How did you kick course 3's a$$?

[Bama Gambler]

How did you prepare for course 3? :crazy: Did it work?

Thanks in advance,
Bama Gambler

[jaegar]

Bama

Hate to sound like over kill, but I studied everything. Literally everything. I went through umpteen study manuals, read all chapters on the syllabus, and read the study note by klugman. I just took it for the third time, and feel pretty confident that I passed, so much so that I have begun studying for course 4. I took it last november and scored a 5 on that sitting. In retrospect, I did not read Mahler's notes till this last sitting, and wish I had gone through it before any other study manual for november exam!!! If I had, I am fairly certain I would have gotten over the hump in November. I cannot even begin to overstate how good it is. The following is how I rate the study manuals I read (from best to worst), and the exam sitting I read through them.

*Mahler (5/02) -- Does not get any better. Clarifies all the concepts (excluding Life Contingencies), and had great examples that solidified the material.

*Actex(11/01) -- Summarizes all the formulas and concepts. Great as a final studying element when formula organization is key.

*How to Pass(11/01) -- Its a toss up whether this is worse than Actex. It does not have as many formulas, however, it has great helpful hints and tricks that can allow you to cut down on problem derivation time, which is key on the exam.

*CSM(11/01) -- A lot of formulas and problems to work. I would say look to Actex for the formulas rather than here. The nice thing about this one, it has an extremely large amount of problems to work. The drawback, 90% of them are not relevant to current questions. Alternatively, even though they are quite simple they are good to work through anyways, since most of them are great building blocks for working the current problems.

*Arch(5/02) -- The bright spot here, I think the authors' jokes were actually funny. It does a fair job of explaining the material, but it is quite condensed in the material it does cover. Additionally, I noticed there was a lfair amount of mistakes throughout the manual, which drives me nuts. On a positive note, I think the authors were helpful in pointing out things to memorize and to avoid. One final positive note on this manual, it has a sample exam in the back which the authors created. I found it quite helpful, since the problems were not from prior Course 3 exams that are consistently in every manual.

*Cox(5/02) -- The noteworthy statement here, atleast someone made the effort to make a study manual. All in all it was not terrible. It just does not muster up to the other big boys. The material is even more condensed than Arch. This manual had some mistakes as well. The mistakes here were not in the solutions to problems, but the stated letter corresponding to the answer. For example, if out of A) through E) the answer is C), they would have listed B). However, the numerical answer they solved for is C). I typically looked at the letter rather than the solved value since they had the summarized letter answers. I would end up spending countless time trying to figure out where I went wrong, and it would end up that I had it right in the first place. Instead the letter did not correspond with their answer. If this does not hamper you, then this is a pretty decent study note for round things out, since the questions are pretty similar to what you will see on the exam.

If you will notice I wrote more about the worst ones. I think that makes sense, since the appropriate answer for the good manuals is "BUY THEM!". I hope this is more helpfulness rather than just pure ranting about manuals that frustrated me, which charged top dollar!

[jaegar]

Bama

Hate to sound like over kill, but I studied everything. Literally everything. I went through umpteen study manuals, read all chapters on the syllabus, and read the study note by klugman. I just took it for the third time, and feel pretty confident that I passed, so much so that I have begun studying for course 4. I took it last november and scored a 5 on that sitting. In retrospect, I did not read Mahler's notes till this last sitting, and wish I had gone through it before any other study manual for november exam!!! If I had, I am fairly certain I would have gotten over the hump in November. I cannot even begin to overstate how good it is. The following is how I rate the study manuals I read (from best to worst), and the exam sitting I read through them.

*Mahler (5/02) -- Does not get any better. Clarifies all the concepts (excluding Life Contingencies), and had great examples that solidified the material.

*Actex(11/01) -- Summarizes all the formulas and concepts. Great as a final studying element when formula organization is key.

*How to Pass(11/01) -- Its a toss up whether this is worse than Actex. It does not have as many formulas, however, it has great helpful hints and tricks that can allow you to cut down on problem derivation time, which is key on the exam.

*CSM(11/01) -- A lot of formulas and problems to work. I would say look to Actex for the formulas rather than here. The nice thing about this one, it has an extremely large amount of problems to work. The drawback, 90% of them are not relevant to current questions. Alternatively, even though they are quite simple they are good to work through anyways, since most of them are great building blocks for working the current problems.

*Arch(5/02) -- The bright spot here, I think the authors' jokes were actually funny. It does a fair job of explaining the material, but it is quite condensed in the material it does cover. Additionally, I noticed there was a lfair amount of mistakes throughout the manual, which drives me nuts. On a positive note, I think the authors were helpful in pointing out things to memorize and to avoid. One final positive note on this manual, it has a sample exam in the back which the authors created. I found it quite helpful, since the problems were not from prior Course 3 exams that are consistently in every manual.

*Cox(5/02) -- The noteworthy statement here, atleast someone made the effort to make a study manual. All in all it was not terrible. It just does not muster up to the other big boys. The material is even more condensed than Arch. This manual had some mistakes as well. The mistakes here were not in the solutions to problems, but the stated letter corresponding to the answer. For example, if out of A) through E) the answer is C), they would have listed B). However, the numerical answer they solved for is C). I typically looked at the letter rather than the solved value since they had the summarized letter answers. I would end up spending countless time trying to figure out where I went wrong, and it would end up that I had it right in the first place. Instead the letter did not correspond with their answer. If this does not hamper you, then this is a pretty decent study note for round things out, since the questions are pretty similar to what you will see on the exam.

If you will notice I wrote more about the worst ones. I think that makes sense, since the appropriate answer for the good manuals is "BUY THEM!". I hope this is more helpfulness rather than just pure ranting about manuals that frustrated me, which charged top dollar!

[phdmom]

Actex. It was the only study manual I used for Course 3. I spent very little time reading from the texts. I thought the manual did a great job explaining concepts. (I got a 9 on my first try)

One thing I liked about Actex, that I saw on their website they are no longer doing, is that you could download "practice tests" which were problems from the study guide taken out of the particular section they were in and put together in a test. That really helped me get used to seeing problems out of context. However that won't help you I guess so I'll stop talking about it!

I wouldn't recommend Actex for Course 4, but for Course 3 I thought it was great.

[Toonces]

I used Arch and the MAF forum almost entirely. I highly recommend ARCH. It has a very narrative, enjoyable reading style, and I disagree that it is too condensed. There are very few topics that I thought ought to be covered that aren't. ARCH's biggest weakness is a lack of its own problem sets, which can be solved by combining it with another manual. The recommend problems from the textbooks that are "testworthy". One thing that ARCH was very good at was that it was completely up to date with the curriculum changes, which I didn't find with Actex and HTP.

Arch may not be the best manual for the 2nd-time through the material, but it was my first time through and it was a godsend.

[Studyin' Machine]

Mahler's study guides are excellent. I didn't even look at the books. And if you're working at a company that will send you to a seminar I highly recommend NEAS (or any other seminar that Batten is teaching). Batten doesn't offer much for study notes but he does an excellent job of making the Life material understandable. I walked out of that seminar thinking I could handle (almost) any life problem the SOA threw at me.

[Bama Gambler]

Thanks for the replys!! I went to the NEAS for course 2 and also found Batten to be great!! :) He taught interest theory for course 2 and I don't think I missed an interest theory problem on the exam.

Thanks again,
Bama Gambler :toast:

[LFC]

hey ppl..yes thanks for the replies...glenn..thank u for ur reply..

i definitely wont be going to the seminars....regarding the study manuals...mahler's notes dont cover entire course 3, do they?
so....?? would the Actex manuals be enough for the rest of the material?

and what about text books? does everyone think having all 4textbooks despite having Actext and Mahler is still highly recommended?


Thanks again.

[Cynic]

I don't think you need to read textbooks for this course. You may need Actuarial Math as a reference, but I would definitely not do any of the exercises in the textbooks.

[M.]

I'm with phdmom. I studied from Actex, (which I agree is very good for 3, not so good for Course 4), and the Life Con book Batten wrote. I got a 9.

The Mahler is supposed to be very good, but doesn't cover the Life Con stuff. Plus his material is notorious for its sheer volume. You may be better off reading the Actex first and seeing what concepts you need deeper understanding on. That's where the Batten book helped me.

Like phdmom, I got a 9 first try.

And like Cynic, I don't think you need to waste time reading the textbooks for this exam.

[Bama Gambler]

Has anyone found the text books useful for course 3?

[thing]

Has anyone found the text books useful for course 3?

I thought Loss Models was good. Probability Models doesn't have enough problems where you can check your answers, but the exposition is fine. And Actuarial Mathematics was fine for the first handful of chapters.

My opinion was that Actex was necessary for the hundreds of exam-like questions with detailed solutions; and to supplement AM for the later chapters.

YMMV.

[palatka]

im considering starting studying for course 3 since i think i passed course 2.... i have no previous knowledge about any of the material covered on the exam (as i'm not an act. sci major) and was wondering what people suggest is a good way to get started. should i read all the textbooks or just get some study manuals? i'm just not sure if the manuals mentioned here assume you already have some previous knowledge of the material. thanks

[Macroman]

palatka,

Learn the chapter 3 material from Actuarial Mathematics inside and out. Know how to:

1) move among the parts of table 3.2.1 in your sleep.
2) integrate tv^t in your sleep
3) convert i⁽ⁿ⁾ to force of interest and back again using the calculator in a very few seconds.

Familiarize yourself very well with calculating e_x and other demographic variables. Also introduce yourself to the interpolation methods.

All this will probably keep you busy for a couple weeks, but these items come up often on the exam.

Basic probability also comes up, so if you're rusty you can brush up with the early part of Probability Models.

Don't get overly discouraged if some of the material seems out of reach, by the time you finish chapter 4 in AM you should be able to do some of the old exam problems. The goal (mantra) is be able to do the exam problems. Be able to do the exam problems. Be able to do the exam problems.

[angelica]

Hello everyone!
I am a test 3 first timer as well. I am not sure what you mean when you say AM material? what is that and where can I buy it from? Is it the same as Mahler? If not, where do I buy Mahler from?

also, you said Mahler is great except for life contingencies. What should I get for that part?

Is anyone here that just took course 2 and wants to start course 3(hoping they passed test 2)?

Thank you all

Angelica

[Toonces]

For those of you just starting on Exam 3:

Download ARCH's free Chapter 3 at http://www.archactuarial.com. It is the first section in their study manual, and is much easier to read than the Actuarial Mathematics book. It also has about 8 prior Exam Questions that you can do based on Chapter 3. If you're hooked by the time you finish the chapter, go ahead and buy the rest of their stuff.

[Milwaukee Dave]

Hello everyone!
I am a test 3 first timer as well. I am not sure what you mean when you say AM material? what is that and where can I buy it from? Is it the same as Mahler? If not, where do I buy Mahler from?

also, you said Mahler is great except for life contingencies. What should I get for that part?

Is anyone here that just took course 2 and wants to start course 3(hoping they passed test 2)?

Thank you all

Angelica

AM = Actuarial Mathematics by Bowers, the main textbook. About half of the test will come from material in this book, so you need to know it well. Mahler deals with the next largest section of the test, the Loss Distributions/Loss Models part.

All the topics on the exam are important, Probability mostly for support of the other topics, AM is most of the test, Loss Distributions almost as much, Simulation is not very many problems, but most of the simulation problems are easy so you don't want to skip them.

As far as study guides I don't have any special advice except that you almost certainly need something because 1.) the texts don't really follow the tested material that closely and 2.) you will probably want something that organizes the material for you. I have used Actex and How to Pass both of which do a pretty good job. You need to order the Mahler material directly from the company he gives seminars, for I believe.
If you can, go to a seminar after you have a pretty good handle on the material, or take a class in the subject matter.

[Milwaukee Dave]

I can't believe I made a serious post...it's so out of character for me!

[jerkweed]

:crazy: It's insidious dude. First, you start making serious posts on bulliten boards. Then, for no apparent reason, you insist upon folding all your socks and underwear after you do laundry. Then you get really upset if you don't make your bed immediately after you awake. It's the revenge of the Stepford Wives. It may be too late.........

[Milwaukee Dave]

hehehe thanks, that may just be enough to snap me out of it.

[angelica]

does Arch cover all the topics for course 3?

do I need text books if I buy Arch?

Thank you!

[Toonces]

Arch does cover all of the Course 3 topics quite well.

As for not owning the books, ARCH occasionally references an example in the book. Do you NEED it? Maybe not. I hardly read the book. However, the problems that Arch assigns are appropriate problems from the book (wth solutions you can download) as well as prior exam questions. If you don't own the book, you would probably need another source of questions, like Actex.

[ARCH]

As for not owning the books, ARCH occasionally references an example in the book. Do you NEED it? Maybe not. I hardly read the book. However, the problems that Arch assigns are appropriate problems from the book (wth solutions you can download) as well as prior exam questions. If you don't own the book, you would probably need another source of questions, like Actex.

Toonces is right. We definitely assume you have the texts.

Personally, I think this is the right approach. Asking students to buy my manual *instead* of a textbook seems a little much!

[Brutè]

Just wanted to bump this in case anyone had anything to add.

[rookie]

I think Im going to go with the Actex, CSM supplement, How to Pass, and the 4 textbooks. The material is all new to me, do I need to read the texts, or will Actex be enough?

[Bama Gambler]

I just tried to read chapter 3 of AM and it was a struggle. So I closed the book and turned to Actex. Actex looks wonderful!! I am going to stick with it!

[rawl316]

Bama Gambler, I totally agree with you, especially those tables with those formulas. Half I understand, half I don't know where they came from. I will always think of you as a girl, because of that one post someone put. haha. good luck babe!!!

[Bama Gambler]

Just remember you are telling a 6'4" 200 lb. man "good luck babe." Are you going to be able to sleep tonight? :lol:

I believe he's referring to BAMA from the CAS watercooler wo had some interesting things to say about a fellow CAS exam taker :oops:

[Brutè]

I just tried to read chapter 3 of AM and it was a struggle. So I closed the book and turned to Actex. Actex looks wonderful!! I am going to stick with it!
What is AM?

[bg23516]

I've been using the ARCH3 sample for CH. 3. It's pretty good so far... I ordered the manual, but I'm still waiting on it.

L'hopital: AM stands for Actuarial Math.

[rawl316]

that's funny bg, I thought that AM stood for Arch Manual. I too read the sample and I found it a little tough, that's what I was talking about in my post above.

[Bama Gambler]

In my post AM = Actuarial Math

[tesla_styx]

I used CSM mostly for C3. I also attended Mahler's classes, and pretty much skimmed through the texts. Did the same for course 2 minus the mahler class. worked great for me... hope u find what works for you.

[Cynic]

I think Im going to go with the Actex, CSM supplement, How to Pass, and the 4 textbooks. The material is all new to me, do I need to read the texts, or will Actex be enough?

If I were you, I would start with Actex and HTP right away. I would use the textbooks for reference purposes only. CSM should be used last (once you are already familiar with the materials).

If you don't mind spending some more money, I suggest Mahler. If you have Mahler's notes, you would never ever have to read anything else for non-life-contingencies. Actex is good for life contingencies.

[Bama Gambler]

If I were you, I would start with Actex and HTP right away. I would use the textbooks for reference purposes only. CSM should be used last (once you are already familiar with the materials).

If you don't mind spending some more money, I suggest Mahler. If you have Mahler's notes, you would never ever have to read anything else for non-life-contingencies. Actex is good for life contingencies.

Is Actex not good for the non-life-contingencies part?

[thing]

Is Actex not good for the non-life-contingencies part?

The exposition is not nearly as good as it is for life-contingencies. In fact, I thought it was worse than the text for the Loss Models material. Still useful for the exam-like questions, though.

[Cynic]

Is Actex not good for the non-life-contingencies part?

What I meant was that Mahler's notes is the best, but it doesn't cover life-contingencies. Actex would be a good source for this part. I actually didn't spend much time on Actex's non-life-contigencies stuff, so I can't tell you how good it is.

[wat?]

:bump:

This might be a little outdated (from 2002), but it might be one of the more comprehensive comparisons of manuals (by one poster, no less). Take it with whatever levity you want to assign to it, but read it at least once. I'm sure most of you have your manuals of choice, but I like the first replier's strategy - never have only one manual. You run too much of a risk having to deal with a less-than-satisfactory coverage of a certain topic.

[Jim Daniel]

Milwaukee Dave's message is---forgive me---a bit misleading. He correctly describes Course 3, but not the new Exam M. For instance, the simulation material he mentions is now in Exam C. The Probability Models material is only about 20 pages now, much less than for Course 3. When Bob Batten and I teach an M seminar for Towers Perrin, it's about 2/3 life contingencies. My guesstimate is that the exam will be 60-65% from the Actuarial Math book.

Jim Daniel

[apprentice]

Milwaukee Dave's message is---forgive me---a bit misleading. He correctly describes Course 3, but not the new Exam M. For instance, the simulation material he mentions is now in Exam C. The Probability Models material is only about 20 pages now, much less than for Course 3. When Bob Batten and I teach an M seminar for Towers Perrin, it's about 2/3 life contingencies. My guesstimate is that the exam will be 60-65% from the Actuarial Math book.

Jim Daniel

I thought the prior exam was 60 -65% from the Life contingency.

[armstrong]

:bump:

This might be a little outdated (from 2002), but it might be one of the more comprehensive comparisons of manuals (by one poster, no less). Take it with whatever levity you want to assign to it, but read it at least once. I'm sure most of you have your manuals of choice, but I like the first replier's strategy - never have only one manual. You run too much of a risk having to deal with a less-than-satisfactory coverage of a certain topic.

However, you do want to make sure that you manage your time well though, especially with course M. I found myself running out of time to do the past exams towards the end when I was course 3.

[wat?]

However, you do want to make sure that you manage your time well though, especially with course M. I found myself running out of time to do the past exams towards the end when I was course 3.
Absolutely. That's always a concern.

Here's a question for those studying for Exam M with books and manuals - how do you partition your study time - mostly towards books or mostly toward manual? Manual or books first?

[Cynic]

Most of your time should be spent on doing problems, that means spending it on the manual. I usually read the books first (just skimming through) and then working on the manual. If I get stuck on something, I know where to find the reference in the books.

For this particular exam, the main problem is time constraint. You have to be fast and accurate to get through all the problems in 4 hours (not the case for exam 4). Sometimes they have complicate-looking problems that would take you 15 minutes to do if you don't know the tricks (and 5 minutes if you do). Hence, it's important to have a lot of practice to improve your speed and accuracy.

[2M]

Most of your time should be spent on doing problems, that means spending it on the manual. I usually read the books first (just skimming through) and then working on the manual. If I get stuck on something, I know where to find the reference in the books.

For this particular exam, the main problem is time constraint. You have to be fast and accurate to get through all the problems in 4 hours (not the case for exam 4). Sometimes they have complicate-looking problems that would take you 15 minutes to do if you don't know the tricks (and 5 minutes if you do). Hence, it's important to have a lot of practice to improve your speed and accuracy.

Absolutely correct!

[funk1]

You all are very right. I think that you are your own worst enemy on this exam. You gotta go in confident and knowing that each problem can be solved and just solve the thing. If you are thinking too long and hard, you don't know the easy way to do it and just move on.