Who sets pass marks? How? When?

John Lee just explained rather well how the system works, that they start with a baseline pass mark and adjust it based on the difficulty of that particular paper compared to previous papers. Whatever speculation you've heard is probably incorrect unless it actually came from someone who used to be on the board of examiners. If it did then it would be good to hear more about them and what exams they looked after.

In my opinion, doing an MSc is actually easier, since you are effectively in full time education. Imagine how much easier it would be to pass the actuarial exams if you had 3-5 hours face to face tuition in each module every week, access to a private tutor and no job tying you up for 40+ hours a week? That's the situation you have when doing an MSc. Obviously the actual work is just the same, since you are trying to pass the same actuarial exams, but it it's a much better environment for learning.

I only base my opinion on the fact that I did an undergraduate degree in actuarial science (BSc) which exempted me from the CTs, and I found it a lot easier to study for the exams in university than I do now whilst trying to juggle a full-time job and teach myself.

While this might be true, I doubt that the profession is actively seeking to hold people back. If this were true, then the profession wouldn't be exploring lots of opportunities to try and INCREASE the number of people who qualify. A great example is the CA3 exam. The profession put a lot of effort and expense in to change this from a paper exam to a 2-day course, precisely because they wanted more people to pass. If the profession was really trying to hold people back to get more money, then they would have just left this as it was with its low pass mark.

The profession is also now talking about removing the need to pass a fellowship exam (SA) at all. Again, why would it remove an exam if it really wanted to keep people as students for as long as possible?

 

I think the arguement for the profession artificially reducing pass rates to maximise income is fairly implausible, for lots of reasons:
• its not clear that more fails will maximise income, as plenty will drop out when they keep failing, or be deterred from joining in the first place.
• i'm not aware of any evidence this is happening.
• Its unlikely the remuneration of the markers is linked to how many they fail, and the process is clearly pretty robust - double blind marking etc.
• It seems such an approach would require a fair amount of pre-meditation and collusion (unlike a single rogue uni professor hinting at exam questions or marking generously), which would be pretty difficult to hide.
• The reputational risk to the profession would be huge, not to mention to those individuals involved
• Actuaries are generally too boring and honest to do such things


For universities its a different kettle of fish however and i'd have more concerns about that. However, i'm unlikely to lose any sleep over it


"There is no failure. Only feedback" ~ Robert Allen

 

OK, but that doesn't prove much about the person except they are willing to make huge sacrifices into their personal time. It is VERY debatable whether that is a virtue, whether that benefits the person or their employer or indeed wider society.

Also begs the question - what sort of a person do they want to end up qualifying?

Please check out the pass rates on this. They are very low once again but the fee has trebled.

OK, well that would be welcomed. But remember there are more exams than there used to be, plus more Fellows means more people having to do CPD...

 

I've no doubt you'll end up qualifying.

 

They went up a lot higher initially, but yeah they've since dropped back down to closer to the paper-exam levels. However I think that overall they're still higher than they were before, plus it does actually cost the profession a lot more to run the courses, so I don't think they will end up with 3 times as much money from people in the end.

Haha, so they want to keep people as students longer to get more money from them in exam fees, but they want more Fellows to . . . get more money from them in CPD? You have to do CPD if you're an Associate too, so it shouldn't make much difference.

I'm interested to know, why do you think the profession is set on trying to get more money in? I had a quick look and the surplus they made last year after all their activities was about £1.5m, I'm sure if you took out the extra revenue they got from people resitting exams they would still have a very healthy surplus. The profession is not-for-profit after all, so all that money will eventually be used to further the profession in some way.

 

Oh really? You think it costs anywhere near £740 * 20 = £15k to book a few rooms, hire a few people for a couple of days?

yes well maybe CPD thing will change the balance now so less keen to fail people in the exams

but remember employers love having people fail the exams and taking all their 20s to qualify

not to mention those who have qualified wanting to shut the door behind them

so any attempt to make the exams harder, cheaper, quicker to pass would not be welcomed by some parties

 

No I don't, that wasn't my point. I said it costs more to run the course than it does to set up a paper exam, so although the fees for attending will be higher, so will the costs, so overall it won't be as big a benefit as you think.

 

You're working for the wrong people. People have been fired in my company for taking too long to pass exams. You want an employer who will push you through the exams (which is what I have), not sit back and hope you fail.

 

cj - I'm suggesting that if they condensed the Actuary exams into something plausibly completed in 3 years, as say Accounting is, without compromising standards, then employers would not like it.

 

Quote:

Originally quoted by mattt78

Its unlikely the remuneration of the markers is linked to how many they fail, and the process is clearly pretty robust - double blind marking etc.

Are the examiners actually paid? Seem to remember seeing something somewhere (which I cannot now immediately find) which gives the impression that the examiners are volunteers. However, I find this difficult to believe given that presumably all examiners are qualified actuaries and that it must take a long time to mark each script even if you are an expert

 

Which would explain why the pass mark varies quite markedly from session to session. Oh wait, no it doesn't.

And staff actuaries are free, of course. Course development just happens in the sky, and staff are trained by little birds who sing in their ear while they sleep.

 

I am indeed. Thanks!

 

I know that for some reason you feel compelled to disagree with everything I say but, really, please try not to sacrifice common sense in the process.

 

Why?

 

I've failed an exam, but quite like the lack of transparency.

I like the idea of somebody failing because they don't understand what they are writing, even though what they are writing is correct. This can only be captured by a marker applying professional judgement; not by a mechanical marking scheme. I think too many actuaries pride themselves on regurgitating facts and techniques without seeing the bigger picture. A hyper-objective marking procedure will make this worse.

I also worry about an increase in appeals. It'll be like GCSEs where pupils from wealthier backgrounds appeal routinely when they just miss the grade boundary.

I say trust the Profession. Opaque marking procedures add to its mystique.

 

I agree that not knowing the pass mark in advance can be a good thing. It means you study hard to aim for 100% rather than aiming to achieve only, say, 60%. A bit like the university attitude some people have in first year of only needing to achieve 40%.

I think we can all probably agree that if somebody was to score 100/100 on any paper this would definitely score a Pass. So that is a good level to aim for.

 

Is that the case, though? I would think the need for objectivity over lots and lots of exams and several markers would make this application on judgement very difficult.

I worked as a maths teacher for several years before starting the actuarial exams and let me tell you, even with just 2 markers, both of which had shared the tuition of the students in a fairly objective subject (roughly A-level maths), we had looooots of disagreements when it came to marking.

I think part of the reason the process is so long is because they are trying to be objective and not pass/fail you based on stuff like how much they like your handwriting.

That being said, I do think that kind of professional judgement makes for a better marking process.

And while I hate not knowing the pass mark (and, btw, I also hate not knowing exactly how many points I scored, especially because I suspect I am usually borderline), I trust the profession enough not to think they are trying to fail me. I believe they are trying to be fair to a very large amount of people and that is never easy.

 

Hi Calum

Thank you for mentioning this. Which articles would you recommend?
I'll admit, I have a stack of magazines by my desk which I haven't yet paged through.

Regards

ActuarialStudent