree with almost_there - why, why, why would you not test something that's even remotely actuarial? I mean, there's an infinite number of actuarial situations you could look at. And you get coffee machine analysis! And please, don't give us that whole story of "it's the general idea of communicating a numerical issue and you need to see that this potentially applicable in / transferrable to actuarial contexts". No! This is crazy! We're actuarial students, our minds are geared for an actuarial setting, and we want to show how we can simplify that setting in an appropriate manner for the target audience. And that's without mentioning the simple fact that the exam is described by the IFOA as being one where an actuarial topic is explained to people who are not actuaries! Um, hello-ho... they obviously did not do that, or am I going completely crazy here?

 

And I'm just going to say it! 40% passed - how laughably predictable, if not purely a coincidental alignment with our expectations!

 

They give us copies of CT1-8 and CA1 to refer to, yet for Q1 this was utterly pointless! The Oxford English dictionary defines actuarial as:

"Relating to actuaries or their work of compiling and analysing statistics to calculate insurance risks and premiums."

I've escalated my complaint about this to the registrar now as the education services didn't even try and answer. Well, to be fair it is unanswerable, must concede it was not actuarial and not in accordance with the syllabus. For £435 that's not good enough.
Yes Geraldine a very predictable 60% failed this and at £450 each for a resit that's a cool £150,000 coming up.

 

Just to recap: the education services didn't even address this complaint. I was told it would be passed to the student consultative forum but it was not asked in the meeting at all. They simply have no response, no defence to this without conceding an error on their side & clearly getting an admission from them is not something they do. I'm willing to give them a chance: let's see how the registrar tackles this. If the final response from them is a fob off then I've received legal advice that I have a very strong case here to win through the small claims courts.

 

Been keeping an eye on this thread for a while out of curiosity. I sat CA3 in November and thankfully passed fairly comfortably scoring in the 70's. My exam didn't go perfectly. Presentation was slightly under time I think and I'd forgot to make a fairly important point in my presentation although realised whilst I was still on the slide so went back to make it. Overall I had expected to pass but I guess you can never be too sure.

My thoughts at the time were that paper was fair and can't understand all the complaints about the exam? I treated question one essentially like a cashflow analysis. Almost like a capital project appraisal comparing 3 options. It's an application exam so didn't feel an unreasonable question at the time. Also meant you didn't have to worry much about jargon. As for the graph, it surprised me a little but it's not really any different to producing graphs in the presentation and something that trainee actuaries should be able to do.

The ActEd help here was crucial in terms of presentation techniques and structure. I took on the comments from the mock and revision days and applied them and it clearly worked as my mock mark was not great.

 

Stating it's 'something actuaries are meant to be able to do' doesn't excuse providing an exam paper not in accordance with their published syllabus. I'd expect actuaries, with their tcf training, to understand such a complaint.

 

Snide much? And a clear attempt to derail this thread away from the genuine concerns of students, by getting people to fill it with CA3 success stories. I would suggest such stories, for those sharing, to be posted in an aptly named thread, e.g. 'CA3 Success Stories'.

1. It makes it easier to find. (If concerned about survivorship bias, have the opposite thread as well 'CA3 Failure Stories')
2. The momentum of this thread is not diluted.

Communication 101: Know your audience.
Many posters here would be sceptical of the status quo, so I would have left this last bit out, if your intent was to persuade @almost_there , @Geraldine and others of the apparent fairness of the system, as I honestly felt like it was something a shill would say and how it would be said. << First few paragraphs = Relevant points on fairness of system. Tone seems neutral, and points seem rational >> Then << Insert out of the blue conclusion about how using a certain product - which, by the way, is quite expensive - is essential to passing this system >>.

Apologies if that seemed quite acerbic, but I think that @almost_there and others, are doing a good thing by trying to hold the IFoA to account, using the same high standards of which they frequently boast. I remember when posters like @scarlets and @mpyan1 would question the exam system, they were dismissed as conspiracy theorists and/or cynics. But now, for the first time, with students submitting information requests about their exams, a case of inconsistencies and failures in the exam system, backed by empirical evidence from these requests, is being built.

I can only see this as a good thing. For too long, there has been an asymmetric balance of power between the IFoA and students. The IFoA, being the only game in town, can do anything they like and dismiss any and all complaints, effectively saying "Tough luck (or worse)". But to shift the balance back, I don't think it would work for each student to take on the IFoA individually, but collectively - bandy together e.g. like Junior Doctors or the cast of Friends etc, and simply demand greater transparency in the exam marking and process. There should really be a website, outside the confines of this forum, where students (and students only) could co-ordinate things like this, and have greater collective action.

 

Great idea..

 

The final point was perhaps more relevant in one of the other threads that I think almost_there started regarding CA3 and the need for ActEd to update their materials (the point may have been made in this thread aswell). To me it came across like ActEd were being blamed as a reason for failing when in fact the opposite was true.

I think there are likely to be other people reading these threads and so felt it important to make clear that what ActEd provide as it currently stands for CA3 was helpful to me and is likely to help others. The notes and assistance took someone who was a fail to a pass.

 

The examiner's report is out and some of my earlier questions in the thread can now be answered.
How many marks for graphs & table in Q1 (despite syllabus very clear that this is meant to be a written question and that in part B are these listed for testing)? At least 15. That could make the difference between a pass and fail.

Mark per minute this equates to 16 minutes. This leaves 1hr 29 minutes to read and write. Contradictory comments from examiner claiming little evidence of time pressure (how would they know, did anyone get asked?) yet then they concede people wrote too much and were repetitive and so maybe not enough time to edit answer. Well duh! Of course it's a problem when you ask for graphs where people have to type in data manually in order to create one, label it etc. that takes 16 minutes. They don't seem to grasp that people who wrote too little may have had too little time to reach the word count as well. Up to 4 marks penalised for not hitting the word count either side.

Also how odd for Q2 a phrase "policyholder inertia" is used. Sounds like jargon to me.