Should we restrict students to 4 attempts per exams?

This use to be the rule before, but for some unknown reason they changed it... what are your views on restricting students to 4 attempts per exam.

 

I remember that rule used to exist, yes.

 

Why did they get rid of it... do you know?

 

I'm afraid I don't. It was a while back.

 

I think that’s a bit much to be honest. Personal circumstances can change leading up to the exam, or the person may panic on the day. In particular it seems quite harsh on someone who may fail their last exam 4 times!

 

Good point...
How about limiting the number of sitting for the earlier exams

 

with inconsistent pass rates, chasing changing goal post, having to pass an invisible standard to pass, it is not that useful. Some of these exams sittings have less than 25% pass rates and good calibre students may fail due to being unlucky, work circumstance and personal commitments. Other professions that do it have much higher pass rates approaching 70-80% in some cases.

 

I can understand the merit behind it, but I just think it’s too excluding. I just don’t see the issue of someone sitting an exam more than 4 times I suppose? I mean it’s possible (but very unlikely) that their last exam would be one of the first exams so that would be unfair on them. Also if someone were to get exemptions having failed the exam 4 times then you’d have the moral dilemma of should this person be allowed continue / be granted the exemption

 

I don't understand the dilemma you speak of, perhaps you could elaborate?

 

If you are restricting someone to 4 exam sittings and they subsequently pass an exam that is deemed to exempt them from the exam they had been excluded for you are either going to have to allow them to continue (making the 4 exam sittings rule redundant in the first place) or reject them despite having passed an exam deemed to be equal in merit to the one they failed

 

OK so you're saying that person would have had 5 exam sittings in effect, then.

 

What are the advantages of such a rule?

IMO, it's fine as it is. If someone can display the competence required to pass all of the exams, there's no reason they shouldn't be a fellow. Does it mean that a few people will end up getting in due to a "lucky day" on the 7th attempt at CP1? Probably, but I know many fantastic actuaries who took the scenic route through exams. TBH I don't think time to qualification is predictive of how good an actuary you use.

OP, I'd ask you which of these actuaries are better:

Alice passed every exam at the first attempt but then got stuck on her final exam, SA4. She passed it with flying colours on the 5th attempt after multiple near misses

Bob failed every exam three times and passed them all at the 4th attempt


By your standard, Bob gets in and Alice gets frozen out.

 

Including the actuarial profession in other countries...