Exam Appeal team for Exam 5

[takeshire]

Let's put our heads together and appeal items we would like to challenge. I think the wording and consistency of an appeal has a lot to do with whether it is accepted, and my wife certainly is not going to be able to help me.

First I name the items you would like to challenge.
I propose doing it here. Everyone who wants to challenge an item, just respond with the item #.

Next I will insert a new topic by exam and item # for each item to be challenged.

Next we those appealing a particular item, work separately on appeals to that item, and reveal to the rest the contents of the appeal. Who knows? Someone else may have wording or logic that makes a better case for your own appeal.

Then critically examine each others appeals until we get the best wording for each. We'll have a month to do it.

I'll wait for someone to suggest an item. If noone does, I may start with a few myself

[MNBridge]

OK I rarely respond to the appeal threads, but this is completely out of hand.

I am still taking exams as well.

So you want a 'TEAM' to find things wrong with the exam and hopefully that will give more points to who?
I assuming it's you and you got a 5. Are are you just doing it because you want everyones exam graded as fairly as possible, I'm guessing not. If you didn't get a 5 then I apologize.

OK, Here's the deal, (and I would think someone with 4 exams would have figured this part out) they have to set the pass mark somewhere.
As a result some people are going to barely fail and some people are going to barely pass.

OF the subset that barely failed some of these people will know the material better than some who barely passed. That's life; life's not perfect and either are the exams or the graders.

So If you really want to pass exams I would highly recommend making sure you are not one of those bubble people.

Remember you chose this profession it did not choose you nor were you forced into it. It hasn't changed that much, so you should have known what you were in for.

[takeshire]

Remember you chose this profession it did not choose you nor were you forced into it. It hasn't changed that much, so you should have known what you were in for.


First of all, yes I did receive a 5. I also received 15 out of 17 correct on the multiple choice, and the two that I got wrong I am already appealing. At least one of these was clearly an invalid question. So, the way I score it, I received at least 15 out of 16 on the multiple choice portion of the exam.

The thing that bothers me about my grade is that I knew the essay material just as well as I knew the multiple choice material. And on at least one of the essay list questions, I "should have" received full credit, but my score was between 25% and 49%.

So I am truly sore.

I do believe that the exam committee fairly grades appeals based on the soundness of the argument. Yet I believe it can be very difficult for a distraught and desperate 5 candidate to write a sound appeal without feedback. This is an emotional situation for someone who studied for 5 months, knew the material like the back of his hand, finds clear mistakes on the multiple choice portion of the exam which he aced, and is not returned the essay portion to see what the heck he could have done wrong.

[MNBridge]

Remember you chose this profession it did not choose you nor were you forced into it. It hasn't changed that much, so you should have known what you were in for.


First of all, yes I did receive a 5. I also received 15 out of 17 correct on the multiple choice, and the two that I got wrong I am already appealing. At least one of these was clearly an invalid question. So, the way I score it, I received at least 15 out of 16 on the multiple choice portion of the exam.

The thing that bothers me about my grade is that I knew the essay material just as well as I knew the multiple choice material. And on at least one of the essay list questions, I "should have" received full credit, but my score was between 25% and 49%.

Then you should appeal those questions and have someone check to make sure your thoughts are well written.
(I read the post above as looking for questions to appeal, not I am appealing these questions for this reason.)

This is an emotional situation for someone who studied for 5 months,

I understand and do feel for you, good luck with the appeals that you have found.

knew the material like the back of his hand

This simply isn't possible. If you knew the material like the back of your hand a few poorly graded questions would not have made the difference.

[takeshire]

knew the material like the back of his hand

This simply isn't possible. If you knew the material like the back of your hand a few poorly graded questions would not have made the difference.


You forget about the time factor.

[mathseal]

Takeshire,
I also received 15 out of 17 correct on the multiple choice, and the two that I got wrong I am already appealing.
Is it inconceivable for you that you (and everyone else) makes some mistakes... which is why the CAS doesn't require 100 to pass?


The thing that bothers me about my grade is that I knew the essay material just as well as I knew the multiple choice material.
You can know the material and simply not present it in a meaningful way. (for example defining terms when you're asked to contrast...) Although I admit your posts are clear enough.
You can also get into trouble if they ask you for 3 of 5 major points - the committee will only look at the first 3 you answer. So even if you list 4 valid points (and remember answering the question just fine), if your first point is invald you'll lose credit.



I do believe that the exam committee fairly grades appeals based on the soundness of the argument.
I don't think so. I think the committee focuses on the weakness of the question. Not the ability of the student to defend their counter-argument.

With all due respect to the self-described "green lights" of the world, I think the CAS has no desire to play into the old joke about "How do you find the height of a building with a barometer?". Answer: "Walk to the top of the building and drop the barometer. Measure the time it takes to hit the ground. Alternatively find the owner of the building, and give him a shiny new barometer if he'll tell you how tall his building is..." :)

[MathGuy]

knew the material like the back of his hand

This simply isn't possible. If you knew the material like the back of your hand a few poorly graded questions would not have made the difference.


You forget about the time factor.

You should probably work on your time management skills then. How much time did you spend on getting 15 out of 17 right on the multiple choice? I start with the essay questions first, and aswer them as best I can because they are worth more than 80% of the exam. You can pass the exam without touching the MCs. I did all the essays in about 3:45, leaving just 15 minutes for the MCs. I just whipped through those, answering only those I was 100% certain on.

If you know as much as you say you do, your #1 priority should be getting through all the essays, even if you only answer them 50% - 75%. Getting half credit (on average) with the essays along with 15 points on the multiple choice would probably get you a pass. If you can get 3 points on a 5-point question in two minutes, maybe it's just not worth spending four more minutes trying to get those last two points. Finally, you should always write something. Those pity points might just add up.

On the whole, I have a hard time believing that someone who knows the material as well as you claim to would be unable to get an average of half-credit on the essays.

[takeshire]

I intended this topic to be one where, as people find questions they wish to appeal, they can post their appeals, or announce they are appealing, thus receiving support and feedback on those appeals.

[MathGuy]

Yeah, well, what're you gonna do?

[takeshire]

Try to stay on topic.

If you have items you would like to appeal for exam 5, please post them here.

[Wigmeister General]

Most people find me unappealing.

[takeshire]

Most people find me unappealing.

You're lucky.

[Wigmeister General]

How am I lucky?

[takeshire]

How am I lucky?


If that was a pun, meaning you don't have to appeal, then you are lucky. Otherwise, tell me what you think the correct response should have been for the second part of queston #24. I said branding and providing better service on claims, but neither of them seemed to get me any points.

[J.T.]

How am I lucky?


If that was a pun, meaning you don't have to appeal, then you are lucky. Otherwise, tell me what you think the correct response should have been for the second part of queston #24. I said branding and providing better service on claims, but neither of them seemed to get me any points.

OK, takeshire, that question drew my attention. For the second part of 24, I said better service and cheaper price....I don't think I got anything. I thought it was curious also.

[mathseal]

Takeshire,
I'm going to try to respond to your appeal for #24. While you know my feelings about these laundry-list appeals, I will stay on thread.


The question "List two ways a company offering personal auto may alter the demand curve for its products"

Takeshire wrote:
I said branding and providing better service on claims, but neither of them seemed to get me any points.
JT Wrote
I said better service and cheaper price....

Let me start by admitting I didn't know the answer and better service sounded pretty good (as did Branding)

What *is* clear is the "curve" is the relationship between demand and sale price, so while cheaper price will increase demand - it will leave the demand curve unchanged.

So now why did Takeshire's answers get little or nothing when they sound reasonable? Well knowing the CAS, they are looking for a quote. So I checked the syllabus and found it had to come from Boor Chapter 3.

On page 2 you will see the exact list they probably used.

Examples of insurance product attributes that can create a brand name would be (to decommoditize insurance):
1) the extent to which coverage will be extended by the claims department for marginal claims,
2) the extent to which the insurer offers coverage extensions in the policy that other companies do not;
3) the financial strength of the insurer;
4) the insurer’s flexibility in customizing insurance programs to meet individual customer’s needs;
5) the ability of the insurer to successfully fight third-party claims;
6) the accessibility of the insurer’s claims department,
7) and the quality of the loss control offered by the insurer.

So the CAS probably just checked your two answers against these 7. If you matched two you got full credit, and if you didn't ... nothing?

I admit giving zero *does* seem a little rough to me, in that "Branding" is the concept that includes all 7, and "better claims service" is a more general answer including #1 and #6.

Were Mathseal to grade this, I might have given Takeshire half credit (confused general and specific), and JT a quarter (somewhat ambiguous). But remember, the CAS assigned TWO volunteers to independently grade your answers and they concurred on the grading. So the harsh grade probably stems from the instructions and/or the model answer the graders receive, rather than their personal feelings about the validity of a "branding" as an answer.

[Gandalf]

You can also get into trouble if they ask you for 3 of 5 major points - the committee will only look at the first 3 you answer. So even if you list 4 valid points (and remember answering the question just fine), if your first point is invald you'll lose credit.

Really? That seems very strange. My impression of SOA scoring (and I could be totally wrong on this) is that as long as your answer included 3 valid points, you would get full credit, no matter what other extraneous info you gave (exception: contradictory statements would be penalized).

[J.T.]

You can also get into trouble if they ask you for 3 of 5 major points - the committee will only look at the first 3 you answer. So even if you list 4 valid points (and remember answering the question just fine), if your first point is invald you'll lose credit.

Really? That seems very strange. My impression of SOA scoring (and I could be totally wrong on this) is that as long as your answer included 3 valid points, you would get full credit, no matter what other extraneous info you gave (exception: contradictory statements would be penalized).

CAS tells you that they will only grade the first 3 points. After that, they stop grading. So pick the 3 you know the most about.

[takeshire]

Okay everyone. Fire away!



New Improved version of item #17 appeal:

This appeal is in regards to the statement:

As the size of the risk increases, the MSL increases.

This appeal has two parts.

In Part 1, I will show that the size of the MSL is dependent on the size of the basic limits portion of the risk, and not on the size of the risk.
In Part 2, I will explain why the two statements mean something different:
1. As the size of the basic limits portion of the risk increases, the MSL increases.
2. As the size of the risk increases, the MSL increases.

PART 1
In this section I will show that the MSL is dependent on the size of the basic limits portion of the risk, and not on the size of the risk itself.
First assume, that the size of the risk is measured by premium.

From the Tiller study note, "For the plan as revised in July 1988, the MSL is set so that the maximum impact of any single occurrence is +0.30 on the resulting experience modification factor."
From page 169 of the Tiller Sherwood chapter, M = [(AxZ) + Ex(1-Z)] / E, where E = Expected Losses and ALAE Limited by Basic Limits and MSL, and A = Actual Losses and ALAE Limited by Basic Limits and MSL.

From these two statements, we have 0.3 =MSL x Z/E, which implies that MSL = 0.3 E / Z

From the Tiller Study Note, Z = P / (P+$100,000) where P = subject basic limits earned premium

Therefore, MSL = 0.3(E)(P+$100,000)/P

By definition, E = (basic limits expected losses)*(D-ratio) = P(ELR)(D-ratio), where ELR is the basic limits expected loss ratio.

Therefore,

MSL = 0.3P(ELR)(D-Ratio)(P+$100,000)/P
= 0.3(ELR)(D-Ratio)(P+$100,000)

Let constant, K=0.3(ELR)

Then we have,

MSL = K(D-Ratio)P + K(D-Ratio)$100,000

As the MSL increases, the D-Ratio increases, thus as P increases, the MSL will also increase.

However, note above that P = subject basic limits earned premium, which is a measure of the basic limits portion of the risk. Clearly, as earned premium increases, basic limits earned premium can both increase or decrease, so the MSL does not always increase with the size of the risk.


PART 2
I will explain why the difference between the following two statements is actuarially significant:
1. As the size of the basic limits portion of the risk increases, the MSL increases.
2. As the size of the risk increases, the MSL increases.

The first statement implies that the MSL is dependent not only on the size of the risk, but also on the severity distribution of the risk. In other words, a risk with a small number of large claims above the basic limit will have a lower MSL than a risk with a large number of small claims.

The second statement appears incomplete, does not describe the actual dependency relationship, and is not always true. Working through the equations reveals that Ms. Tiller's intention must have been the first. Given the fact that she specified everywhere else (except in that paragraph) that she was talking about basic limits premium and basic limits losses, the fact that she did not clearly state that she was talking about the basic limits portion of the risk, seems like an oversight. In other words, leaving out "basic limits portion of the" is the same as saying "Z in the credibility formula stands for P/(P+K), where P is earned premium." It's just wrong.

[mathseal]

Takeshire,

I'm pretty sure you have NO chance on #17. You're essentially arguing that "rules of thumb" have to be mathematically precise or they aren't true.

The real question was:
As the size of the risk increases, the MSL increases.

"Mathseal" As a student gets more questions right, they are more likely to pass. Do you agree that's true?

"Takeshire original appeal" That's absurd! Everyone knows you could get 15 MC questions right and still fail, while answering 15 4 point essay questions almost guarantees a pass.

"Takeshire revised appeal" It only VALID questions that count, so conceivably I could answer an additional question right and if that question was invalid then my score would not increase.

Clearly, as earned premium increases, basic limits earned premium can both increase or decrease

This is the heart of your appeal, and it's weak. It would be impossible for "cetis paribus"* a risk with increasing earned premium to decrease it basic limit premium.

In fact for the BLEP (and MSL) NOT to increase - you would have to argue that the hypothetical risk increased ONLY in severity, and not at all in frequency (maybe by changing hazard mods?) That's a pretty strained exception for the statement "as the risk increases in size".


* I don't speak latin, but Colymbosathon ecplecticos, our well-endowed swimming friend tells us this means "all else equals".

[Avi]

"cetis paribus"*

* I don't speak latin, but Coly, our well-endowed swimming friend tells us this means "all else equals".

[grammar police]ceteris paribus[/grammar police]

;)

[tres_year_countup]

I have to get on board with MN Poker on this one. If you knew the material like the back of your hand then you wouldn't be on the bubble you moron. Pleny of people passed that exam, if you are in a situation where a few questions is the difference, then you need to suck it up and be better prepared the next time. Instead of wasting your time and others time with appeals, just hit the books. Get it done. If a team loses a game by 1 point they don't file an appeal with the league and say "oh it was that call in the first quarter that cost us the game, we were clearly dominating the game except for that one call" we guess what, if you lose by 1 point you aren't dominating the game. To be real winner, the kind tha consistently pass, you have to be good enough to score way over the pass mark, then a few small mistakes won't be the difference.

MN Poker had you totally pegged, some joker who scored a 5, and thought he got screwed because you "knew the material like the back of my hand" when in fact you were dominated by many others taking the test who truly did know it that well, unlike you. And now you want to try and appeal as if you are some kind of victim. You are just a victim of having become a wuss

Listen you loser, you are taking a cowards approach. I encourage no one to list their appeals here. If you stick with this idiot you are very unlikely to get anywhere. Just study and be better than the pass mark next time. That is the only way. MN Poker knows how it goes, he is a game player and this is no different than a game. If he loses with a K high flush to a A high flush, he doesn't appeal the casino to show that he clearly dominated the game and he should win...he chalks it up to experience and gets ready for the next hand.

You are the lowest rung of the ladder for actuarial students. Just get over it and get prepared. Elmo used to be like you , blaming everyone for her not passing part 8. But now she is simply sucking it up and making sure she is more well prepared next time. You will do well by doing the same and saving us your whining. No one wants to hear it.

[takeshire]

Takeshire,

I'm pretty sure you have NO chance on #17. You're essentially arguing that "rules of thumb" have to be mathematically precise or they aren't true.

The real question was:
As the size of the risk increases, the MSL increases.

"Mathseal" As a student gets more questions right, they are more likely to pass. Do you agree that's true?



Mathseal,

You illustrate my point very well, thank you.

If the statement read,
"As the size of the risk increases, the MSL is likely to increase,"
then I would have no case.

In fact, what I am trying to say with this revised version, (and apparently not too clearly, yet) can be summed up with the following scenario.

The SAT has 3 sections. Two sections affect a student's score. One does not. Call the sections that are graded type A, and the non-graded section type B. Consider the following two statements:

As the number of correctly answered Type A questions increases, the student's score increases. This is a true statement.

As the number of correctly answered questions increases, the score of the student increases.

Is this true? Of course not. Although it is usually the case, it still can't be called true because it's not always true. In fact, considered for the second sitting of an individual student, the reverse is actually possible.

However, the following statement is true:

As the number of correctly answered questions increases, the student's score tends to increase.


If ETS were to publish:

"As the number of correctly answered questions increases, the score of the student increases,"

there would be rioting in the streets. It's just not true.



Takeshire,

In fact for the BLEP (and MSL) NOT to increase - you would have to argue that the hypothetical risk increased ONLY in severity, and not at all in frequency (maybe by changing hazard mods?) That's a pretty strained exception for the statement "as the risk increases in size".



You're right on the first point. I'm saying that from one year to the next, the severity of the individual losses increased, and the frequency of losses decreased. I don't agree with your opinion, however. In the real world, that happens quite often, sometimes for the industry as a whole.


Anyways, thanks for forcing me to clarify my point.

Sincerely,
Takeshire

[Marvel Mole Man]

I have to get on board with MN Poker on this one. If you knew the material like the back of your hand then you wouldn't be on the bubble you moron. Pleny of people passed that exam, if you are in a situation where a few questions is the difference, then you need to suck it up and be better prepared the next time. Instead of wasting your time and others time with appeals, just hit the books. Get it done. If a team loses a game by 1 point they don't file an appeal with the league and say "oh it was that call in the first quarter that cost us the game, we were clearly dominating the game except for that one call" we guess what, if you lose by 1 point you aren't dominating the game. To be real winner, the kind tha consistently pass, you have to be good enough to score way over the pass mark, then a few small mistakes won't be the difference.

MN Poker had you totally pegged, some joker who scored a 5, and thought he got screwed because you "knew the material like the back of my hand" when in fact you were dominated by many others taking the test who truly did know it that well, unlike you. And now you want to try and appeal as if you are some kind of victim. You are just a victim of having become a wuss

Listen you loser, you are taking a cowards approach. I encourage no one to list their appeals here. If you stick with this idiot you are very unlikely to get anywhere. Just study and be better than the pass mark next time. That is the only way. MN Poker knows how it goes, he is a game player and this is no different than a game. If he loses with a K high flush to a A high flush, he doesn't appeal the casino to show that he clearly dominated the game and he should win...he chalks it up to experience and gets ready for the next hand.

You are the lowest rung of the ladder for actuarial students. Just get over it and get prepared. Elmo used to be like you , blaming everyone for her not passing part 8. But now she is simply sucking it up and making sure she is more well prepared next time. You will do well by doing the same and saving us your whining. No one wants to hear it.

OH MY GAWD!!!!

OH!

OH!

OHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

IS THAT SMOKE I SMELL???!!!!

I THINKS SOMEONE JUST GOT PUT ON THE GRILL AND FRIED LIKE A CHEAP STEAK!!!!

THAT WAS A TOTAL, TOTAL, TOTAL FACIAL OF EPIC, OF MONUMENTAL, OF MONSTROUS PROPORTIONS!

THAT WAS A BIG SERVING OF IN-YOUR-FACE-DISGRACE!

THAT WAS THE CASTIGATING OF A COURSE FIVE LOSER!

THAT WAS BRUTAL.

BRUTAL.

BRUTAL.

OH MY.

OH MY GAWD.

I CANNOT BELIEVE MY EYES. I CANNOT BELIEVE I HAVE WITNESSED THIS MONUMENTAL BRUTALITY.

OH!

OH!

OHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

[Peregrine]

Well lookie lookie lookie.

Guess who's back.

Hey Marvel Mole Mouth, what happened? Too ashamed of being sauteed in the Poker threads that you had to come here and assuage your skewered ego by reveling in your schizoid trolling techniques?

:lol:

I like your use of caps. Makes you feel like a BIG man now, doesn't it? A really big man that needs to support his or her enervated attempts at trolling with a self-supported peanut gallery. Compensates for some other shortcomings, I gather. Way to go tres, or Edgeworth, or Bog, or Mole, or PG, or whatever else gets you through the unending misery of each of your pathetic days.

BTW, that smell? It's PG on the Barbie in the poker threads, basting in his own juices, as well as some others supplied by outsiders, if you catch my drift, moley. That major, major facial you and he and her and it suffered over there. What was that website again? www.pokergodgotskeweredandcantliveitdown.com ?

Here, have a beer and drown your own self-loathing in an alcohol induced haze. You might feel better for a while.

:beer:

regs,

Peregrine

:viola:

[takeshire]

I will submit the final version of the item #17 appeal very soon.

Thanks all for your critiques and criticisms. Once again they have been quite informative and have helped to strengthen my argument. I hope some of you item #17 appealers benefit from these threads. Good luck to all of you.


Takeshire.

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

A word to the wise: it's late July, you should be spending your available time on the next exam (not the prior one).

[takeshire]

A word to the wise: it's late July, you should be spending your available time on the next exam (not the prior one).


Thanks for your concern, Coly. I actually started studying (a little) for 6 the week after I took 5, so I think I have a small time buffer. I do admit that this appeals process has been overly time consuming. Starting early with my studying didn't seem to help my actual exam performance on exam 5, though. Given that the two exams I failed were the exams I started earliest on, I'm starting to wonder if that extra time was actually helpful.

In case you're interested, I also failed my first sitting of exam 3. Didn't even consider appealing that one, however, because when I left the exam room, I knew I probably got a 5, which I did. This time, when I left the exam room, I thought I would score an 8. Prior to this sitting I've been 4 for 5 in guessing my exam score, so guessing an 8 and scoring a 5 was pretty shocking.

The interesting thing, (which you probably don't want to hear) is that in preparing for the second sitting of exam 3, I didn't crack a book, and I passed with a 9. An old math professor of mine used to say "sometimes the moon just has to circle the earth a few times before you're gonna understand a concept." What disturbs me about that line of thinking, is that the two times that I have tried to apply it to my study strategy I've failed. I think it has something to do with thinking too much.

At this point I would like to declare a truce between the two of us. Things have gotten a little out of hand. My comments to you earlier were unnecessary, as I felt yours were, and they actually didn't make me feel better.