... which is just silly isn't it? No one work at that kind of pace in an actuarial office. What is the time-pressure thing supposed to prove?
I think it's meant to prove that 45%-55% will fail and that the remainder will pass. You have to mix up the ways in which you fail the fledgling actuaries. One set of exams, such as CT5, will fail you by not giving you enough time. Others will fail you by asking obscure parts of the course, others by ignoring half the course and focusing on the other half, others by asking questions that cannot be solved at all, some that require 20 mins to solve for 2 marks only, some will even ask questions that have errors in them etc. Many ways to fail the bright young trainees.
I agree entirely DS. I remember CT5's ridiculous time pressure. Seems nothing much has changed, then.
If you split this between 1st time writers or attempted the subject previously, you'll see that the pass rate for 1st time writers is lower.
What do you reckon the ideal pass rate should be? I will give you something as food for thought ... For CFA, average pass rate for the last decade has been 46% (with this being 42% if you consider Level 1 only) [Source: CFA Institute] For CIMA, UK pass rates range between 40 - 60% [Source: CIMA] For ACCA, the pass rates range between 40 - 53% for paper based exams on fundamental papers. [Source: ACCA] I hope you are not thinking of pass rates for professional exams to be at levels close to university degree exams!!
Time pressures are not unique to actuarial exams (or even exams for that matter). You need a fast pace but I think it's possible to finish the complete paper in time allotted, and you only need to do a little more than half to pass. It's not enough to just sign up for the exam and show up. Would you be happy going to a financial professional with your money and trusting their advice knowing that they got half of their "financial arithmetic" wrong? If I remember correctly Acted claims higher pass rates for those who purchase their products, but I don't remember where the statistics are. Purchasing additional study material may be regarded as more preparation so higher pass rates are reasonable, but again this on its own is not an indication of a well prepared student, or even one who meets the required passing standard
Your stats have converted me! I will henceforth change my user name to "Content Student" now that I've seen that these bogus CIMA, ACCA & CFA qualifications have lower/similar pass rates to our very own exams. We actually have an easy life compared to the trials & tribulations that accountants must overcome. Thanks for opening my eyes. But hold on, now that I'm on my way back into the actuarial fold, it's clear to me that we must have pass rates lower than mere accountants & CFA holders!! Otherwise budding accountants may flood our very own beloved profession in an attempt to get a slice of the good life & thus dilute our earnings potential. I hope you, as a budding actuary, are not going to let this pass! Surely you must write to IFOA & make them aware that accountants have lower pass rates. Your duty as a potential actuary is to whistleblow & ensure that this whole forum knows the score i.e that accountants have lower pass rates & that even though we are at this very moment enjoying an easy life we must ensure that our own standards do not slip. You are clearly on the right path to becoming a star in the actuarial field. Well done pal!!
I agree with this. I disagree with this. I don’t think that after studying CT5, first sitting wise, for less than 6 months you can complete the whole paper. You may pass, but complete the whole paper, I think not. You don’t say. I don’t want to come across as facetious, but come on. Of course not, but I would hope that said financial professional would not rush through the financial arithmetic irrespective of whether he gets the right answer or not. I hope you don’t take offence at this question. But are you a shill for ActEd?
*PERSONAL OPINION ALERT* I think the pass rates are fine. As bapan highlights, they are not markedly out of line with other professions, and all of the people I haven known who put in the effort and are dedicated to passing the exams get through them reasonably quickly, with perhaps one or two fails. It's one of the jobs of a profession to satisfy itself that a candidate has enough of the required skills and knowledge in order to be effective in the field. And, as much as people might not like it, the profession gets to decide where that bar sits. If you don't like it, then there are only really two things you can do. Firstly, you can raise it with the profession; moaning on these forums won't really get you very far, even if it makes you feel better. You need to go direct to the examination teams. Secondly, if you feel mistreated and are so unhappy with the profession, there are plenty of similar roles which don't require sitting actuarial exams. You can be a quant, or a CFA, or a risk analyst, and any existing exam passes and experience you've gained to date will stand in your favour. It's not that difficult to leave the profession, I know a couple of people who have done so and now have very successful careers in totally different fields. But, like my warning above says, this is all personal opinion. Feel free to disagree.
One is now the technology director for a startup company in London, and the other is working in the strategy department for a major bank.
When I studied CT5, I studied it over 1 sitting (i.e. about 6 months) along with another CT (so was not fully dedicated to it). When I took the CT5 exam I answered all the questions with time to spare. And yes I did pass. So, while I agree that time pressure in CT5 is a challenge, it is actually physically possible to complete the whole paper (for some students at least).
