Recommended study manual

[sheridan]

What do you recommend for this test? I posted this at the last sitting but quite didn't pass MFE. Feel confident this time around. Looking to see if the results are similiar or if there has been a shift one way or another.

Thanks for any input,
Sheridan

[SOAPhobic]

There are many topics on exam C and ASM manual is good for most of them. But some, I found ASM to be lacking for example, Cox Models. ASM also has some pretty good exams. People say they are more difficult than the real exam C but that's certainly not true this sitting. It's becoming evident Exam C is matching, if not exceeding, the difficulty of ASM practice exams.

[Vorian Atreides]

If you're pursuing the CAS route to Fellowship, I highly recommend Mahler's. Good practice problems and pretty good explanations; especially in conjunction with his in-person seminar.

Practice exams are also good and were "on par" with the Exam difficulty (at least when I took the exam).

[SOAPhobic]

If you're pursuing the CAS route to Fellowship, I highly recommend Mahler's. Good practice problems and pretty good explanations; especially in conjunction with his in-person seminar.

Practice exams are also good and were "on par" with the Exam difficulty (at least when I took the exam).

I used Mahler's guide as a supplement to ASM. I found it to be better than ASM in the Cox Models and some general statistics concepts such as hypothesis testing. Mahler exams are pretty good but I'd say all his exams are easier than this sitting. Mahler also has TONS of practice questions (good thing). So that's something to consider as well.

[Sarengo]

I would heavily suggest multiple sources. I recommend ASM for the nitty-gritty of the material, but having a source of alternative approaches, of which I would suggest either a seminar or Mahler, I feel can make a big difference. The work I did to relate the two approaches on some of the harder material really helped solidify my understanding of the material.

[Ateh]

I used Mahler's manual almost exclusively and was very happy with it. He covers both the fundamentals and the tips/tricks/shortcuts very thoroughly, and his explanatory style is very good. His problem sets are great. They ramp you up at a good pace, and the solutions and explanations are very clear.

The manual is set up to be gone through twice and I would recommend slotting the time to do this. It's a lot of material and I had to start pretty early to be sure of having enough time to run through it twice, but I do not regret this.

I also had an older edition of ASM that I read some bits of and tried some of the practice exams from. I never touched Loss Models, but I did read through the Derivatives Markets material and Mary Hardy's study note.

Upon leaving the test center, I would have agreed that Mahler's exams were easier than this sitting, but according to the PAK I actually did better on the real thing than I did on his practice exams. The practice exams are each 20 questions and they are weighted disproportionately towards the more obscure topics in the syllabus. This focus really helped me out this sitting. There was only one question whose setup was unfamiliar to me (something about an improper prior distribution), so I got to direct my anxiety at my speed issues and arithmetic errors rather than at the questions themselves.

[td25er]

I used Mahler's manual almost exclusively and was very happy with it. He covers both the fundamentals and the tips/tricks/shortcuts very thoroughly, and his explanatory style is very good. His problem sets are great. They ramp you up at a good pace, and the solutions and explanations are very clear.

The manual is set up to be gone through twice and I would recommend slotting the time to do this. It's a lot of material and I had to start pretty early to be sure of having enough time to run through it twice, but I do not regret this.

I also had an older edition of ASM that I read some bits of and tried some of the practice exams from. I never touched Loss Models, but I did read through the Derivatives Markets material and Mary Hardy's study note.

Upon leaving the test center, I would have agreed that Mahler's exams were easier than this sitting, but according to the PAK I actually did better on the real thing than I did on his practice exams. The practice exams are each 20 questions and they are weighted disproportionately towards the more obscure topics in the syllabus. This focus really helped me out this sitting. There was only one question whose setup was unfamiliar to me (something about an improper prior distribution), so I got to direct my anxiety at my speed issues and arithmetic errors rather than at the questions themselves.

Good luck with that.

[Ateh]

:shrug:

Suit yourself. Whatever manual you use I'd recommend going through it twice. It's a lot of material and I'm not the only one on here who'd be embarrassed to say how much of it I'd already forgotten by the time I was done with my first pass. I'm just saying Mahler's manual is specifically set up to make that process more effective.

I would have hated to fail this thing. It was a bear to study for. I'm glad I went in feeling a little overprepared because I sure didn't feel that way coming out.

[Rushfan70]

I've heard things about the Exam C syllabus changing. Does anyone know when and how much? I'm certainly going to have to write again in May, so I'm trying to plan. I used ASM this time around, but will be acquiring another source soon.

Thanks.

[Vorian Atreides]

I've heard things about the Exam C syllabus changing. Does anyone know when and how much? I'm certainly going to have to write again in May, so I'm trying to plan. I used ASM this time around, but will be acquiring another source soon.

Thanks.
http://www.casact.org/admissions/syllabus/2009_Changes.pdf

I think for 4/C, the "biggest" change is to the readings more than a significant change in the content to learn.


Modify:
Klugman, S.A.; Panjer, H.H.; and Willmot, G.E., Loss Models: From Data to Decisions: The third edition will be used. The third edition will incorporate material that had been covered by “An Introduction to Risk Measures for Actuarial Applications” by Hardy.

[Wooducke]

I found the ASM tests to be more computationally difficult than the SOA exams. For instance, they don't always give you nice numbers that work out, and the questions can take longer to do than SOA exams. While this type of difficulty doesn't necessarily help with the concepts; I find it to be very valuable to do these more tedious questions because they require more concentration to complete and this can help you work up some endurance for the 4 hour exam.

[CtrlAltDelete]

http://www.casact.org/admissions/syllabus/2009_Changes.pdf

I think for 4/C, the "biggest" change is to the readings more than a significant change in the content to learn.

You are telling me we are losing the "theory" in Ruin Theory from the exam. I loved studying the "thoery" in Ruin Theory.

[td25er]

:shrug:

Suit yourself. Whatever manual you use I'd recommend going through it twice. It's a lot of material and I'm not the only one on here who'd be embarrassed to say how much of it I'd already forgotten by the time I was done with my first pass. I'm just saying Mahler's manual is specifically set up to make that process more effective.

I would have hated to fail this thing. It was a bear to study for. I'm glad I went in feeling a little overprepared because I sure didn't feel that way coming out.

I took C in May, and used ASM and supplemented with Mahler. Worked great for me. I just don't know how it would be humanly possible to do 4500 problems 2 times.

I'm definitely not trying to knock Mahler b/c his guides put me over the edge for non/semi parametric credibility, risk measures, and some of the Derivative Markets stuff. His practice exams were extremely helpful too.

I highly recommend getting both ASM and Mahler if you can afford it or your company will pay.

BTW, I definitely agree about going though your guide(s) more than once...but good luck doing all of Mahler's problems twice ;)

[OneNote]

It is probably not possible or necessary to do all 4500 problems twice. To make two passes, however, you don't have to do every problem twice. You can do all the even numbered problems the first pass and all the odds the second. Or, if you don't think you can cover all of the problems, do every n the first pass and every n + 1 the second. The important thing is to see the material twice before the exam so that it is learned more deeply.

[Vorian Atreides]

Actually, it's not going through all of Mahler's problems twice . . . it's going through the material and you end up working different problems the second time through (although one could work through the "first round problems as well").

I don't see anyone doing all of the Mahler's problems even once. :judge: However, it's nice having a lot of problems on each topic that you could work through until you master the material (and still have some new problems to work through when it's time to brush up).

I took C in May, and used ASM and supplemented with Mahler. Worked great for me. I just don't know how it would be humanly possible to do 4500 problems 2 times.

I'm definitely not trying to knock Mahler b/c his guides put me over the edge for non/semi parametric credibility, risk measures, and some of the Derivative Markets stuff. His practice exams were extremely helpful too.

I highly recommend getting both ASM and Mahler if you can afford it or your company will pay.

BTW, I definitely agree about going though your guide(s) more than once...but good luck doing all of Mahler's problems twice ;)

[Ateh]

I took C in May, and used ASM and supplemented with Mahler. Worked great for me. I just don't know how it would be humanly possible to do 4500 problems 2 times.

I'm definitely not trying to knock Mahler b/c his guides put me over the edge for non/semi parametric credibility, risk measures, and some of the Derivative Markets stuff. His practice exams were extremely helpful too.

I highly recommend getting both ASM and Mahler if you can afford it or your company will pay.

BTW, I definitely agree about going though your guide(s) more than once...but good luck doing all of Mahler's problems twice ;)

Ah. No, I don't think it would be reasonable to go through all the problems twice. However, Mahler doesn't treat all the problems the same way. The first pass through, he instructs you to do single- and double-underlined problems. This is less than a quarter of the problem set, but includes problems that reinforce the concepts. The second pass, you do the other problems.

In point of fact I didn't do all the problems in any section of the guide because I only did past exam questions when I made my second pass. If there were no released exam questions for a particular section (often true for new material), I decided whether I thought it was going to show up on my test and acted accordingly. But I've never done all the problems in an ASM guide either, much less twice.

[Rushfan70]

First, thanks to all that have chipped in. I'm definitely purchasing the new Loss Models book, and may get Mahler's manual as well.

I felt I went into the exam knowing how to do nearly every type of basic problem, though the hooks in the KM and NA problems, as well as others, made me feel very shallow in my knowledge. I'll definitely spend much more time on theory depth than calculating problem answers this time. If I knew where to start, I generally could crank out one of the choices.

Thanks again.

[Vorian Atreides]

FWIW, I didn't pass my first sitting of this exam because I wasn't fast enough doing the problems. My knowledge was adequate, I just wasn't fast enough.

Thing to do is ask if you missed problems because of one of the following errors; if so, I don't think it's a "depth of theory knowledge" issue. It's likely to be more along the lines of speed in recognizing the correct problem type and applying the relevant short cuts (which the study manuals will help tremendously!).

made dumb mistakes (which we all have done)
applied the incorrect procedures (like Buhlmann credibility applied to problem that should have been done via Bayesian analysis and vice versa)
applied a procedure incorrectly (likely to be done when doing conjugate priors)
Good luck! :toast:

First, thanks to all that have chipped in. I'm definitely purchasing the new Loss Models book, and may get Mahler's manual as well.

I felt I went into the exam knowing how to do nearly every type of basic problem, though the hooks in the KM and NA problems, as well as others, made me feel very shallow in my knowledge. I'll definitely spend much more time on theory depth than calculating problem answers this time. If I knew where to start, I generally could crank out one of the choices.

Thanks again.

[campbell]

Crosslinking the other recent manual thread:
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=152993

[atkinsmt]

I notice the Actex (Broverman) manual is about 600 pages in length, the ASM (Weishaus) manual roughly 1,300, and the Mahler manual some ungodly total like 4,500 pages.

What's the deal there? Is the coverage of material needed for the exam about the same, with the huge difference being the number of practice problems/exams?

So far I am 3 for 3 (with a good chance to go 4 for 4 with the last MLC sitting) using either Broverman or Weishaus manuals. I'm not interested in getting 10s.... 6s will do just fine. I'm also not interested in learning (for exam purposes) ANYTHING above and beyond what's needed to pass. I can do that in my "free" time, or at work.

Any study manual recommendations for an exam-taker like me for 4/C?

Thanks in advance.

[Vorian Atreides]

Mahler's manual actually has a slightly larger font and slightly bigger spacing between lines. He also does include a lot (plethora) of practice problems as well. He also includes some additional material on topics that are not necessarily tested directly on the exam, but you need to know how to do the material to answer some of the questions on the exam. (I hope this last sentence wasn't confusing . . . :tfh:)

[SOAPhobic]

I notice the Actex (Broverman) manual is about 600 pages in length, the ASM (Weishaus) manual roughly 1,300, and the Mahler manual some ungodly total like 4,500 pages.

What's the deal there? Is the coverage of material needed for the exam about the same, with the huge difference being the number of practice problems/exams?

So far I am 3 for 3 (with a good chance to go 4 for 4 with the last MLC sitting) using either Broverman or Weishaus manuals. I'm not interested in getting 10s.... 6s will do just fine. I'm also not interested in learning (for exam purposes) ANYTHING above and beyond what's needed to pass. I can do that in my "free" time, or at work.

Any study manual recommendations for an exam-taker like me for 4/C?

Thanks in advance.

Since this is the 50-th time we've been asked this question, let me just keep it simple.

If you use BROVERMAN (ACTEX) or ASM (WEISHAUS), read every page of the study manual.

If you use MAHLER, don't attempt to read every single page. Read selectively. If Mahler starts to prove theorems or if the font is italic, skip it.
The key is to grasp the big ideas of each section. Once you've done that, don't read the rest of stuff Mahler throws out.

Feels like ASM is perfect for a person like you.

[atkinsmt]

Thanks to both of you for the info (x 50).

Sorry for the obnoxious repetition... I just needed to ask so that the blame could officially be passed to you in the highly unlikely event that I fail. Well, I can dream. I hear this one's a killer (but aren't they all?).

[kevie226]

No one really has much to say about ACTEX/Broverman. I read both threads and it seems to be between ASM and Mahler however I like ACTEX but it seems like I'm the only one. Anyone use both ACTEX and ASM and is ACTEX okay to use? I'm more of a "do tons of practice problems" type learner.

[Vorian Atreides]

No one really has much to say about ACTEX/Broverman. I read both threads and it seems to be between ASM and Mahler however I like ACTEX but it seems like I'm the only one. Anyone use both ACTEX and ASM and is ACTEX okay to use? I'm more of a "do tons of practice problems" type learner.
Then you'll benefit a lot from Mahler which gives you tons of problems.