Writing course 2

[Tim Hortons]

I have a "friend" who's thinking about studying to be an actuary. they took a bachelor of commerce so they know finance, economics, some theory of interest and stats. because they don't have calculus, i suggested they skip course 1, take a course at the university, and in the meantime take course 2. is this feasible? is there enough time? how much of the exam is theory of interest (which i know involves calculus and that's what they're missing).
thanks in advance!

[Bama Gambler]

Around 35% of course 2 is interest theory. No calculus is need for exam #2. Some problems may be solved using calculus, but it's possible to score a 10 without using calculus.

Bama Gambler

[Bama Gambler]

In fact, the great Batten said "If you find yourself doing integration on Course 2, you doing the problem the hard way."

[Tim Hortons]

what's the best study manual? :P

[Bama Gambler]

I posted this in another thread:

First let me give you my background:

I took micro and macro in college (entry level business class so they were a joke - they hardly helped at all for course 2). I had no prior experience with finance or interest theory.

How did I do?

I got a 9 on my first try.

Genereal thoughts:

I believe the interest theory is BY FAR the most important subject for this material. You can do a lot of the "finance" problems just using interest theory. Don't waste your time with the macro study note (more on this later). Make sure you get through ALL of the material a month before the exam. This will leave you plenty of time to work problem after problem. That is the only way to master the exam style questions. You have to be fast. If you start to get stuck on something move on. Come back to it later. Ask a friend. There is too much material to waste a lot of time on one concept.

What order should you tackle the material?

1. Interest Theory
2. Micro
3. Finance
4. Macro

But, if you get bored with one feel free to move onto something else. The most important thing to keep studying from now until the exam. I studied one hour before work, one or two hours at work (my work study time), and two hours on Sunday afternoons. Ocassionaly, I would stay after work and study for an hour or hour and half.

Which materials should I use?

First of all DO NOT work ANY of the problems from the textbooks. Complete waste of time.

#. Subject - (where to learn the material) & (where to work problems)

1. Interest Theory - textbook & (Batten or CSM)
2. Micro - textbook & CSM
3. Finance - HTP & CSM
4. Macro - HTP & CSM.

I didn't care for the Finance book. HTP outlines exactly which formulas & concepts you need to know and nothing more. BTW, I didn't use HTP for the interest theory. Another note about HTP, some of their problems have incorrect solutions. So if you think their example is wrong just move on. I still give the manual a 10 out of 10 for the finance and macro.

For the interest theory I read the first couple of chapters and then went to the NEAS seminar. Bob Batten is the man!! If you can attend a seminar where he is teaching then you will be able to get at least 90% of the interest theory problems correct. And you will be able to do them fast. In fact I finished the test in 3 hours. I left the exam room 45 minutes early!!

Good Luck!!
Bama Gambler

[Bama Gambler]

The other thread canbe found here http://www.actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5611&highlight=

[VernSchil]

<<In fact, the great Batten said "If you find yourself doing integration on Course 2, you doing the problem the hard way.">>

How do you get around using integration for "force of interest" type problems?

[c3 taker]

How do you get around using integration for "force of interest" type problems?

Depends on what formula you have/can derive. There are three to find the force of interest. Most of the time you can probably use one of these other two:

force of interest = ln(1+i)
OR
force of interest = a'(t) / a(t)

Or maybe Batten was just generalizing when he made that statment :)

[Bama Gambler]

How do you get around using integration for "force of interest" type problems?

Depends on what formula you have/can derive. There are three to find the force of interest. Most of the time you can probably use one of these other two:

force of interest = ln(1+i)
OR
force of interest = a'(t) / a(t)

Or maybe Batten was just generalizing when he made that statment :)

Exactly

[VernSchil]

How do you get around using integration for "force of interest" type problems?

Depends on what formula you have/can derive. There are three to find the force of interest. Most of the time you can probably use one of these other two:

force of interest = ln(1+i)
OR
force of interest = a'(t) / a(t)

Or maybe Batten was just generalizing when he made that statment :)

I was talking more about problems where the force of interest is already defined as a function of t, and you're asked to find some other unknown quanity like the payment amount. Perfect example is the very first problem on the Fall 2001 exam. I'd be interested if you know of a way to solve this without evaluating a definite integral. Granted there probably aren't more than 1 or 2 problems like this on any given exam, but that's often the difference between passing and failing.

[Bama Gambler]

You're right you have to integrate that one (but it's really easy).

Let foi = force of interest at time t.

Using foi = a'(t)/a(t)

foi = 1/(1+t) => a(t) = 1+t
foi = 3/(1+t) => a(t) = (1+t)^3
foi = 2t/(1+t^2) => a(t) = 1+t^2
foi = t/(1+t^2) => a(t) = (1+t^2)^(1/2)
foi = k/(n+t) => a(t) = (1+t/n)^k

Let me restate Batten's claim: if you find yourself doing DIFFICULT integration, then you are doing the problem the hard way.

[Tim Hortons]

what's the best study manual? :P

what's the best course 2 study guide/manual? :-?

[Bama Gambler]

If I could only buy one I would get HTP. But you really need CSM to have problems to work.

[Summer]

i have been using the CSM and i think it is much better than the actex (although i have referred to the actex twice already).

[drctypea]

contrary to bama gamblers loving opinion of htp, imo i think the htp is awful..but everyone is different and what works for some doenst work for others..i would suggest the csm as it has a plethora of problems to work through...i also found the actex good only for interest theory portion of the exam because it has 10 exams of 15 questions at the end that i thought were quite helpful. i believe with course 2 that no manual is a substitute for reading the texts. i think they are bearable and should be read..jmo

[retaker]

Bama,

You must be fast as crap to leave 45min early!

Did you guess on many?

I think I know interest theory pretty well by now and I don't believe there are many short cuts which save any real time??

[Bama Gambler]

Bama,

You must be fast as crap to leave 45min early!

Did you guess on many?

I think I know interest theory pretty well by now and I don't believe there are many short cuts which save any real time??

I only totally guessed on two problems. I made educated guesses on about three more. I missed at most one interest theory problem. Most of the non-interest theory problems take less than a minute. You either know the simple formula, concept, definition, etc. or you don't. BTW, before the Batten seminar it would take me on average 5 minutes to work interest theory problems. After the seminar I could work most of them in less than 2 minutes.

Bama Gambler

[drctypea]

i finished the exam in about 2.5 hours..then checked it over for 1.5 hours...i know of one other person who also had ample time to check it over...four hours should be plenty of time for you

[Bama Gambler]

Batten claims Course 2 is the only exam you should finish early.

[retaker]

From what I have seen, that sounds right. IF there is any exam you should be able to finish early it would be Course 2, but as for me, I don't think I am going to be finishing any early.

It seems to me that going really fast has a lot to do with being able to read the written language quickly and interpret it quickly, correct despite the fact that the SOA goes out of their way to word many of the questions in misleading ways, or at least in such a way as to slow you down. Even just the order in which they give you the "knowns" is not conducive to going fast at times.

I know Batten is the man, but interest theory is nothing. Wait until you see him in action for life contingencies. There there are some real short cuts. I can't see how any real short cuts are possible with interest theory.

I think you guys just are darn good testakers and knew the material going into the exam a lot better than you are letting on, or just got lucky as crap. :wink:

[retaker]

If anybody has a copy of HTP for 2 that they could part with, even temporarily, let me know. I'll pay all shipping and give deposit. If Bama thinks it is good, it can't hurt.

[RiSK kid]

I bought HTP and CSM based on bama;s recommendations..

I think HTP is very useful but only if you already have a grasp of the interst theory part already. Starting from scratch and using HTP, I think would be a little difficult.

For Finance you can start from scratch with htp and eco I haven't looked at yet.

As for csm.. its pretty good, because it gives you a lot of practice

[Bama Gambler]

I bought HTP and CSM based on bama;s recommendations..

I think HTP is very useful but only if you already have a grasp of the interst theory part already. Starting from scratch and using HTP, I think would be a little difficult.

For Finance you can start from scratch with htp and eco I haven't looked at yet.

As for csm.. its pretty good, because it gives you a lot of practice

I didn't use HTP at all for the interest theory portion. I used the textbook and Batten.

[c3 taker]

I've only used my htp for Finance so far and it seems that what is covered in finance (specifically in the part about options) seems very vague in comparison with some of the past exam problems I was trying to do in csm. I just browsed for the rest of finance but the fact that it doesn't cover options (probably the hardest topic in the book for me) very well has me skeptical about the rest of it.

[drctypea]

c2 takers point is right on...i thought htp was extremely vague and really didnt go into all the details needed for the exam. i thought it was real bad..

[fallout]

I loved my HTP2. I only used it as a refresher at the end of my studying, and it boosted my confidence going in that I had covered all the topics. I do not think anyone can pass using only this book.

[Bama Gambler]

I let a coworker borrow my HTP book (so I can't point you to particular page #), but I do remember a section on options. It had all the necessary formulas.

but everyone is different and what works for some doesn’t work for others

I agree completely. If you need an explanation of why the formulas work, then HTP is probably not for you. If you just want to know the formulas and how to use them then you will probably like HTP. In other words, if you don't really care to learn the material, instead you just want to learn to work the problems (and How to Pass – I couldn’t resist) then I can safely recommend HTP. JMHO!

Bama Gambler

[retaker]

You mean you didn't even read the book and learn about the theory which motivated the formulas? You just memorized the formulas from HTP, and did problems?
Theoretically, shouldn't the SOA want us to really learn the material? If so they need to come up with a better way to test us.

[Bama Gambler]

You mean you didn't even read the book and learn about the theory which motivated the formulas? You just memorized the formulas from HTP, and did problems?
Theoretically, shouldn't the SOA want us to really learn the material? If so they need to come up with a better way to test us.

For the finance and macro portions of the exam -- yes. I really understood the interest theory and micro. I read those textbooks. I thought they were the most important. I aced the interest theory and micro sections. I did ok on the finance and macro (especially considering the time I put into them). I made a 9 overall (10 on micro and i.t. 7 or 8 on finance and macro). I only used HTP to learn the finance and macro material. Of course, I worked the problems from the CSM manual.

Bama Gambler

[RiSK kid]

You mean you didn't even read the book and learn about the theory which motivated the formulas? You just memorized the formulas from HTP, and did problems?
Theoretically, shouldn't the SOA want us to really learn the material? If so they need to come up with a better way to test us.


Well, for course one you don't really need the theory of calculus and probability... do you?? course one is more calculations then to know the theory of continuity and the derivative.. etc...

I know this because I did extensive work on the theory of calculus and probability , as I am still in university... But I found I really didn't need it for course 1... Sure it helps you understand the material better but the end result is you know how to do the calculations or you don't. I don't think the soa really cares if we know the theory or not..

I'm assuming it's the same for course 2. :D

[RiSK kid]

For the finance and macro portions of the exam -- yes. I really understood the interest theory and micro. I read those textbooks. I thought they were the most important. I aced the interest theory and micro sections. I did ok on the finance and macro (especially considering the time I put into them). I made a 9 overall (10 on micro and i.t. 7 or 8 on finance and macro). I only used HTP to learn the finance and macro material. Of course, I worked the problems from the CSM manual.

Bama Gambler

Bama exactly how much time did you spend on finance?? Can you give me an approx number of hours and days...

SO I know what pace I should go at..

Thanks

[Bama Gambler]

At first I was keeping track of exactly how many hours I was spending on each subject. Then I decided I wasting too much time tracking my studying (time that could be spent studying). So be warned the following are ESTIMATES:

Total time 250-270 hours
Interest Theory 125 hours (As stated before I think this is the most important)
Micro 50 hours (I was able to master Micro in 50 hours because the textbook was great and I took a micro class in college)
Finance 50 hours (I found the finance problems to be tricky. Lots of ways to word the same thing and lots of formulas to remember.)
Macro 40 hours (The mathematical macro problems are a easy if you remember the formula. The non-mathematical problems are tricky. For example, which of the following are true...)

I hope this helps.

[retaker]

Risk kid, are you in a math or statistics program?

You don't have to take the GRE subject test in math do you up there?

[RiSK kid]

Risk kid, are you in a math or statistics program?

You don't have to take the GRE subject test in math do you up there?

Actually, I'm still doing my undergraduate degree in Actuarial science and economics...but they make us take all the core math and stats courses..

For GRE's ....As far as I know you don't need to as a Canadian. However, if you did your undergrad outside Canada. you are strongly recommended to submit your GRE scores .

Hope this helps

[fallout]

You mean you didn't even read the book and learn about the theory which motivated the formulas? You just memorized the formulas from HTP, and did problems?
Theoretically, shouldn't the SOA want us to really learn the material? If so they need to come up with a better way to test us.

For the finance and macro portions of the exam -- yes. I really understood the interest theory and micro. I read those textbooks. I thought they were the most important. I aced the interest theory and micro sections. I did ok on the finance and macro (especially considering the time I put into them). I made a 9 overall (10 on micro and i.t. 7 or 8 on finance and macro). I only used HTP to learn the finance and macro material. Of course, I worked the problems from the CSM manual.

Bama Gambler

Are those marks an estimate? How do you know your marks?

[Bama Gambler]

Yes they are an estimate (just kindof how I think I did on the exam).

[retaker]

Bama,

How you do on Course 3 will be the test. If you get the same result, then you are the man.
You did beat me on 2, though, so my hat is off to you for that.

[Bama Gambler]

I might come off that way, but I am not trying to say I'm the man. I am simply trying to offer advice to help people out. I only posted my score to add credibility.

Best of Luck,
Bama Gambler

[fallout]

I ommitted my score to add credibility.

[retaker]

I knew the material better than my score "omitted" - 5.

That's cool that you are trying to help, but I think your strategy wouldn't work for everybody. Interest theory is definitely important (though the most retentive subject known to man), but there are a lot of other concepts and details to learn in the other material covered which have nothing to do with interest theory.
The interest theory is definitely formula driven, and I have no doubt that one could completely master the material with just a good study manual, or even ace the questions just by memorizing the formulas, but the other material requires the understanding of many (albeit not complicated at all) concepts. I don’t see how just memorizing formulas, and studying an abbreviated manual like HTP for Micro, Macro and Finance could get you a 9.
I think your result has more to do with your personal qualities.
Plus you are a speed demon, which is an invaluable quality to posses for these tests.

[Bama Gambler]

The main reason I scored a 9 was Bob Batten. After his seminar I was very comfortable working interest theory problems. He gave a list of over 400 problems. I worked every single problem. There was a couple I couldn't get, but a quick call to Batten solved those. The funny thing is Batten doesn't like remembering formulas. In fact, he suggests only memorizing six formulas for the interest theory portion of the exam. Everyone complains that the exams just test how well students can work problems. I agree. With that in mind don't you think that's what you should be trying to learn? IMHO, most people spend way too much time studying the material instead of mastering solving the problems. I try to finish all the material at least a month before the exam. That last month all I do is work problems. Problem after problem after problem. Soon all the problems look the same. That's how you get fast.

Good Luck,
Bama Gambler

[RiSK kid]

I knew the material better than my score "omitted" - 5.

That's cool that you are trying to help, but I think your strategy wouldn't work for everybody. Interest theory is definitely important (though the most retentive subject known to man), but there are a lot of other concepts and details to learn in the other material covered which have nothing to do with interest theory.
The interest theory is definitely formula driven, and I have no doubt that one could completely master the material with just a good study manual, or even ace the questions just by memorizing the formulas, but the other material requires the understanding of many (albeit not complicated at all) concepts. I don’t see how just memorizing formulas, and studying an abbreviated manual like HTP for Micro, Macro and Finance could get you a 9.
I think your result has more to do with your personal qualities.
Plus you are a speed demon, which is an invaluable quality to posses for these tests.


I think you're right that it depends on the person. Maybe I will be able to test it out too. I'm studying along the same lines as bama but I've already seen the interest theory and micro parts. I have to learn finance and macro by myself. Which I will be using htp for.

I don't think bama is coming off as arrogant, he's just telling us what he did to pass.
Plus, a close friend of mine has passed course one and two with very little studying. I don't know how he does it but he's a genius. He just looks at problems and knows what the question is asking for. Some people are just lucky that way...

[Bama Gambler]

I don’t see how just memorizing formulas, and studying an abbreviated manual like HTP for Micro, Macro and Finance could get you a 9.


BTW, I read The Theory of Interest and Price Theory. I started out reading the finance and macro texts, but found it was not helping me solve exam problems. I studied for at least 270 hours and attended the NEAS seminar.

Bama Gambler

[retaker]

I never said he was being arrogant.

You have a very good point, Bama, about actually learning the material. I had never been exposed to any of these types of business concepts before, so to give me a big picture of what was going on in the first place I spent quite a bit of time reading every word of the required material. Maybe if I would have spent that time just doing problems I would have picked up the important concepts, as far as solving the problems goes, anyway. It seems like kind of a shame, though. Like I am robbing myself of knowledge. I mean, in a couple months you probably aren't going to remember any of the key words or indicators which you learned to associate with a certain mind set and set of formulas necessary to solve a certain type of problem, but I think it is more likely that in 5 years from now the "big picture" feel I got from reading the texts will still be with me, and I will be able to have an intelligent conversation with someone who works in Finance or Economics.
I think the SOA has gotten better about testing "first principles" thinking instead of how well someone conditioned themselves to solve certain types of problems (especially on Course 3) with the new exams, but not totally changed their methodology. If the SOA wants us to be the leaders and upper managers of this industry as we use to be, it seems like they should start stressing more "quality vs. quantity".

That brings me to a comment you made, Homer. I believe some people just have a natural ability, whether inherited learned or both, to anticipate, or have intuition concerning, solutions to multiple-choice tests without directly having to solve the problems. Does this mean they are intelligent or moreover geniuses?
Not necessarily? In my humble opinion, to be considered a genius one has to have the ability to create. Would we have our understanding of the universe without highly analytical people who were also creative enough to postulate way abstract theories? These exams, and most all standardized tests, do absolutely nothing to test these indispensable and rare qualities. Very loosely speaking, one could have the amazing ability to quickly read material and memorize all the most likely asked concepts, or quickly condition themselves to answer certain types of problems, but in other respects be on the level of a highschooler.
It seems to me that in order for us to be more effective leaders in our industry the SOA should want us to be more well rounded, that is, it is going to take more than just incorporating more business into the curriculum. I think they have started in this direction and after a checkered start have done a good job with the new exams (at least the one I have seen so far). Even for course 2 it seemed to me that they mixed up the problems pretty well last sitting so that you couldn't just memorized the solutions to the sitting before.

Sorry for rambling. Yes, I need a life.

[Bama Gambler]

retaker,

i think you are missing the real point of the exams - to keep the number of actuaries down. that way salaries and demand for actuaries are up (i haven't forgot all those econ concepts yet).

your right it all depends on your goal. my goal is pass the exams and get raises. things that are really important (things i really need to understand) i learn from my boss at work. i just have to pass the test to prove that i am capable of understanding difficult concepts.

i don't remember anyone saying (especially myself) that a higher score means you know the material better. i definitely didn't say it makes you smarter. i think you have to decide: do you want to learn the material or do you want to pass tests? i thinking passing the test opens more doors for you. after you open those doors you can learn how to be a leader. of course, just because someone does well on the exams doesn't mean they don't have a good grasp of the big picture. for example, let's take the black shoals formula. in htp they just give a list of the variables, the formula, and a couple of examples. after reading that i clearly know the purpose of the black shoals formula and how to use it. i can carry on a conversation with someone about the black shoals formula. what i can't do is tell you how it was developed. they probably tell you that in the book (waste of time for the exam). i can't prove the black shoals formula. they probably show you the proof in the book (again waste of time for the exam). what i can do is solve a problem using the black shoals formula.

bama gambler

[Budder]

i just have to pass the test to prove that i am capable of understanding difficult concepts.




And isn't this the point of most degrees also. To prove you have the ability.
Most of the time you will learn what you need to learn when you need to learn it. (On the job)
The exams ( or result of passing exams ) were a selling point to me for this career. Pass = automatic raise, promotion etc.
I think it is still the ability that is being tested. Not just pure memorizing of information over a long period of time. More, the ability to use what is needed when it is needed, under stressful (exam) circumstances.
Let's face it, these exams are tests of one's soul as much as the ability to "understand" the concepts. None of us would have heard of these exams, much less be writing them, if we couldn't grasp concepts well.
Ooh, I feel kinda like a ninja now!
Back to the studying dojo!!

[retaker]

You guys have very good points.

I guess I just really want the exams to mean more than they do. I just feel like some people in the profession think otherwise, and almost nobody outside the profession understands. Failing to them is like failing in high school.

You have motivated me to change my strategy.
For course 4 in May I am going to, maybe, go through the books quickly and then use ASM or if I feel like really learning the stuff, Mahler.

Butter, These things are definitely testing my soul, but I ain’t giv’en up. I’ve already passed Course 3. I just want to go faster! I am impatient.

Thanks for the wake up call guys.

By the way, there wasn't really that much theory to Black Scholes in the book anyway because the book is on such a low level and it is just brownian motion, which you will learn in course 3, anyway. So I guess I can't claim that I spent most of my time learning theory, because there wasn't any for Course 2.
Although, I did spend time learning the formula and practicing, and I don't remember seeing any BS problem!

[Bama Gambler]

I guess I just really want the exams to mean more than they do. I just feel like some people in the profession think otherwise, and almost nobody outside the profession understands. Failing to them is like failing in high school.


I know what you mean!! Only people who take (or have taken) the exams can understand. It sucks! The first two tests were right up my alley (so I passed them on the first try). I am having a little more trouble with number 3. I think I will really start to struggle with the fellowship exams (I hate to read and I really hate memorizing lists). But since I passed one and two on the first try my family thinks I am going to pass them all on the first try. They have no clue how hard these exams really are.

Bama Gambler

[RiSK kid]

I never said he was being arrogant.

I think the SOA has gotten better about testing "first principles" thinking instead of how well someone conditioned themselves to solve certain types of problems (especially on Course 3) with the new exams, but not totally changed their methodology. If the SOA wants us to be the leaders and upper managers of this industry as we use to be, it seems like they should start stressing more "quality vs. quantity".

That brings me to a comment you made, Homer. I believe some people just have a natural ability, whether inherited learned or both, to anticipate, or have intuition concerning, solutions to multiple-choice tests without directly having to solve the problems. Does this mean they are intelligent or moreover geniuses?
Not necessarily? In my humble opinion, to be considered a genius one has to have the ability to create. Would we have our understanding of the universe without highly analytical people who were also creative enough to postulate way abstract theories? These exams, and most all standardized tests, do absolutely nothing to test these indispensable and rare qualities. Very loosely speaking, one could have the amazing ability to quickly read material and memorize all the most likely asked concepts, or quickly condition themselves to answer certain types of problems, but in other respects be on the level of a highschooler.
It seems to me that in order for us to be more effective leaders in our industry the SOA should want us to be more well rounded, that is, it is going to take more than just incorporating more business into the curriculum. I think they have started in this direction and after a checkered start have done a good job with the new exams (at least the one I have seen so far). Even for course 2 it seemed to me that they mixed up the problems pretty well last sitting so that you couldn't just memorized the solutions to the sitting before.

Sorry for rambling. Yes, I need a life.

You bring up some good points and I know what you mean about wanting the exams to mean more than what they currently stand for.

These exams are extemely difficult and nobody knows how difficult they are except for the people taking them.

I think these exams are just a barrier to get in the field. It's like anything else in this world, especially university. You have to learn so much stuff in university but people say they rarely use the stuff that they learned 5 or 10 years ago. I think it's all about the process. The SOA just wants their members to show that they have the ability to do well in the profession.

And if you want to become more well rounded, that's where learning at work comes into play. I think you learn the basics and develop a process by studying and writing these exams , and you develop your business and all around skills while at work.

Basically, I'm speaking on my experiences. Because I know that I have learned more on the job while I work during the summer than I do when, say studying for a midterm during school.

Just my 2 cents.

By the way I think we are all way off topic.

So back to course 2.

Bama, I've been working through htp for finance. Sometimes HTP skips some concepts and formulas, that are in CSM. Do I still have to learn them or should I just go along HTP's syllabus.

I remember you saying htp gives you everything you need to know about finance for course 2, nothing more nothing less.

[Bama Gambler]

Bama, I've been working through htp for finance. Sometimes HTP skips some concepts and formulas, that are in CSM. Do I still have to learn them or should I just go along HTP's syllabus.

I remember you saying htp gives you everything you need to know about finance for course 2, nothing more nothing less.

There is a chance that they will ask you something not covered in HTP, but the chance is small. In other words, I think it is a waste of time to learn material that has a very small chance of being tested. Instead, spend that time mastering the material you know is going to be tested.

Bama Gambler

[RiSK kid]

There is a chance that they will ask you something not covered in HTP, but the chance is small. In other words, I think it is a waste of time to learn material that has a very small chance of being tested. Instead, spend that time mastering the material you know is going to be tested.

Bama Gambler

Thanks!! That's exactly the answer I was looking for. :D

[retaker]

Bama may be right about only worrying about the likely problems.

I learned how to reconize and solve every single problem in CSM, and on the test I made a silly F'n mistake on a straight forward finance problem, and they didn't ask A LOT of what I had learned.

I was speaking to one of my friends from the graduate program in math which I was in, and she didn’t even know what an ASA was. As far as I am concerned, a phd in math or physics is the only thing that compares to these exams (could be either more difficult or less, depending on where you go) and they don’t even know why we are killing ourselves.

I guess we kind of deserve it though, since we are wasting our talent on these exams instead of working on quantum computing or ..

[Bama Gambler]

The exams are hard, but the money is good :D

[Rombel]

u mentioned that Bob Battten is the man that teach u the short cuts.
I am from jamaica ,how can i get to his seminar and what is the cost. what HTP and CSM mean :-?
I posted this in another thread:

First let me give you my background:

I took micro and macro in college (entry level business class so they were a joke - they hardly helped at all for course 2). I had no prior experience with finance or interest theory.

How did I do?

I got a 9 on my first try.

Genereal thoughts:

I believe the interest theory is BY FAR the most important subject for this material. You can do a lot of the "finance" problems just using interest theory. Don't waste your time with the macro study note (more on this later). Make sure you get through ALL of the material a month before the exam. This will leave you plenty of time to work problem after problem. That is the only way to master the exam style questions. You have to be fast. If you start to get stuck on something move on. Come back to it later. Ask a friend. There is too much material to waste a lot of time on one concept.

What order should you tackle the material?

1. Interest Theory
2. Micro
3. Finance
4. Macro

But, if you get bored with one feel free to move onto something else. The most important thing to keep studying from now until the exam. I studied one hour before work, one or two hours at work (my work study time), and two hours on Sunday afternoons. Ocassionaly, I would stay after work and study for an hour or hour and half.

Which materials should I use?

First of all DO NOT work ANY of the problems from the textbooks. Complete waste of time.

#. Subject - (where to learn the material) & (where to work problems)

1. Interest Theory - textbook & (Batten or CSM)
2. Micro - textbook & CSM
3. Finance - HTP & CSM
4. Macro - HTP & CSM.

I didn't care for the Finance book. HTP outlines exactly which formulas & concepts you need to know and nothing more. BTW, I didn't use HTP for the interest theory. Another note about HTP, some of their problems have incorrect solutions. So if you think their example is wrong just move on. I still give the manual a 10 out of 10 for the finance and macro.

For the interest theory I read the first couple of chapters and then went to the NEAS seminar. Bob Batten is the man!! If you can attend a seminar where he is teaching then you will be able to get at least 90% of the interest theory problems correct. And you will be able to do them fast. In fact I finished the test in 3 hours. I left the exam room 45 minutes early!!

Good Luck!!
Bama Gambler

[Bama Gambler]

goto https://www.actuarialbookstore.com/default.asp for answers to all your questions. click on seminars to see where batten is teaching. i know he teaches at the neas seminar. HTP = how to pass (you can buy it at the site above). CSM = casualty study manual.

[retaker]

Bama, why was Course 2 right up your alley?

With your strong stats background, It sounds like if you can get past Course 3 you will be set until 5.

[Kavex]

You mean you didn't even read the book and learn about the theory which motivated the formulas? You just memorized the formulas from HTP, and did problems?
Theoretically, shouldn't the SOA want us to really learn the material? If so they need to come up with a better way to test us.


Well, for course one you don't really need the theory of calculus and probability... do you?? course one is more calculations then to know the theory of continuity and the derivative.. etc...

I know this because I did extensive work on the theory of calculus and probability , as I am still in university... But I found I really didn't need it for course 1... Sure it helps you understand the material better but the end result is you know how to do the calculations or you don't. I don't think the soa really cares if we know the theory or not..

I'm assuming it's the same for course 2. :D

I would have died a terrible death from course 1, if there were *proofs*
required for Bolzano Weistrass Thm's, Limits, Continuity, Rieman Sums, or take your pick on any rigorous proof for Calc.

:duh: :wink:
Thank goodness for multiple choice and Applied Math. lol.