PDA

View Full Version : Thought you all might find this interesting


Gary Beanz
07-01-2011, 01:16 PM
http://www.casact.org/admissions/passlist/may11/index.cfm?fa=passcov

Exam 5 Effective Pass Ratio: 30.4%
Exam 5A Effective Pass Ratio: 63.9%
Exam 5B Effective Pass Ratio: 77.4%

proflig8
07-01-2011, 01:31 PM
thanks for sharing that

jy006m
07-01-2011, 02:28 PM
why so few people took Exam 7?

Kongo
07-01-2011, 03:50 PM
If anything, all this says is full 5 <> 5a+5b. Basically, anyone who took full 5 got screwed.

Anony Moose
07-01-2011, 03:50 PM
why so few people took Exam 7?

The only people taking it are those doubling up and also taking 5 or 5B.

Vorian Atreides
07-01-2011, 03:51 PM
why so few people took Exam 7?
For this sitting, those who need Exam 7 will also need Exam 5B.

They either focused all of their efforts on 5B or doubled up with Exam 9. Exam 7 is--by and large--a new creature. Exam 9 is basically old Exam 8 with some additional material from old Exam 9 added. Between the two, new Exam 9 would be much easier to prep for given the greater uncertainty of what to expect to show up on Exam 7.

JasonScandopolous
07-01-2011, 04:00 PM
If anything, all this says is full 5 <> 5a+5b. Basically, anyone who took full 5 got screwed.

not necessarily. the pass mark might have been exactly the same if 5A and 5B didn't exist. although, this seems less likely than it did before these results came out.

Kongo
07-01-2011, 04:02 PM
and also, like I've been saying in many threads, 5b was easier and had advantages over 5a

Anony Moose
07-01-2011, 04:03 PM
not necessarily. the pass mark might have been exactly the same if 5A and 5B didn't exist. although, this seems less likely than it did before these results came out.

I agree. The pass mark would have been the same but the pass ratio would have been higher, assuming the half exam taker are a better pool of candidates (since they've already passed an upper exam).

Vorian Atreides
07-01-2011, 04:08 PM
I agree. The pass mark would have been the same but the pass ratio would have been higher, assuming the half exam taker are a better pool of candidates (since they've already passed an upper exam).
And I imagine that many have also sat for their 1/2 exam before--so their preparation was far more focused.

MightySchoop
07-01-2011, 04:28 PM
Note that a combined, the three "5's" have an effective pass ratio of 46.8%, well within the typical range for old 5, and a little on the high side of the old 6 pass ratios.

Higher pass ratios for the half-exams are likely a combination of a better pool of candidates and an easier time prepping for a more focused exam.

Vorian Atreides
07-01-2011, 04:54 PM
Number of candidates sitting for 5A in 2012 = 61.

Number of candidates sitting for 5B in 2012 = 51.

I'll bet the pass % for that sitting will be (near) 100% for both.

actuarialista
07-01-2011, 06:10 PM
http://casact.org/admissions/examstatsum.pdf

Looks like Full 5 had the lowest effective pass ratio of any upper-level CAS exam in the past decade, except for one Canadian exam and of course this sitting's 7. In other words, we got screwed. I don't think it's a fair comparison to look at the overall pass ratios including 5A and 5B. Should compare full exams to full exams.

Very angry, and worst fears about CAS are confirmed.

earthsunmoonsky
07-01-2011, 06:30 PM
http://casact.org/admissions/examstatsum.pdf

Looks like Full 5 had the lowest effective pass ratio of any upper-level CAS exam in the past decade, except for one Canadian exam and of course this sitting's 7. In other words, we got screwed. I don't think it's a fair comparison to look at the overall pass ratios including 5A and 5B. Should compare full exams to full exams.

Very angry, and worst fears about CAS are confirmed.

LOL. Seriously you've convinced yourself to believe this? How about most people who took full 5 never took (or at least PASSED) an upper level exam. Where is your sample size for that?

You would expect MUCH higher pass rates for 5A and 5B.

I don't think this sitting's Exam 5 was much harder than former Exam 5 or Exam 6s. The difference was the candidate pool was split into two distinct categories...those that have passed at least one upper level (and even likely failed one as well) and those that haven't.

Maybe a more accurate analysis would include how many people have passed the exam on the first try this time and in the past.

2M
07-01-2011, 07:33 PM
Yes

This doesn't conform for me that 5<>5A +5B

In fact for all the reasons above, 5 could very well equal 5A + 5B

The full 5 folks are less experienced at upper level exams, the 5A and 5B folks have passed at least one.

The questions being asked were the same

Whiskey
07-01-2011, 07:40 PM
http://casact.org/admissions/examstatsum.pdf

Looks like Full 5 had the lowest effective pass ratio of any upper-level CAS exam in the past decade, except for one Canadian exam and of course this sitting's 7. In other words, we got screwed. I don't think it's a fair comparison to look at the overall pass ratios including 5A and 5B. Should compare full exams to full exams.

Very angry, and worst fears about CAS are confirmed.

This is the only CAS exam in the past decade that did not have a single person that had previously passed an upper level exam. Pass rate is not surprising at all.

actuarialista
07-01-2011, 10:28 PM
This is the only CAS exam in the past decade that did not have a single person that had previously passed an upper level exam. Pass rate is not surprising at all.

OK, I see your point. My judgment is no doubt clouded by the fact that I failed with a score of at least 60% (as determined from my score report ranges). But like mightyschoop said, the fact that a half exam is easier to prepare for is also a likely factor. And I think that fatigue makes both halves of a 4-hr exam harder than they otherwise would be.

Whiskey
07-01-2011, 10:32 PM
OK, I see your point. My judgment is no doubt clouded by the fact that I failed with a score of at least 60% (as determined from my score report ranges). But like mightyschoop said, the fact that a half exam is easier to prepare for is also a likely factor. And I think that fatigue makes both halves of a 4-hr exam harder than they otherwise would be.

Having failed upper level exams with what appeared to be many 60% percent "5's" I can understand how much it might suck and is frustrating right now.

tommie frazier
07-02-2011, 01:36 PM
maybe full 5 was long. could be. but 10% of candidates were removed as ineffective? that's crazy high.

MountainHawk
07-02-2011, 10:19 PM
maybe full 5 was long. could be. but 10% of candidates were removed as ineffective? that's crazy high.
I'm assuming that's a effect of the fact that no one taking it had ever passed an upper level exam before.

Bobby
07-02-2011, 11:36 PM
I'm assuming that's a effect of the fact that no one taking it had ever passed an upper level exam before.

Maybe.

Previous Exam 5 Sittings
2010: 4.86% Ineffective (41 out of 843)
2009: 5.51% Ineffective (47 out of 853)
2008: 6.92% Ineffective (63 out of 911)

Previous Exam 6 Sittings
2010: 7.30% Ineffective (69 out of 945)
2009: 6.21% Ineffective (64 out of 1031)
2008: 9.45% (95 out of 1005)

I'd have to see some more detailed statistics to take a strong position on if I believe the results are reasonable... but some things that make me wary about the pass rate:

Exam 5 is EASY. Most of the syllabus is in two textbooks which were written specifically for the exam. The material is all basic. There were no trick questions on the test. The questions were similar to previous exams. I don't see why this would be viewed as a tough exam and I would expect the new exam 5 to begin having the highest pass ratio of any of the upper levels.
The cohort of people taking exam 5 may have not included people that passed an upper level before, but it also didn't include anyone that had failed an upper level before. It contained a stronger average student than the 5A/5B group because it contained the "pass every exam on the first try" people, as well as a greater proportion of "strong test takers" (those that fail only one or two exams throughout their career).
If you add up the 5+5A+5B passers, you get a raw pass ratio of 43.7%. This is LOWER than many past "full cohort" exams, such as 2010 Exam 5, 2010 Exam 7-US, and 2009 Exam 8. I would have expected the 5+5A+5B pass ratio to be higher than the usual exam since 5A and 5B people took half of an exam and this group accounted for 37% of the 5+5A+5B group.

MountainHawk
07-03-2011, 12:03 AM
It would be interesting to understand what happened. This is the first time for the combined exam. I wonder if the CAS's idea of what a MQC should know was an unrealistic combination of the old full exams, and that was the cause of the low pass mark.

While the CAS adjusts the MQC level based on the results, they probably don't give the actual results "full credibility", so a too high MQC level would mean too high of a pass mark until it gets settled in.

Whiskey
07-03-2011, 12:58 AM
...but it also didn't include anyone that had failed an upper level before.
This is wrong. The cohort of exam 5 takers included people that sat for the old 5 and/or 6 and did not pass either exam. It includes that group of test takers that can't get over that hump and never will pass an upper level exam.

earthsunmoonsky
07-03-2011, 11:34 AM
The cohort of people taking exam 5 may have not included people that passed an upper level before, but it also didn't include anyone that had failed an upper level before. It contained a stronger average student than the 5A/5B group because it contained the "pass every exam on the first try" people, as well as a greater proportion of "strong test takers" (those that fail only one or two exams throughout their career).[/LIST]

<BEGIN RANT>

I have to disagree. These people could have sat for old 5 and 6 multiple times and never passed.

Moreover, how do you determine that 5A and 5B test takers aren't stronger by your argument? (Well, more with 5A really)... They could have passed 4 last spring, old 6 last fall and still have not failed any exams but be a 5A candidate.

And how do you determine that a 5A or 5B candidate didn't only fail one exam in their career? Your sweeping generalizations are actually quite amusing. "Strong test takers!!" LOL.

Honestly I think there is no point arguing this any further. This situation only exists for 2 sittings. We can all agree it isn't 100% fair, but nothing in life is.

We could sit and complain how old exam 6 got credit for 1.5 exams. (One exam in which over half of the material is new as well -- New 7). That's not fair!! Yeah, it isn't...but guess what, you could have chosen to sit for and pass old Exam 6 to get the credit.

We all know the exam process ahead of us, and if we don't like it no one is stopping us from ending our participation.

Until then study for something higher than a 6, so you are sure to pass and then you don't have to worry about wasting your time whining how unfair everything is. :viola:

<END RANT>

tommie frazier
07-03-2011, 11:53 AM
Number of candidates sitting for 5A in 2012 = 61.

Number of candidates sitting for 5B in 2012 = 51.

I'll bet the pass % for that sitting will be (near) 100% for both.

would be nice (for the CAS) if it worked that way. we all know that it won't work that way, and that some of these 112 people (and others who somehow skipped this sitting for reasons good and bad) will have just one last chance before having to sit for the whole thing.

that makes me wonder-how many active candidates (active means attempted an exam in the last n sittings-i forget what n is) needed 5a or b and didn;t even attempt. i hope that number is super low.

oblivious
07-03-2011, 12:23 PM
What's with the CAS only offering it twice. That has been a major complaint that I've had that I nor anyone else has voiced. Virtually 99% of the programs that I've seen give 3 attempts before failing out of the exam program and everyone on the CAS exam committee knows this. Now if theres going to be an argument that they were generous during the transition with 2 attempts then,....... (placeholder). If it's a it takes a lot of extra effort then offer it only once during the transition, and give the ultimate FU instead of the punch in the face while trying to help you up after.

nonactuarialactuary
07-03-2011, 12:24 PM
Exam 5 is EASY. Most of the syllabus is in two textbooks which were written specifically for the exam. The material is all basic. There were no trick questions on the test. The questions were similar to previous exams. I don't see why this would be viewed as a tough exam and I would expect the new exam 5 to begin having the highest pass ratio of any of the upper levels.

I agree with this in theory, but it all boils down to how they test the material. The exam was long. All questions (at least on 5B, as I didn't sit for 5A) seemed straightforward, reasonable, and true to the syllabus. That said, some problems seemed unneccessarily long. For instance, giving you 5 years of data rather than 3 or 4 and asking you to calculate LDFs. Specifiying simple averages rather than volume weighted averages. These things add length to the exam, but don't do anything to separate good from bad candidates. I passed this time around, but I attribute this more to exam strategy than knowing the material any better.

Bobby
07-03-2011, 06:17 PM
This is wrong. The cohort of exam 5 takers included people that sat for the old 5 and/or 6 and did not pass either exam. It includes that group of test takers that can't get over that hump and never will pass an upper level exam.

<BEGIN RANT>

I have to disagree. These people could have sat for old 5 and 6 multiple times and never passed.

Moreover, how do you determine that 5A and 5B test takers aren't stronger by your argument? (Well, more with 5A really)... They could have passed 4 last spring, old 6 last fall and still have not failed any exams but be a 5A candidate.

And how do you determine that a 5A or 5B candidate didn't only fail one exam in their career? Your sweeping generalizations are actually quite amusing. "Strong test takers!!" LOL.

Given that someone was taking 5B, they had to have failed an exam in the last year. You can't gleam a conditional probability like that from an exam 5 test taker, so that's why I believe the 5B group was weaker.

If someone only fails one exam in their career, the probability that it was in the last two sittings is something like 2/10 (or maybe more/less depending on that distribution), so that's why I say that exam 5 had a greater proportion of these kinds of takers. I forgot to take into account that exam 5 takers also had the "failed both old 5 & 6" group, so I'm not sure how that changes things.

You guys are right about me forgetting some groups of people in my earlier argument. Exam 5/5A/5B contain the following people:

Exam 5 Takers
Never taken an upper level
Failed old 6
Failed both old 5 & 6

Exam 5A Takers
Passed old 6 (their first upper level)
Failed old 5 and passed old 6

Exam 5B Takers
Passed old 5 and failed old 6

Unfortunately I can't really argue much without seeing some statistics on the conditional probabilities of passing an exam given certain criteria about the test taker... so for now, we can just have our opinions about whether or not the exam 5 pass mark was fair.

One point that that I will concede is that 5A could have been the strongest group. I don't think 5B could have been the strongest group, though they did have the highest pass rate, probably since everyone taking that exam had to have taken the old 6 and seen the material before.

chicken_po_boy
07-03-2011, 09:08 PM
OK, I didn't read this entire thread (tl; dr) but I think some people are WAY overthinking this. Here's what happened in a nutshell:


5A and 5B people were better prepared, having studied the material once before. Also, these were 1/2 exams, so they were MUCH easier to study for since most people were not doubling up.

The 5B people got a "long" exam, but they did OK with it - 77.4% effective pass rate.

The 5A people got a "very long" exam, still did good, but just not quite as good - 63.9% effective pass rate.

The 5 people... well they kind of got screwed. They got a "VERY long" exam. And they were mainly people who had studied both the ratemaking and reserving material for the first time, and taking their first upper level. It's not surprising the effective pass rate was only 30.4%. Not surprising at all.

Vorian Atreides
07-03-2011, 11:08 PM
Exam 5 Takers
Never taken an upper level
Failed either old 5 or old 6 and never sat for the other
Failed both old 5 & 6
You missed a group.

Bobby
07-04-2011, 12:19 AM
You missed a group.

Yep, thanks. Added it.

Guest
07-04-2011, 07:55 PM
Interesting how many expected 5a pass ratio < 5 < 5b. Instead we got 5 pass ratio << 5a, 5b.

Even as a passer of full 5 I believe that 5 should be < 5a + 5b if pass marks account for all variables such as differences in testing conditions, amount of material, etc. Knowledge and the veteran effect alone are not enough to explain the large gap in pass ratios. As other posters mentioned, the additional 15 minute reading period (arguably worth thinking time required for 5 points), stamina issues, should all be real considerations.

That being said, if you want to truly honor MQC (which the CAS states that it values most) and "thou shall not screw over veterans with a transition", then really there is no way to set 5 PM < 5a + 5b so the pass ratios balance out. There is no way to get a 100% fair outcome and this seems to be the fairest.

tommie frazier
07-05-2011, 12:28 PM
What's with the CAS only offering it twice. That has been a major complaint that I've had that I nor anyone else has voiced. Virtually 99% of the programs that I've seen give 3 attempts before failing out of the exam program and everyone on the CAS exam committee knows this. Now if theres going to be an argument that they were generous during the transition with 2 attempts then,....... (placeholder). If it's a it takes a lot of extra effort then offer it only once during the transition, and give the ultimate FU instead of the punch in the face while trying to help you up after.

at some point, you have to tell people that they missed their chance. they don't want to limit the exam to the exact parts they have, but allow them to float. they also may want to ask questions that reach across the syllabus, and they can't do that until there are no more parts.

i don't think they wer generous in giving candidates 2 attempts at the parts. I think it was fair. at some point, the effort of offering the parts outweighs the benefit. if they said it was 3, someone would be clammoring for 4. let's see how many of the 112 people still need #3. I am hoping that it is single digits.

Vorian Atreides
07-05-2011, 12:40 PM
What's with the CAS only offering it twice. That has been a major complaint that I've had that I nor anyone else has voiced. Virtually 99% of the programs that I've seen give 3 attempts before failing out of the exam program and everyone on the CAS exam committee knows this. Now if theres going to be an argument that they were generous during the transition with 2 attempts then,....... (placeholder). If it's a it takes a lot of extra effort then offer it only once during the transition, and give the ultimate FU instead of the punch in the face while trying to help you up after.
Given the passing %, I don't think CAS is wrong to not offer the transition more than twice.

DrOgey
07-05-2011, 01:50 PM
Having failed old 5 and 6 more than once I've realized one thing that has helped me tremendously. The tests aren't the hardest part. The emotions involved with loss of free time, passing, and failing is what's hard. If I can somehow mitigate the emotional part, this process will be much "easier". Even if I fail several tests along the way.

The sooner we accept that the exam process is mostly a test of who can suffer the most, the sooner we'll clench down and take our beatings to get to the finish line.

I've heard many older or more experienced fellows tell me about their path to fellowship. Almost all have a story to tell: It was torture for my family...I didn't have much fun for a couple of years... I studied for 8 hours a day every Saturday and Sunday, while some of my peers had some fun and relaxed a bit, (and failed)...I got caught in a syllabus transition that caused me to lose credit...Other fellows tell me I was grandfathered in due to changes in the exam track, EVEN though I actually sat for 14 exams (numbered 1-9)...etc.

I don't know of any fellow who, when describing the exams, complains about how difficult integrating is or how tough it is to develop losses to ultimate. It's always the emotional strain.

By the time we finish, we will have our own trail of tears to describe.

"A change in the syllabus caused my exam 5 to be hell, but I got through it eventually."

I think this guy said it best,

"U.S. (and Canadian) actuarial examinations form the most difficult system of professional examinations that exists in the known universe. The exams are not just hard because they are hard, but they are also hard because they are unreasonable -- you can't see how your test was graded, model solutions posted are not model but so-so, tests are often not published, and there is no clearly defined pass mark. Just '''' it up and do not waste time on complaining. If you are in the top 5% in mathematics skills in the U.S.... you will make it if you work hard.... But you will get the best job there is, bar none." emphasis added
-Dr. Krzysztof Ostaszewski http://math.illinoisstate.edu/files/coins/profile/krzysio

So keep reading. Keep studying. And one day you'll make it to the end.

JasonScandopolous
07-05-2011, 02:07 PM
Having failed old 5 and 6 more than once I've realized one thing that has helped me tremendously. The tests aren't the hardest part. The emotions involved with loss of free time, passing, and failing is what's hard. If I can somehow mitigate the emotional part, this process will be much "easier". Even if I fail several tests along the way.

The sooner we accept that the exam process is mostly a test of who can suffer the most, the sooner we'll clinch down and take our beatings to get to the finish line.

I've heard many older or more experienced fellows tell me about their path to fellowship. Almost all have a story to tell: It was torture for my family...I didn't have much fun for a couple of years... I studied for 8 hours a day every Saturday and Sunday, while some of my peers had some fun and relaxed a bit, (and failed)...I got caught in a syllabus transition that caused me to lose credit...Other fellows tell me I was grandfathered in due to changes in the exam track, EVEN though I actually sat for 14 exams (numbered 1-9)...etc.

I don't know of any fellow who, when describing the exams, complains about how difficult integrating is or how tough it is to develop losses to ultimate. It's always the emotional strain.

By the time we finish, we will have our own trail of tears to describe.

"A change in the syllabus caused my exam 5 to be hell, but I got through it eventually."

I think this guy said it best,

"U.S. (and Canadian) actuarial examinations form the most difficult system of professional examinations that exists in the known universe. The exams are not just hard because they are hard, but they are also hard because they are unreasonable -- you can't see how your test was graded, model solutions posted are not model but so-so, tests are often not published, and there is no clearly defined pass mark. Just '''' it up and do not waste time on complaining. If you are in the top 5% in mathematics skills in the U.S.... you will make it if you work hard.... But you will get the best job there is, bar none." emphasis added
-Dr. Krzysztof Ostaszewski http://math.illinoisstate.edu/files/coins/profile/krzysio

So keep reading. Keep studying. And one day you'll make it to the end.

What a speech fellas, what a speech!

DrOgey
07-05-2011, 02:10 PM
What a speech fellas, what a speech!

Haha. I've recently been required to join Toastmasters and it seems to be carrying over into other parts of my life.

Gyudon
07-05-2011, 02:28 PM
So keep reading. Keep studying. And one day you'll make it to the end.

TANSTAAFL. Except the bolded I agree with 99% of your message.

booger
07-05-2011, 10:10 PM
Given the passing %, I don't think CAS is wrong to not offer the transition more than twice.

Hey VA! Do you still live in Canada? Have you gotten your grade slip? I still haven't gotten my grade slip and I was wondering if it was because of the Canada Post strike that was going on.

Vorian Atreides
07-05-2011, 10:52 PM
Hey VA! Do you still live in Canada? Have you gotten your grade slip? I still haven't gotten my grade slip and I was wondering if it was because of the Canada Post strike that was going on.
I have never lived in Canada (although I've stayed a night or two somewhere along the way in my life :-)).

From the other Exam threads, it appears that some are just now getting their grade slip. (I have received mine last week.)

If you're further west than Quebec or Ontario, I'd imagine that it might take another day or two; but it appears that things are getting delivered (for the time being . . . knock on wood, eh?).

booger
07-06-2011, 12:48 AM
I have never lived in Canada (although I've stayed a night or two somewhere along the way in my life :-)).

From the other Exam threads, it appears that some are just now getting their grade slip. (I have received mine last week.)

If you're further west than Quebec or Ontario, I'd imagine that it might take another day or two; but it appears that things are getting delivered (for the time being . . . knock on wood, eh?).

Then why the hell do you have CIA listed and the Canadian smiley in your signature.

Thanks for the info. I checked the other threads.

Vorian Atreides
07-06-2011, 10:21 AM
Then why the hell do you have CIA listed and the Canadian smiley in your signature.

Thanks for the info. I checked the other threads.
There are US companies that do business in Canada. They still need CIA fellows to sign the reserve opinion for the Canadian exposure. Given that there are only two such individuals in my company, and both within an epsilon of retirement, I'll be working toward FCIA designation in the future. (My employer wants me to take Exam 6U.)

MountainHawk
07-06-2011, 10:23 AM
There are US companies that do business in Canada. They still need CIA fellows to sign the reserve opinion for the Canadian exposure. Given that there are only two such individuals in my company, and both within an epsilon of retirement, I'll be working toward FCIA designation in the future. (My employer wants me to take Exam 6U.)
Can you get the FCIA without working in Canada?

Vorian Atreides
07-06-2011, 10:25 AM
Can you get the FCIA without working in Canada?
Yes . . . the experience requirement relates only to working with Canadian data, not residency.

MountainHawk
07-06-2011, 10:28 AM
Yes . . . the experience requirement relates only to working with Canadian data, not residency.
Oh. Hmmm.

booger
07-06-2011, 11:10 AM
There are US companies that do business in Canada. They still need CIA fellows to sign the reserve opinion for the Canadian exposure. Given that there are only two such individuals in my company, and both within an epsilon of retirement, I'll be working toward FCIA designation in the future. (My employer wants me to take Exam 6U.)

:tup: Thanks for the explanation.

oblivious
07-06-2011, 12:53 PM
at some point, you have to tell people that they missed their chance. they don't want to limit the exam to the exact parts they have, but allow them to float. they also may want to ask questions that reach across the syllabus, and they can't do that until there are no more parts.

i don't think they wer generous in giving candidates 2 attempts at the parts. I think it was fair. at some point, the effort of offering the parts outweighs the benefit. if they said it was 3, someone would be clammoring for 4. let's see how many of the 112 people still need #3. I am hoping that it is single digits.

My argument is far from being that if someone said 3 someone would ask for 4 or that people are always asking for more. My argument is that every study program that I've ever seen says 3 attempts per exam or you're out of the actuarial department (followed by clauses to keep good employees), or at the very least that your out of the student program.

I don't think its to much of a stretch to align the typical study program for every company/consulting company with the transition period, and I know that the counter argument would be that most people sitting for a half exam are not on there 1st attempt. I just thought it was odd, but I realize I'm in the minority in this thought.

I hope its in the single digits too.

Maybe its more that I didn't drink enough to get over failing this last attempt.
Note to self: drink tonight

booger
07-06-2011, 01:21 PM
My argument is far from being that if someone said 3 someone would ask for 4 or that people are always asking for more. My argument is that every study program that I've ever seen says 3 attempts per exam or you're out of the actuarial department (followed by clauses to keep good employees), or at the very least that your out of the student program.

I don't think its to much of a stretch to align the typical study program for every company/consulting company with the transition period, and I know that the counter argument would be that most people sitting for a half exam are not on there 1st attempt. I just thought it was odd, but I realize I'm in the minority in this thought.

I hope its in the single digits too.

Maybe its more that I didn't drink enough to get over failing this last attempt.
Note to self: drink tonight

:iatp:

Vorian Atreides
07-06-2011, 03:46 PM
My argument is far from being that if someone said 3 someone would ask for 4 or that people are always asking for more. My argument is that every study program that I've ever seen says 3 attempts per exam or you're out of the actuarial department (followed by clauses to keep good employees), or at the very least that your out of the student program.

I don't think its to much of a stretch to align the typical study program for every company/consulting company with the transition period, and I know that the counter argument would be that most people sitting for a half exam are not on there 1st attempt. I just thought it was odd, but I realize I'm in the minority in this thought.
If it were over a full Exam, I would agree to a "three attempts" type argument. But as it is, 1/2 Exam shouldn't require that many sittings.

And it's not like this was determined in the last month or two. It was announced at the time the transition was announced. If the pass ratios were much smaller, I think the CAS would've extended the transition to another sitting. But given that 2/3 (more or less) of those sitting for the 1/2 Exams passed, there isn't a need to offer it more times. I don't see the need to expend that much effort for that small number of people.

Aw Yeah
07-06-2011, 04:17 PM
idk, i think this is pretty crappy, but then again i earned a score of 5 on full 5. so thats probably why i feel that way.

IKnewIt
07-06-2011, 04:30 PM
I passed full 5 (first attempt at an upper level), but I was stunned to see how low the pass ratio was for this exam and that 10% of people sitting for it scored a 0. I felt that it could go either way for me after leaving the exam, so I feel extremely lucky to be on this side of the pass mark after seeing these numbers.

Brodderick
07-06-2011, 07:34 PM
idk, i think this is pretty crappy, but then again i earned a score of 5 on full 5. so thats probably why i feel that way.

I'm in the same boat with a 5 on full 5. When I first saw the pass ratio information on the 4th I blew a gasket. In fact, I was so angry my wife told me to hold our baby so that I'd calm down (it worked, she's adorable, can't stay angry). I blew a second, smaller gasket yesterday when I showed the pass ratios to my boss. Today is day 3 and I'm still pissed. Thankfully my anger has diminished to the point where it is simply manifesting itself via ranting on the internet. :spnner:

Number Theory
07-06-2011, 09:20 PM
I passed full 5 (first attempt at an upper level), but I was stunned to see how low the pass ratio was for this exam and that 10% of people sitting for it scored a 0. I felt that it could go either way for me after leaving the exam, so I feel extremely lucky to be on this side of the pass mark after seeing these numbers.

Me too!

Whiskey
07-06-2011, 09:34 PM
I'm in the same boat with a 5 on full 5. When I first saw the pass ratio information on the 4th I blew a gasket. In fact, I was so angry my wife told me to hold our baby so that I'd calm down (it worked, she's adorable, can't stay angry). I blew a second, smaller gasket yesterday when I showed the pass ratios to my boss. Today is day 3 and I'm still pissed. Thankfully my anger has diminished to the point where it is simply manifesting itself via ranting on the internet. :spnner:

Really glad your wife's plan didn't backfire.

Aw Yeah
07-06-2011, 10:39 PM
just thought i'd throw in a btw... fml

peem
07-13-2011, 04:03 PM
I'd attribute a good portion of the high passing %s for 5A/B to length of the syllabus. Also, 5B takers are likely the strongest cohort as most of them likely just took in 6 the sitting prior. The material should stil be pretty fresh as compared to those who've passed 6 and failed 5.

IKnewIt
07-13-2011, 04:14 PM
Does anybody know how long it will be before the CAS releases the official passing score? I'm very interested in seeing this considering the pass ratios.