Announcing the date for FAP exam 1

[Jenka]

I didn't even pay attention to the fact that FAP Exam 1 date is not going to be announced until June, until I saw this thread (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=74333).

It puts a lot of candidates into a tough situation. Could anything be done about this? Could the Exam Committee peg it at leats into which half of Aug the exam date might fall?

I for one, go on vacation the last two weeks of August as my kids' nanny is off, camp is over and school doesn't start until after labor day. This means we have to finalize our plans some time in April, at the latest.

[twig93]

Yeah, well as I've mentioned in other threads, I'm trying to plan my own summer wedding and obviously not knowing the date is throwing a huge wrench into my own plans as well as those of actuarial student friends doing the modules who will need to travel for the wedding. (OK, only one person falls into that category, but still...)

We need more than just "August 2006"!!!

[TaggartTranscontinental]

It puts a lot of candidates into a tough situation. Could anything be done about this?

Hey, it's the SoA, they don't give a **** about people.

[campbell]

Look guys, they haven't even finished writing the modules yet... (yes, perhaps they should've waited to implement the new program to make sure the material was in place, but that's too late now.) I'm guessing they don't know when they'd have the first FAP exam ready anyway.

Yes, this means one can't plan too far in advance, or you make plans and can't take the exam with the first sitting, but that's life.

[Jenka]

Look guys, they haven't even finished writing the modules yet... (yes, perhaps they should've waited to implement the new program to make sure the material was in place, but that's too late now.) I'm guessing they don't know when they'd have the first FAP exam ready anyway.

Yes, this means one can't plan too far in advance, or you make plans and can't take the exam with the first sitting, but that's life.

It certainly is, except it will be a bit anti-climatic to study and prepare for the test and find out a week before you go on vacation that it's right smack in the middle of your vacaiton, and then waiting until the next time they administer it (May '07? Aug 2007?). Or having to write the exam while your youngest child is gnawing on your feet. Or having to fly/drive back home in the middle of a honeymoon.

I think it is a pretty valid plea.

[campbell]

Yes, the worries are valid, and I understand the pleas, my point is that the expectation that the SOA would be able to set the date for the first FAP exam this far in advance is unrealistic. By this, I don't mean that it would have been impossible for them to have this done; I mean, going by the SOA's performance =right=now= in this module implementation, I don't expect them to know until they get modules 1-5 done. At best. Because then, they've got to come up with the design of the exam itself.

Yes, this should all have been in place before the official switch, but there ya go. That's why I'm happy I managed to dodge the modules bullet, at least. I'm likely to get caught in the DP/CSP transition, which might be smoother as they're likely going to be the equivalent of two Course 8s, but even there, they'll have to make sure they've got the course of reading and exam questions firm. At least they won't have technological issues to deal with.

[Bühlmann]

Considering the fact that only one module is released, I can understand not knowing the exact date of the exam. Too much is yet to be completed. If I were God of the SOA though, I would have have rolled out the modules next year. I would have offered Course 5 and 6 this year as normal and would have rolled out the modules when everything was done, definite, and exam dates could be planned in the 4 times per year fashion they are advertising for the future. As it is now, there is so much uncertainty and there is a lot at stake for people (exam raises, becoming ASA, being fired if you fail too many times). Twig is trying to plan a wedding date and something like this can really mess up one's plans.

[FSAwannabe]

Just a thought but if the SOA does happen to announce a date, I would plan your wedding, vacation whatever on THAT date....

[twig93]

OK, to everyone who's saying that they don't have the module completed yet: Look at the timing of the announcements of the other exam dates. We learned the [almost certain] dates of the November 2006 exams when they released the Spring 2006 catalog in January 2006. 10 months prior to the exam date. I seriously doubt that the exams were already written back then.

If they're committed to having the exam in August, what's so hard about picking a date? It seems to me like they're being penny wise and pound foolish. If they're significantly behind schedule or there is a serious shortage of students who will be prepared for the first exam, which of the 23 non-weekend dates in August they pick is hardly going to make a significant difference. On the other hand; if the two most plausible reasons affect the date, then why are they so sure that they'll be able to get it out in August, but they can't zero in on an actual date?

I realize this post is just asking for a whole host of ridiculing comments about the SoA and how we shouldn't trust them about the August "date", and I certainly don't mind those posts. But this is actually a serious question.

[Gandalf]

Good point. If they are 100% sure it will be in August, it's hard to understand why they can't set the date.

Hypothetically, if they are 80% sure it can be in August (SOA will be ready; there will be enough candidates), with a 20% chance it will be September, what is best?
Say it will be August x (and delay until Sept if necessary)?
Say it will be August x or September y?
Say it will be September y (and give it September y even if it was ready for August)?

(In those choices, assume x and y would be stated dates)

[twig93]

Good point. If they are 100% sure it will be in August, it's hard to understand why they can't set the date.

Hypothetically, if they are 80% sure it can be in August (SOA will be ready; there will be enough candidates), with a 20% chance it will be September, what is best?
Say it will be August x (and delay until Sept if necessary)?
Say it will be August x or September y?
Say it will be September y (and give it September y even if it was ready for August)?

(In those choices, assume x and y would be stated dates)

I would go for the second option. They are targeting August x, but it's possible that it will be delayed until September y. I can clear those two dates off my calendar and be free to make plans any other time and know for certain that I will be OK.

Yes, that's far more annoying than knowing for certain the actual date, particularly if I was slated to be in a wedding on August x-2 or if the week of August x-3 to x+3 is the week my family normally goes to the beach and we reschedule the trip and it turns out that the exam isn't until September y anyway. But the second option is still a far better scenario than what we have now.

[Bühlmann]

Is there legitimate uncertainty that there will be enough students sitting? If they were to not have the exam at all, that would REALLY botch up plans.

[twig93]

I think that Bruce said in one of the other threads that this was not a big concern. There are enough people registered that if the majority of us sit for the first exam, there will be plenty of people taking the exam.

Considering that there were something like 19 people who sat for the first sitting of 8E, I don't see how they could possibly say that there could be an issue with enough people sitting. There certainly seem to be quite a few more than 19 people contacting the technical help line!

[JTBenson]

Good point. If they are 100% sure it will be in August, it's hard to understand why they can't set the date.

Hypothetically, if they are 80% sure it can be in August (SOA will be ready; there will be enough candidates), with a 20% chance it will be September, what is best?
Say it will be August x (and delay until Sept if necessary)?
Say it will be August x or September y?
Say it will be September y (and give it September y even if it was ready for August)?

(In those choices, assume x and y would be stated dates)

Say it will be September y (and give it September y even if it was ready for August)?

You should do a poll.

[twig93]

Bruce, are you deliberately avoiding this thread?

[campbell]

I'm guessing that neither Bruce nor anybody else at the SOA has an idea =right=now= as to when the first FAP exam will be given. Which is why they're not saying anything.

I mean, what is he going to say? "Sorry, the date isn't set yet." Which is something we already know.

[JTBenson]

The SOA President said at the Kansas City Actuarial Club meeting that a date hasn't been set yet.

[Gandalf]

I'm guessing that neither Bruce nor anybody else at the SOA has an idea =right=now= as to when the first FAP exam will be given. Which is why they're not saying anything.

I mean, what is he going to say? "Sorry, the date isn't set yet." Which is something we already know.
They do have an idea: "in August". If they are sure it will be in August, they ought to be able to give some better indication, even if only "second half" of August, though it's hard to understand why they could not commit to an exact date. If they've changed their minds about August, maybe they should say so. As I suggested earlier, there would be a lot of merit to choosing a date now and sticking to it, even if they have to choose one in September when they might be ready in August. Or choose one in August they hope to hit, with an explicit "rain date" in September if August doesn't work. It's tough - and unnecessary - to ask candidates to keep the entire month of August open.

[bdschobel]

Bruce, are you deliberately avoiding this thread?
No, just didn't notice it until now.

Everything I said before still applies. The exam has to be written. The first five modules have to be available, and some critical mass of students has to have completed all of them. Right now, it looks like those conditions will be met in August. Just because of vacations and the usual delays, I would expect the exam to be given toward the end of the month, but that's just an educated guess, not inside information (which simply doesn't exist yet!).

Bruce

[Chi-Squared12]

The entire redesign has been very frustrating and today I got news that marks the third time that the SOA has angered me in the past month.
1. I have currently completed 1-4, 6,and 8 and realized that I am not eligible for PD and will be forced to take the additional Course 8. I'm okay with that, but what frustrates me is the fact that the add'l Course 8 will not be available til May 2007. If this was going to be the case, I believe it would only be fair to offer Course 5 again so people aren't stuck twidling their thumbs until the next exam becomes available. Additionally, I had planned to get married next summer, but with studying for Course 8, it looks like it'll get pushed back into either the fall or winter.
2. The fact that I can't get into the Course 7 seminar til June. Once again, stuck twidling thumbs. (this was the frustrating news I received today)
3. Finally, the lack of a date in August makes it impossible for me to travel to my much anticipated vacation in Hawaii to see my cousin married.
How is it acceptable to screw someone's life up like this?? Which brings us to the most poignant statements given on this page "Hey, it's the SoA, they don't give a **** about people."

[silverfox]

Suck it up.

[knowles]

Suck it up.

Stop blindly following the leadership of an organization that clearly has its head up its collective butt.

I'm with you Chi-Squared. There are a LOT of people with no exam to take this spring, which I find unacceptable. The communication regarding the roll-out and the constant pushing back of dates (or the non-announcement of dates) is beyond frustrating.

I'm pretty fed up with the SOA. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter bc there's nothing to be done about it.

Bruce--i exclude you from all above comments. You are the only person who's shown any sort of willingness to openly answer our questions and address problems. I, for one, appreciate that.

[Gandalf]

Everything I said before still applies.Except that "in August" is now only tentative?The exam has to be written. The first five modules have to be available, and some critical mass of students has to have completed all of them. Right now, it looks like those conditions will be met in August. Just because of vacations and the usual delays, I would expect the exam to be given toward the end of the month, but that's just an educated guess, not inside information (which simply doesn't exist yet!).I can understand that staff and volunteers are working very hard on this, and that they cannot be sure whether they can be ready for August.

I don't understand why the SOA does not issue a statement of the form "If the exam is given in August, it will be given on August 31" (or 29, or some other specific date). That would be far, far better than the present uncertainty for the candidates.

[bdschobel]

August is a goal, not a guarantee. All of the conditions must be met to give an exam then. I don't foresee any problems, but clearly if any of the conditions is not met (like if the exam isn't written!), then it won't be given until all of them are. Kind of hard to argue with that.

Bruce

[MountainHawk]

Reading all of this sure does make me glad I'm in the CAS ... they aren't perfect, but incompetance and just downright disregard for the student's lives just oozes from the SOA.

[bdschobel]

That's nonsense. The SOA is being perfectly honest in this case -- not making promises that might be impossible to keep. That's far better than the alternative.

Bruce

[Gandalf]

"The exam will be given August 31" is a promise that might be impossible to keep.

Why not then ""If the exam is given in August, it will be given on August 31"?

[bdschobel]

That would be an improvement.

Bruce

[_BullDog_]

Bruce,

Do we know when the 2nd module will be released yet?

[bdschobel]

I'm still told "by the end of February."

Bruce

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I'm still told "by the end of February."

Bruce
Is that an announcement of the announcement?

[bdschobel]

No, that's just what I've been told. I'm sure the SOA staff would tell you the same thing. And I have no reason not to believe them.

Bruce

[_BullDog_]

I'm still told "by the end of February."

Bruce

Are they saying whether it will be today or tomorrow?

[silverfox]

:lol:

[twig93]

I can't remember where I saw this, but I thought I read somewhere that it was going to be Feb. 28. Does that really surprise anyone?

[_BullDog_]

Nope.

[_BullDog_]

Actually, it would. I would expect the SOA to think end of Feb = sometime in March

[twig93]

Actually, it would. I would expect the SOA to think end of Feb = sometime in March

Well yeah. I just meant that it shouldn't surprise anyone that if the SoA says "late February" that means Feb. 28 at the earliest. And that's only because this isn't a leap year.

[mjb]

From the FAP forum:

Announcement - Module 2 Rollout
Module 2 will be made available to candidates on Monday, March 6.
Note that access to Module 2 is dependent upon submission of the Module 1 Exercise and completion of the Exercise Self-Assessment.

[_BullDog_]

I'm still told "by the end of February."

Bruce


No, that's just what I've been told. I'm sure the SOA staff would tell you the same thing. And I have no reason not to believe them.

Bruce

From the FAP forum:

Announcement - Module 2 Rollout
Module 2 will be made available to candidates on Monday, March 6.
Note that access to Module 2 is dependent upon submission of the Module 1 Exercise and completion of the Exercise Self-Assessment.

It would be nice if the SOA would start telling us when they are behind schedule and not wait until the module is suppose to be up to let us know that they have screwed up yet again.....

[bdschobel]

"Screw up" is kind of strong, don't you think? Would you prefer to get a flawed and unfinished module "on time" or a polished module a few days later? Sure, I wish it had been finished sooner, but 6 days really doesn't bother me.

Bruce

[FSAsomeday]

Would you prefer to get a flawed and unfinished module "on time" or a polished module a few days later? Sure, I wish it had been finished sooner, but 6 days really doesn't bother me.

:spnner:

I can imagine what would happen if I said this to one of my clients. Especially if I waited until the due date (or day before) to tell them their project would not be finished.

[saahu5]

What is the point of worrying if Module 2 will be available in February if you can't start it until you complete the Module 1 Exercise, and you can't even submit that until March 1?

[_BullDog_]

What is the point of worrying if Module 2 will be available in February if you can't start it until you complete the Module 1 Exercise, and you can't even submit that until March 1?

I see it more as a credibility issue.

[FSAsomeday]

I see it more as a credibility issue.

Exactly.

What is the point in my worrying about getting a project done for a client on the due date if I know they won't REALLY need it for a few days later?

[Lane Meyers]

Exactly.

What is the point in my worrying about getting a project done for a client on the due date if I know they won't REALLY need it for a few days later?

You must work in pension consulting!

[SharksFan08]

As a relative newcomer to this message board, I have spent most of the past few months reading SOA-critical posts and thinking that people were complaining because, well, some people just love to complain. Especially, claims that the SOA didn't care about students, seemed pretty over-the-top. But I'm starting to see what these people mean.

Another thread about job interview questions (I'd link it, but I don't know how. It's in response to the question "what are your greatest strengths?") discusses that the ability to recognize your flaws, and work to improve them, is a tremendous asset. What frustrates me is not that the SOA has made mistakes, but that I haven't gotten any sense of their awareness that a problem even exists in their conduct/attitude.

Last month Module 1 rolled out late. Delays like that will happen when the module development teams are understaffed, fine. But it was a mistake, and inconsiderate, to not disclose this to students until the very last second. So when the same thing happens again for the very next module? The thing is, it's such a minor issue - certainly no Course 8 debacle. Six days really doesn't matter in the big picture, especially when you have to wait until April anyway for Module 3. So why aren't they just forthcoming and communicative with these things? The fact that the SOA doesn't seem to care enough to fix these minor issues hurts their credibility when more significant problems arise. How about a quick email last week saying "We anticipate that meeting the end-of-February target date may be a problem. We are working to release Module 2 as quickly as possible, but please be advised that the release may be delayed by up to a week. We appreciate your patience."? Some probably will say that they might not have been able to pinpoint the module's release until today, and would rather not announce uncertainties like "up to a week." But I'm starting to reach the conclusion that it's because they just don't care enough to worry about it.

[FSAsomeday]

You must work in pension consulting!

Close. . .healthcare consulting.

[_BullDog_]

As a relative newcomer to this message board, I have spent most of the past few months reading SOA-critical posts and thinking that people were complaining because, well, some people just love to complain. Especially, claims that the SOA didn't care about students, seemed pretty over-the-top. But I'm starting to see what these people mean.

Another thread about job interview questions (I'd link it, but I don't know how. It's in response to the question "what are your greatest strengths?") discusses that the ability to recognize your flaws, and work to improve them, is a tremendous asset. What frustrates me is not that the SOA has made mistakes, but that I haven't gotten any sense of their awareness that a problem even exists in their conduct/attitude.

Last month Module 1 rolled out late. Delays like that will happen when the module development teams are understaffed, fine. But it was a mistake, and inconsiderate, to not disclose this to students until the very last second. So when the same thing happens again for the very next module? The thing is, it's such a minor issue - certainly no Course 8 debacle. Six days really doesn't matter in the big picture, especially when you have to wait until April anyway for Module 3. So why aren't they just forthcoming and communicative with these things? The fact that the SOA doesn't seem to care enough to fix these minor issues hurts their credibility when more significant problems arise. How about a quick email last week saying "We anticipate that meeting the end-of-February target date may be a problem. We are working to release Module 2 as quickly as possible, but please be advised that the release may be delayed by up to a week. We appreciate your patience."? Some probably will say that they might not have been able to pinpoint the module's release until today, and would rather not announce uncertainties like "up to a week." But I'm starting to reach the conclusion that it's because they just don't care enough to worry about it.

Well said.

[bdschobel]

Some people are assuming that the SOA knew in advance that Module 2 would be late. They did not know until very close to the end of February. When they knew, they announced a new release date, March 6. As I said before, I wish it had been ready on time, but I fail to see how 6 days will affect people in any major way. And the notion that this 6-day failure provides insight into how much -- or how little -- the SOA cares about students is simply ridiculous. It's almost unworthy of a response.

Bruce

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Well, at least we know YOU care, Mr. Schobel.

[FSAsomeday]

Bruce, as someone said above, it is about credibility. And as someone else said above, it is not simply this one specific incident, but rather a series of incidents. And I will also add, that it is unprofessional.

You keep mentioning six days and saying that this time period is insignificant. I say the time period is irrelevant. A due date is a due date, and everything I learned about being a professional says that you stick to them. If you can't, then you give those to whom the project is due ample notice. And ample notice is surely not the day off.

[knowles]

Some people are assuming that the SOA knew in advance that Module 2 would be late. They did not know until very close to the end of February. When they knew, they announced a new release date, March 6. As I said before, I wish it had been ready on time, but I fail to see how 6 days will affect people in any major way. And the notion that this 6-day failure provides insight into how much -- or how little -- the SOA cares about students is simply ridiculous. It's almost unworthy of a response.

Bruce

:rant:

They didn't know yesterday that it wasn't going to be finished today? I would believe that if it was just 1 day or maybe 2. But an entire week? Come on, Bruce.

And as far as 6 days not affecting people in a major way, where does this line of thinking stop? All 8 modules were originally scheduled to come online in January. Then it was just the first 5. Then it was just the first one. Then that one didn't come out until the last day of the month. The second module is 6 more days late. No one knows for sure when, or if, the exam will be given. This whole process has already affected people in a major way.

When does it stop? When does the SOA step up and admit they're overwhelmed and have undertaken something they don't have the resources to implement as scheduled. When do they start offering alternatives (offering Courses 5-7 for another year, maybe) for those of us who are sitting around twiddling our thumbs and wasting our lives waiting for them to get it right? I would like to finish this accredidation process at some point, as I'm sure most people reading this would.

Does the leadership at the SOA have any insight at all into what the students are thinking or going through at this point? I can't speak to anyone else, but I surely haven't been approached in any way. Is there any sort of feedback mechanism in place? Not that I'm aware of. To me that definitively sends the message that they don't care, whether that's the intention or not.

[bdschobel]

To the extent that I'm part of SOA's Leadership Team, then yes, indeed, the leadership is aware of what people post here. I'm very interested, as you know, although I won't go so far as to agree that posters here represent all students. Some, certainly.

Anyway, we are really splitting hairs battling over 6 days. The SOA is doing its best to put out a high-quality product on time. When quality and timeliness conflict, as they so often do (in many contexts), the SOA has leaned in the direction of quality at the expense of timeliness. That's a conscious decision. We don't want to release material that will have to be revised shortly thereafter.

You may disagree with our priorities or our decision-making process, and you have every right to do that. But you go astray when you suggest that either volunteers or staff don't care about students. In my experience, that's completely untrue. Volunteers who didn't care would go do something else. And staff who didn't care would be in real jeopardy of losing their jobs.

Bruce

[FSAsomeday]

Anyway, we are really splitting hairs battling over 6 days.

And there it is again.

Let's look at this case:

Me: "Hello, Ms. Client. We know your project is due tomorrow. We have been working very hard on this and want to give you the best quality. But timing became an issue. So we know we said that we would give it to you tomorrow, but we will not be able to give it to you until March 6."
Ms: Client: "Well why couldn't you have given me more notice."
Me: "Well, we just realized."
Ms. Client: "Well, FSAsomeday, this is unacceptable."
Me: "Why? It's only 6 days?!"
Ms. Client: "Uh, you're fired!"

But, the SOA does this, and it is totally fine. <shrug>

[SharksFan08]

Bruce, I'm certainly open to (and hopeful of) an alternative to the "SOA doesn't care" diagnosis. Can you try to provide one? I know you think 6 days is insignificant, I know you'd rather put out a quality product than an on-time one, when the two are mutually exclusive. And I agree with you on both counts. But that's still missing the point.

I can't understand why you, a crusader for transparency in the process, are sticking up for the way this is being handled. When was it realized that Module 1 would be delayed for 6 days? When was that communicated? What about Module 2?

OK, now let's consider the pattern of SOA credibility here, and take a hypothetical look back: I wonder when they realized all 5 modules wouldn't be ready in January, compared to when that was made public. I'll go out on a limb and guess there was a substantial lag. And is that a case of more inconvenience than 6 days? Given all of this, how confident can we be that the SOA will announce delays to the August exam sitting in an appropriate time frame? Think students should trust the SOA? Then the SOA should earn it by being forthcoming with information.

It isn't about the inconvenience. It's really not acceptable in any professional context to give notice the day of a deadline that the deadline won't be met. I think it shows a general lack of respect for the students. But I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

[twig93]

To the extent that I'm part of SOA's Leadership Team, then yes, indeed, the leadership is aware of what people post here. I'm very interested, as you know, although I won't go so far as to agree that posters here represent all students. Some, certainly.

Anyway, we are really splitting hairs battling over 6 days. The SOA is doing its best to put out a high-quality product on time. When quality and timeliness conflict, as they so often do (in many contexts), the SOA has leaned in the direction of quality at the expense of timeliness. That's a conscious decision. We don't want to release material that will have to be revised shortly thereafter.

You may disagree with our priorities or our decision-making process, and you have every right to do that. But you go astray when you suggest that either volunteers or staff don't care about students. In my experience, that's completely untrue. Volunteers who didn't care would go do something else. And staff who didn't care would be in real jeopardy of losing their jobs.

Bruce

Bruce,

As folks have already mentioned, the 6 days is a small issue. When I hear that the modules are going to be delayed by 6 days, I think "Wow, they're probably understaffed and want to make sure they get it right before they release a shoddy product."

The failure to notify us that the modules would be delayed until today (well, I actually have not been notified yet - and I'm curious as to how others received the message that the modules were delayed) is just downright irresponsible. Are you seriously saying that at quitting time yesterday everyone believed that Module 2 would roll out today and that just this morning someone discovered that it wasn't going to happen, and that discovery is resulting in a 7 day delay??? This is where the SoA loses credibility.

The failure to keep students appraised of the situation, and the utter lack of consideration in setting an exam date, is what gives us the impression that the SoA doesn't care about us.

[jgratson]

I agree that this kind pretty bad. If they don't know if it will be done on time, just pick the latest day in august, thus ensuring the maximum time to get the test ready. I am going on vacation in august, which might have to be cancelled at a large expense. Could you imagine if someone had a wedding planned in august? Just grow some cojones and pick a date already.

[_BullDog_]

And there it is again.

Let's look at this case:

Me: "Hello, Ms. Client. We know your project is due tomorrow. We have been working very hard on this and want to give you the best quality. But timing became an issue. So we know we said that we would give it to you tomorrow, but we will not be able to give it to you until March 6."
Ms: Client: "Well why couldn't you have given me more notice."
Me: "Well, we just realized."
Ms. Client: "Well, FSAsomeday, this is unacceptable."
Me: "Why? It's only 6 days?!"
Ms. Client: "Uh, you're fired!"

But, the SOA does this, and it is totally fine. <shrug>

And that is the problem, most of us can not fire the SOA and hire someone else.

[bdschobel]

As involved as I am with the SOA, I don't work there, and I'm not in Schaumburg very often. So I can't really say precisely when people "knew" that modules would be late. I do know that the SOA has a longstanding practice of telling students what they need -- and deserve! -- to know as soon as the information is sufficiently solid to allow for its release.

There is an inherent tension here that you should recognize: In addition to having to balance quality against timeliness, the SOA has to choose between releasing every bit of information as soon as it becomes known or holding back until the whole picture becomes visible. In the first case, you would get a constant stream of newsbits from the SOA and have to keep track of them through time, including revisions, reversals, etc. In the second case, the SOA waits until the picture is pretty clear, then tells everybody. You may prefer the first situation. I happen to prefer the second. Now, I'll be the first to admit that the second case can be abused. If the SOA decided to wait until every question has been answered, then no information would ever go out. But that's not happening, obviously. The SOA is striking about the right balance, I believe.

Regardless of how you might feel about the SOA's performance or its decision-making process, the fact remains that we really do care about the students, who clearly represent the future of our profession. I hope that one day you become an FSA and volunteer in some SOA activity. Then you'll see for yourself. But in the meantime, please refrain from accusing everybody of bad faith. It's untrue, unfair and actually hurts people's feelings.

Bruce

[drctypea]

this whole process just makes me sick to my stomach.

[SharksFan08]

Honestly, Bruce, your conviction does reassure me. And I'm sorry to hurt your feelings (although you did once tell me you had skin like a rhinocerous). But I recognize the position of the SOA, and the two extremes of information disclosure. I submit that the day of the deadline is NOT striking an appropriate balance. Can we really not agree on that?

[twig93]

Regardless of how you might feel about the SOA's performance or its decision-making process, the fact remains that we really do care about the students, who clearly represent the future of our profession. I hope that one day you become an FSA and volunteer in some SOA activity. Then you'll see for yourself. But in the meantime, please refrain from accusing everybody of bad faith. It's untrue, unfair and actually hurts people's feelings.

Bruce

Bruce,

When my boss once told me I did a terrible job on a project she assigned me, it hurt my feelings. A lot. In fact, I actually cried. In front of my boss - which was REALLY embarrassing. Now, I hadn't intended to do a terrible job. I worked hard on that project. Just not hard enough apparently.

In hindsight, I did do a terrible job. And if she had not told me, I wouldn't have known that she thought I did a bad job, and I would not have had the opportunity to improve my performance the next time. Granted, she didn't tell me in the nicest possible manner, and it would have been better if she had phrased things a bit more delicately. But still, she was right to tell me.

Whether it is the intended message or not, the SoA is sending a message that it doesn't care about students. And Bruce, actions speak louder than words. It's one thing to say that folks care about us. However, the thing to do is have them show us that they care. If the promised release date is in jeopardy; let us know. And please, please, please: set a date for the exam so that we can plan our vacations for crying out loud! If you think we're grumpy now, how do you think we're going to be when I have to miss the first exam because I'm still on my honeymoon? Or when Ju has to cancel his/her vacation in order to be available on the test date. I promise you; what you're seeing now is nothing compared to how unhappy we will be when those types of events start occurring. And the later the SoA waits to give us a date, the more of these things are going to happen and the more unhappy students you are going to have who think that the SoA doesn't give a rip about them.

The truth may hurt, but that doesn't make it any less valid. Like my boss, we are letting you (and whomever responds to the fap@soa.org alias) know what is going on so that you have the opportunity to improve in the future.

[SharksFan08]

If you think we're grumpy now, how do you think we're going to be when I have to miss the first exam because I'm still on my honeymoon?

Off topic for a second, this sentence made me chuckle, the shift from "...how do you think we're going to be when I have to miss..."

I know I'm taking it out of context, but the notion of the student body being collectively outraged because Twig misses the test tickles my funny bone.

[FSAsomeday]

Well said, twig.

Bruce, we are totally being blown off. We are saying "Hey, we believe that the SOA's actions give the message that they do not care." And all we are getting is "No, that's not true. . stop it. . .you are hurting people's feelings. . .you don't know the SOA's level of care for its students but I do" And so we are supposed to stop. This is not right. It just isn't. This is seriously becomming a huge problem with the SOA. I absolutely believe that the organization as a whole does not care what I say or think, because I am not an ASA or FSA. So if the Modules are late, ah, so what?

[bdschobel]

Honestly, Bruce, your conviction does reassure me. And I'm sorry to hurt your feelings (although you did once tell me you had skin like a rhinocerous). But I recognize the position of the SOA, and the two extremes of information disclosure. I submit that the day of the deadline is NOT striking an appropriate balance. Can we really not agree on that?
Sorry. I wasn't talking about my feelings! (I do have a skin like a rhinoceros.) I was thinking about the staff, who may get discouraged by all the carping.

The day before the deadline is too late. I agree.

Bruce

[twig93]

Off topic for a second, this sentence made me chuckle, the shift from "...how do you think we're going to be when I have to miss..."

I know I'm taking it out of context, but the notion of the student body being collectively outraged because Twig misses the test tickles my funny bone.

Well, I did go on to cite another example that did not involve me personally. Perhaps I could have phrased that better. My point is that we all have our own separate reasons why we need to know the date. Mine is my honeymoon. Ju's is his/her vacation. (Is Ju male or female?) Someone else might have a business trip. Someone else might have a surgery to schedule...

[wat?]

Just a question - we know there's complaints about the new system. What would you propose be done to fix it at this time? I'm not interested in hearing "well, they should've had another year of Course 5 & Course 6 offered while they rolled these things out". Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

You've got complaints - how about a proposed solution?

Keep rolling out the modules as they're available? Push everything another month back so that the deadlines can be met? Announce infeasible due dates and release whatever's available at the time, despite the possible faultiness of the materials/system?

[wat?]

Someone else might have a surgery to schedule...

If it's a surgery, I'm sure one could put the surgery above a test that will most likely be offered in another 6 months.

[bdschobel]

Well said, twig.

Bruce, we are totally being blown off. We are saying "Hey, we believe that the SOA's actions give the message that they do not care." And all we are getting is "No, that's not true. . stop it. . .you are hurting people's feelings. . .you don't know the SOA's level of care for its students but I do" And so we are supposed to stop. This is not right. It just isn't. This is seriously becomming a huge problem with the SOA. I absolutely believe that the organization as a whole does not care what I say or think, because I am not an ASA or FSA. So if the Modules are late, ah, so what?
Everybody realizes that the modules are coming out late. We can read a calendar, too, you know! But we don't want to release a shoddy product that will need to be revised right away. And 6 days really doesn't mean all that much in the grand scheme of things. In any case, interpreting a 6-day delay as "they don't care about us" is a logical leap of faith that you just shouldn't make. Certainly the hundreds of volunteers working away on these modules must care. Why else would they do this? They don't get paid for it.

Bruce

[twig93]

Sorry. I wasn't talking about my feelings! (I do have a skin like a rhinoceros.) I was thinking about the staff, who may get discouraged by all the carping.

The day before the deadline is too late. I agree.

Bruce

Was it the day before or the day of? I thought it was the day of - which is even worse than the day before.

I don't actually know, because the only thing I've heard about the release of Module 2 is what I've read on here. How did the rest of you even hear about the delay?

[FSAsomeday]

In any case, interpreting a 6-day delay as "they don't care about us" is a logical leap of faith that you just shouldn't make.

IT IS NOT JUST THIS ONE INCIDENT. Sheesh.

[SharksFan08]

Certainly the hundreds of volunteers working away on these modules must care. Why else would they do this? They don't get paid for it.

But most people aren't mad at the hundreds of volunteers creating the content, they're mad at the SOA for lack of disclosure.

I think that's why I misread the "hurt feelings" comment, because the last people I would be complaining about are the volunteers.

[twig93]

Just a question - we know there's complaints about the new system. What would you propose be done to fix it at this time? I'm not interested in hearing "well, they should've had another year of Course 5 & Course 6 offered while they rolled these things out". Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

You've got complaints - how about a proposed solution?

Keep rolling out the modules as they're available? Push everything another month back so that the deadlines can be met? Announce infeasible due dates and release whatever's available at the time, despite the possible faultiness of the materials/system?

Proposed solutions:
1) Pick an exam date and notify us - NOW. Today preferably. It doesn't matter which day, just pick one and stick to it. (Well, the day does matter: the earlier the better. But the degree to which the particular day matters is infintesimal in comparison to how critical it is that they actually announce an actual date.)

2) At the first possible sign of trouble with a release date, send an email to all FAP registrants that there *might* be a problem with the release date and the module will be released as soon as possible. The SoA has 6 more chances to get this right with FAP, and 4 more with the FSA-level modules. I hope to see improvement in the next 10 module releases.

3) Waive the requirement that Exam 1 must be taken and passed prior to Exam 2, at least temporarily. This will help the travel time of those of us who will be forced to miss the August sitting of Exam 1 because we didn't know the date, or because we failed and there wasn't a second sitting of the first exam prior to the only known sitting of the second exam.

4) Take a good hard look at the likelihood that the FSA-level modules will be available on time. If there's any hint of trouble, make arrangements NOW to offer another Course 6 in 2007. Ditto for Exams CSP and DP.

[twig93]

But most people aren't mad at the hundreds of volunteers creating the content, they're mad at the SOA for lack of disclosure.

I think that's why I misread the "hurt feelings" comment, because the last people I would be complaining about are the volunteers.

Exactly! (Unless it is the volunteers that are steadfastly refusing to pick a date or notify us of delays in the release. In which case I am only complaining about those two items, and not the hours they've poured into actually developing the modules.)

[bdschobel]

IT IS NOT JUST THIS ONE INCIDENT. Sheesh.
Believe what you like. I give up on you.

Yes, I see the irony perfectly well. With regard to you, I do not care. Guilty as charged! :)

Bruce

[SharksFan08]

:lol:

I love good irony.

[wat?]

Proposed solutions:
1) Pick an exam date and notify us - NOW. Today preferably. It doesn't matter which day, just pick one and stick to it. (Well, the day does matter: the earlier the better. But the degree to which the particular day matters is infintesimal in comparison to how critical it is that they actually announce an actual date.)

Even if that means that module 5 may not be ready until July 31st? Or that only 15 people have completed Module 5 by the proposed exam date? Do you see where I'm going with this?

2) At the first possible sign of trouble with a release date, send an email to all FAP registrants that there *might* be a problem with the release date and the module will be released as soon as possible. The SoA has 6 more chances to get this right with FAP, and 4 more with the FSA-level modules. I hope to see improvement in the next 10 module releases.

Okay - I agree with the possible release date problems. Am I understanding the creation process correctly, though, by saying that each module has its own development team, and that Module x is developed almost independently of Module y?

In the defense of the module creators, the first one was released late. That may or may not have pushed back the timeline of the 2nd module. I.e., the "delays" up to this point may also affect the timeline of modules 3-8.


3) Waive the requirement that Exam 1 must be taken and passed prior to Exam 2, at least temporarily. This will help the travel time of those of us who will be forced to miss the August sitting of Exam 1 because we didn't know the date, or because we failed and there wasn't a second sitting of the first exam prior to the only known sitting of the second exam.

I wasn't aware that was a requirement. I don't think you need credit for FAP Exam 1 to take FAP Exam 2. I thought that was addressed in a separate thread (probably in Course 5/Modules 1-5).

4) Take a good hard look at the likelihood that the FSA-level modules will be available on time. If there's any hint of trouble, make arrangements NOW to offer another Course 6 in 2007. Ditto for Exams CSP and DP.

That's not possible. Bruce and Steve White have mentioned that exams are written well in advance: e.g., while people are studying for the May '06 Exam M, the Exam committee should either almost be done writing up the Nov. '06 exam or are done with it and should be reviewing it for consistencies and getting feedback from the committee.

That being said, Bruce has also mentioned that there won't be any more of the exams that are being phased out. There won't be any more Course 5's, and there will be only one Course 6 remaining. While you stand on the side of wanting one more exam to bide your time, should that happen, you will have a lot of livid individuals on the other side, arguing that they would have gone a different route towards their credential if they had this information earlier. Either way, they'll run into complaints - but which one involves less work, less headache, and frankly, is much more practical than the alternative?

It's hard to see the forest for the trees while we're going through the conversion. You happen to be the unfortunate ones that are experiencing the system for the first time. However, you did have a choice - FAP or upper-level exams. Why'd you choose the FAP system? Because you felt it would be easier. Is it? Is it worth it to have a somewhat guided study through actuarial topics rather than busting your hump for 400-500 hours to remember esoteric characteristics of asset/liability management, or the subtle nuances in different types of underwriting? I haven't experienced it yet, but I'd have to imagine that it would be. What I'd like is someone to chime in that has taken (passed or failed) an upper-level exam, and for them to chime in on the relative difficulty thus far.

[JMO]

Sorry. I wasn't talking about my feelings! (I do have a skin like a rhinoceros.) I was thinking about the staff, who may get discouraged by all the carping.

The day before the deadline is too late. I agree.

Bruce

I have to wonder how many of the people complaining here have actually completed module 1 and are ready and waiting for module 2 to arrive. . .

[SharksFan08]

I have to wonder how many of the people complaining here have actually completed module 1 and are ready and waiting for module 2 to arrive. . .

Again, this is really missing the point. JMO, if you read the thread, I think literally every single person complaining here has said that it isn't an issue of the inconvenience.

For the record, I'm not even enrolled in the modules; I'm sitting for Exam C. Does that preclude me from taking issue with how the SOA is handling things?

[silverfox]

Even if that means that module 5 may not be ready until July 31st? Or that only 15 people have completed Module 5 by the proposed exam date? Do you see where I'm going with this?



Okay - I agree with the possible release date problems. Am I understanding the creation process correctly, though, by saying that each module has its own development team, and that Module x is developed almost independently of Module y?

In the defense of the module creators, the first one was released late. That may or may not have pushed back the timeline of the 2nd module. I.e., the "delays" up to this point may also affect the timeline of modules 3-8.




I wasn't aware that was a requirement. I don't think you need credit for FAP Exam 1 to take FAP Exam 2. I thought that was addressed in a separate thread (probably in Course 5/Modules 1-5).



That's not possible. Bruce and Steve White have mentioned that exams are written well in advance: e.g., while people are studying for the May '06 Exam M, the Exam committee should either almost be done writing up the Nov. '06 exam or are done with it and should be reviewing it for consistencies and getting feedback from the committee.

That being said, Bruce has also mentioned that there won't be any more of the exams that are being phased out. There won't be any more Course 5's, and there will be only one Course 6 remaining. While you stand on the side of wanting one more exam to bide your time, should that happen, you will have a lot of livid individuals on the other side, arguing that they would have gone a different route towards their credential if they had this information earlier. Either way, they'll run into complaints - but which one involves less work, less headache, and frankly, is much more practical than the alternative?

It's hard to see the forest for the trees while we're going through the conversion. You happen to be the unfortunate ones that are experiencing the system for the first time. However, you did have a choice - FAP or upper-level exams. Why'd you choose the FAP system? Because you felt it would be easier. Is it? Is it worth it to have a somewhat guided study through actuarial topics rather than busting your hump for 400-500 hours to remember esoteric characteristics of asset/liability management, or the subtle nuances in different types of underwriting? I haven't experienced it yet, but I'd have to imagine that it would be. What I'd like is someone to chime in that has taken (passed or failed) an upper-level exam, and for them to chime in on the relative difficulty thus far.

:meltdown:

:rofl:

[MountainHawk]

I have to wonder how many of the people complaining here have actually completed module 1 and are ready and waiting for module 2 to arrive. . .
I wonder how many of the people who think the process is being reasonably handled have an FSA after there name.

At least I got more sig material from this thread.

[wat?]

:meltdown:

:rofl:

No kidding, huh? :duh:

It's either this or study for Course 6. I have my own problems delaying my study - I don't need help from the SOA in that department.

[twig93]

Believe what you like. I give up on you.

Yes, I see the irony perfectly well. With regard to you, I do not care. Guilty as charged!

Bruce

Bruce,

FSASomeday does have a point. If this 6 day delay were an isolated incident, it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal. But let's step back and look at the history of the modules:

Summer 2003: transition announced; including details on the 8 modules. Tentative timeline announced proposing modules 1-4 be released in January 2006 and modules 5-8 in May 2006 more details and final timeline & conversion rules promised by the end of the year

Mid 2004: details and timeline promised by the end of 2003 are released. In this version, which the SoA has conveniently removed from their website, the timeline indicates that modules 1-5 will be released in January 2006 and modules 6-8 in May 2006; actually a slightly more aggressive schedule than initially proposed in that module 5’s release date had been moved up from May to January.

Late Summer / Early Fall 2005: Bruce posts on Actuarial Outpost that in fact, the modules will be released one per month; nothing official from the SoA about this failure to meet their promised release dates

October (or was it November?) 2005: Supervisors’ webcast goes off without a hitch. Few candidates watch it as it’s aimed at supervisors and candidates are too busy preparing for their November exam(s) to watch. SoA officially announces the revised schedule: Module 1 in Jan, 2 in Feb, 3 in March, 4 in April, 5 in June, exam in August.

December 2005: the Spring 2006 exam catalog is released. This catalog contains the dates for all the November 2006 exams, but there is no mention of the FAP 1 exam date.

December 2005 / Winter 2006: There are many pleas from candidates to announce a date for the August exam. Pleas are made to both Bruce and to the fap@soa.org (fap@soa.org) alias. No one appears to be both willing and able to actually set a date. One candidate receives and shares on Actuarial Outpost an email from fap@soa.org (fap@soa.org) that the date will not be announced until June. There is an outcry as candidates need to know the date prior to June in order to make summer plans.

December 2005: candidates’ webcast takes place. Many, many candidates are unable to log on; no one is available to help those with technical difficulties; there is at least one report of a candidate being hung up on by SoA staff. Module 1 is set to be released on January 31, 2006.

December 2005/January 2006: many candidates register for the modules. Their credit cards are charged but they are not given a receipt unless they request one in writing. No one informs them officially of this lack of a receipt policy which is unique to module registration; their only chance of learning about it is to read Actuarial Outpost, or to contact the SoA.

January 30, 2006: Willie Mosconi gets an email from fap@soa.org (fap@soa.org) indicating that candidates will be getting their login information either later in the day or the following day. Everything appears (from the candidates’ perspective) to be going smoothly for the release the following day.

January 31, 2006: A significant portion of the registered candidates get an email from the SoA indicating that the release of Module 1 will be delayed by 6 days. A significant portion of the registered candidates do not get this email. They are left wondering or to learn their fate on Actuarial Outpost. Nothing is posted on the SoA website. Candidates are assured that this delay is not likely to be replicated in subsequent modules.

February 6, 2006: Module 1 is finally released. There are many reports of candidates still missing their login information. There are some reports of technical problems and difficulty with tech support, but no major widespread problems.

February 6-8, 2006: Candidates have many questions about the level of detail they are expected to memorize. Always-helpful Bruce goes above and beyond answering questions on Actuarial Outpost, providing valuable insights that the SoA does not otherwise share with candidates.

February 16, 2006: Martha posts a tersely worded reminder/threat about posting any type of link to material that is covered in the module syllabus. Candidates freak out a bit because it appears that they are being needlessly stifled. Bruce and Martha later clarify / tone down the message and calm down the candidates.

February 27, 2006: After business hours, a post is made to the forums section of the modules indicating that the release of Module 2 will be delayed by 6 days, just like Module 1. No email is sent to candidates, and no apology is made.

When you put it into perspective, there have been a lot of dubious goings-on with the modules. We have made a big deal about some of them and not about others. We certainly appreciate all the insights you've given us, particularly because you seem to be the only channel for learning some much-needed information. Most of us believe that if the SoA were made up of several hundred Bruce-clones, it would be a better place. But it's not. The problems are real and numerous. Bruce, with all due respect, you seem to be burying your head in the sand a bit.

[FSAsomeday]

Believe what you like. I give up on you.

Yes, I see the irony perfectly well. With regard to you, I do not care. Guilty as charged! :)

Bruce

Aww, but I still care about you SO much! :kiss:

I'm not sure if this is supposed to matter to me at all. Your personal feelings towards me are irrelevant. My points are still valid, and there are plenty who agree with me.

:bighug:

[twig93]

Even if that means that module 5 may not be ready until July 31st? Or that only 15 people have completed Module 5 by the proposed exam date? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Since each module has it's own development team, I do not see why choosing an exam date would delay the module by 31 days. (It's currently promised in June.) Choosing an exam date is not a time-consuming thing. It could take as little as half a second. "The exam will be August 31." Done. I think we're all weary of hearing excuses. I submit that if the SoA were to actually pick a date today, there WILL be more than 15 people who have completed all 5 modules by the deadline. The longer they wait to pick a date, the fewer people there are likely to be though. In the extraordinarily unlikely event that there are only 15 candidates, then yes, give the exam anyway. I don't remember the exact number, but I know there were fewer than 20 candidates for the first sitting of Course 8E.



Okay - I agree with the possible release date problems. Am I understanding the creation process correctly, though, by saying that each module has its own development team, and that Module x is developed almost independently of Module y?

In the defense of the module creators, the first one was released late. That may or may not have pushed back the timeline of the 2nd module. I.e., the "delays" up to this point may also affect the timeline of modules 3-8.


Martha indicated that each module has its own development team and that delays in Module x should not affect Module y. Additionally, Bruce indicated that the problem with Module 2 was that there was too much material in it and they needed to make some cuts. He incorrectly assumed that this would not take much time.




I wasn't aware that was a requirement. I don't think you need credit for FAP Exam 1 to take FAP Exam 2. I thought that was addressed in a separate thread (probably in Course 5/Modules 1-5).


It is a requirement. You do not have to have credit for Exam 1 to complete Modules 6-8, but you do have to have Exam 1 to sit for Exam 2. My proposal is that, at least during this transitional period, they relax the Exam 2 requirements to simply having credit for Modules 1-8, with no mention of Exam 1 status.



That's not possible. Bruce and Steve White have mentioned that exams are written well in advance: e.g., while people are studying for the May '06 Exam M, the Exam committee should either almost be done writing up the Nov. '06 exam or are done with it and should be reviewing it for consistencies and getting feedback from the committee.

That being said, Bruce has also mentioned that there won't be any more of the exams that are being phased out. There won't be any more Course 5's, and there will be only one Course 6 remaining. While you stand on the side of wanting one more exam to bide your time, should that happen, you will have a lot of livid individuals on the other side, arguing that they would have gone a different route towards their credential if they had this information earlier. Either way, they'll run into complaints - but which one involves less work, less headache, and frankly, is much more practical than the alternative?


OK, I realize that this is the most difficult 'solution' to adopt. But they have no contingency plan. Their contingency plan is "increase student travel time" which is a really shoddy contingency plan.



It's hard to see the forest for the trees while we're going through the conversion. You happen to be the unfortunate ones that are experiencing the system for the first time. However, you did have a choice - FAP or upper-level exams. Why'd you choose the FAP system? Because you felt it would be easier. Is it? Is it worth it to have a somewhat guided study through actuarial topics rather than busting your hump for 400-500 hours to remember esoteric characteristics of asset/liability management, or the subtle nuances in different types of underwriting? I haven't experienced it yet, but I'd have to imagine that it would be. What I'd like is someone to chime in that has taken (passed or failed) an upper-level exam, and for them to chime in on the relative difficulty thus far


I made this choice because at the time I made it, this route would result in the fastest travel time. All the changes/delays mean that this is no longer the case. Which is frustrating.

I'm certain that the difficulty thus far is easier than an upper-level exam. Module 1 is an introductory module. The later modules are supposed to be harder. Not only does no one know how hard they're going to be, no one knows how hard the exam will be. I would say that anything anyone says about the comparable difficulty is pure speculation - at least until the results of Exam 1 are released. It is likely that the modules will ultimately be easier. But no one can say for sure.

[SharksFan08]

It is a requirement. You do not have to have credit for Exam 1 to complete Modules 6-8, but you do have to have Exam 1 to sit for Exam 2. My proposal is that, at least during this transitional period, they relax the Exam 2 requirements to simply having credit for Modules 1-8, with no mention of Exam 1 status.

Could you cite a source for this? I was also under the impression that they could be done out of order.

[wat?]

Since each module has it's own development team, I do not see why choosing an exam date would delay the module by 31 days. (It's currently promised in June.) Choosing an exam date is not a time-consuming thing. It could take as little as half a second. "The exam will be August 31." Done. I think we're all weary of hearing excuses. I submit that if the SoA were to actually pick a date today, there WILL be more than 15 people who have completed all 5 modules by the deadline. The longer they wait to pick a date, the fewer people there are likely to be though. In the extraordinarily unlikely event that there are only 15 candidates, then yes, give the exam anyway. I don't remember the exact number, but I know there were fewer than 20 candidates for the first sitting of Course 8E.

I think I misworded what I said. Either that, or my point wasn't understood. I speak gibberish fluently, so I'll assume English failed me for a minute.

The demand has to be there before the exam is issued. I think the SOA is being sensitive to students' issues with this. They are planning to monitor the progress of students through the modules and gauge whether the exam can be offered with sufficient demand. I don't imagine they'll want to administer an exam to 15 people when there could easily be another 1,000 registered for it if the deadline were two weeks later. You say that only x number of candidates register for 8E, or even the Course 7 pre-test, while we're at it. There's no way to tell in advance how many people will take the exam. However, with the modules, the SOA can tell how many people can be ready by a certain date.

Martha indicated that each module has its own development team and that delays in Module x should not affect Module y. Additionally, Bruce indicated that the problem with Module 2 was that there was too much material in it and they needed to make some cuts. He incorrectly assumed that this would not take much time.

Fair enough. And I do agree with you that a notice maybe should have been given. Although, I do agree with JMO (despite responses to the contrary) that it is partially a matter of inconvenience.

It is a requirement. You do not have to have credit for Exam 1 to complete Modules 6-8, but you do have to have Exam 1 to sit for Exam 2. My proposal is that, at least during this transitional period, they relax the Exam 2 requirements to simply having credit for Modules 1-8, with no mention of Exam 1 status.

Google Monkey? Where are you? I'll take an previous AO post as evidence.

OK, I realize that this is the most difficult 'solution' to adopt. But they have no contingency plan. Their contingency plan is "increase student travel time" which is a really shoddy contingency plan.

Contingency plan? Are the modules missing any information that is valuable to becoming an actuary? Has the SOA failed in giving students the information that is important in the future for actuarial work? That's why the 2000 conversion was revised so quickly - it needed to be. Right now, you've seen one module.

I made this choice because at the time I made it, this route would result in the fastest travel time. All the changes/delays mean that this is no longer the case. Which is frustrating.

I'm certain that the difficulty thus far is easier than an upper-level exam. Module 1 is an introductory module. The later modules are supposed to be harder. Not only does no one know how hard they're going to be, no one knows how hard the exam will be. I would say that anything anyone says about the comparable difficulty is pure speculation - at least until the results of Exam 1 are released. It is likely that the modules will ultimately be easier. But no one can say for sure.

Suppose there was another Course 5 and Course 6, extending out until 2010 just for those that think they could do it that way easier. Do you think you still would have been able to get to your ASA quicker and more efficiently than through these modules?

You're right. No one knows how hard the exams are really going to be. And no one knows the types of passing rates that will really be uncovered. But you'd rather learn information from 1500+ pages of reading by rote memorization and repetition, or by carefully constructed syllabi that guide you through the material and information?

[twig93]

However, with the modules, the SOA can tell how many people can be ready by a certain date.

Ah, but they cannot tell how many people will be available on a certain date. If they announce the date sufficiently far ahead, the vast majority of candidates who are ready will see to it that they are also available. The later the SoA waits to announce the date, the more candidates there are who will be ready but unavailable, or candidates who could have been ready, but chose not to be because they knew they would be unavailable.

The SoA doesn't postpone any other exam due to lack of prepared candidates. It's the responsibility of the candidates to be ready by the date the SoA gives us.

[ActuaryToBe]

My proposal is that, at least during this transitional period, they relax the Exam 2 requirements to simply having credit for Modules 1-8, with no mention of Exam 1 status.
I was under the impression that was already the case, at least according to Martha.

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?p=1365108#post1365108

[wat?]

Ah, but they cannot tell how many people will be available on a certain date. If they announce the date sufficiently far ahead, the vast majority of candidates who are ready will see to it that they are also available. The later the SoA waits to announce the date, the more candidates there are who will be ready but unavailable, or candidates who could have been ready, but chose not to be because they knew they would be unavailable.

The SoA doesn't postpone any other exam due to lack of prepared candidates. It's the responsibility of the candidates to be ready by the date the SoA gives us.

Almost all candidates should know by now that the exam date should be somewhere in August/September.

If you feel that your personal obligation, whether it be marriage, vacation or otherwise, is more important than taking an SOA exam, then plan accordingly. If, on the other hand, you're willing to block out some time to plan to take the exam, then adjust your life to accompany it.

Suppose the SOA does set the date, but the later modules, for whatever purpose, becomes delayed yet again, and Module 5 doesn't get out until August. I guess everyone's gotta finish that 5th module in time for the exam, right?

This first offering of the exam is not the only time you'll be able to take it - it's the first. Somewhere down the line, this "setting of the date" will be a non-issue, since the process will be more streamlined and more on-demand. If you happen to miss this test, take the next one - it's supposed to be in January/February 2007, right?

[wat?]

I was under the impression that was already the case, at least according to Martha.

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?p=1365108#post1365108
From what you linked, I'm under the impression that it's entirely the opposite of what twig believes.

[ActuaryToBe]

From what you linked, I'm under the impression that it's entirely the opposite of what twig believes.

Yes, that's what I meant.

[twig93]

Almost all candidates should know by now that the exam date should be somewhere in August/September.

If you feel that your personal obligation, whether it be marriage, vacation or otherwise, is more important than taking an SOA exam, then plan accordingly. If, on the other hand, you're willing to block out some time to plan to take the exam, then adjust your life to accompany it.

Suppose the SOA does set the date, but the later modules, for whatever purpose, becomes delayed yet again, and Module 5 doesn't get out until August. I guess everyone's gotta finish that 5th module in time for the exam, right?

This first offering of the exam is not the only time you'll be able to take it - it's the first. Somewhere down the line, this "setting of the date" will be a non-issue, since the process will be more streamlined and more on-demand. If you happen to miss this test, take the next one - it's supposed to be in January/February 2007, right?

It's supposed to be in the first quarter of 2007 which probably means March 31 (maybe the 30th since the 31st is a Saturday), or to be cynical, probably means April 6.

Regardless, I am planning to do Exam CSP in May 2007, so to have to wait until sometime in the first quarter to do FAP 1 would seriously hinder my study efforts for CSP. It's bad enough that I'll be taking FAP 2 in January. (Good to know that they changed the 'can't take the 2nd exam without credit for the 1st exam rule!)

If my 2006 exam plan involved anything other than FAP, I would easily be able to plan my wedding and honeymoon around the exams and there would be no problem. My fellow FAP-ers could easily plan their vacations around the modules/exams with no problem. Now we must block out an entire month to be certain that we won't accidentally hit the one day that the exam will be given on? Come on, does that really seem reasonable?

I think it was Gandalf that suggested that the SoA could, at the very least, state that "if the exam is in fact given in August, it will be on August x". That way we only have to block out 1 day in August to know that we'll be OK on the exam.

[wat?]

It's supposed to be in the first quarter of 2007 which probably means March 31 (maybe the 30th since the 31st is a Saturday), or to be cynical, probably means April 6.

Regardless, I am planning to do Exam CSP in May 2007, so to have to wait until sometime in the first quarter to do FAP 1 would seriously hinder my study efforts for CSP. It's bad enough that I'll be taking FAP 2 in January. (Good to know that they changed the 'can't take the 2nd exam without credit for the 1st exam rule!)

What about the FSA modules? And is it CSP or DP being planned to be released in May 2007?

If my 2006 exam plan involved anything other than FAP, I would easily be able to plan my wedding and honeymoon around the exams and there would be no problem. My fellow FAP-ers could easily plan their vacations around the modules/exams with no problem. Now we must block out an entire month to be certain that we won't accidentally hit the one day that the exam will be given on? Come on, does that really seem reasonable?

Reasonable? Sure. Given that you've already spent 5-6 months preparing for it, what's setting aside another month to give yourself time to prepare for the exam? Plus, don't they say you need a year to plan a wedding? That's the ultimatum I got a few months back.

I think it was Gandalf that suggested that the SoA could, at the very least, state that "if the exam is in fact given in August, it will be on August x". That way we only have to block out 1 day in August to know that we'll be OK on the exam.

Possible, but let's suppose x is 31. Then the amount of information is just about the same as if there were no announcement. Plus, if the concern is not having enough demand, don't you think they'd push back the exam date as far back as they can?

[mjb]

What about the FSA modules? And is it CSP or DP being planned to be released in May 2007?

I'm not sure what you mean about the FSA modules. You don't need to complete them before writing CSP or DP. They are independent of each other (unlike FAP).

According to the module webcast, CSP will be offered in May 2007 and DP will be offered in Nov. 2007.

[wat?]

I'm not sure what you mean about the FSA modules. You don't need to complete them before writing CSP or DP. They are independent of each other (unlike FAP).

According to the module webcast, CSP will be offered in May 2007 and DP will be offered in Nov. 2007.

Right, but I'm wondering what the rush is to take the first offering of a Course 8 level exam. If I'm thinking like twig, and I'm very wary of things being rolled out for the first time by the SOA, I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig of a 6 1/2 hour exam.

[mjb]

Right, but I'm wondering what the rush is to take the first offering of a Course 8 level exam. If I'm thinking like twig, and I'm very wary of things being rolled out for the first time by the SOA, I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig of a 6 1/2 hour exam.

For me it's all about getting done as soon as is humanly possible. I am more worried about being the guniea pig for the modules since they are a brand new way of delivering study material. Based on what I've seen about CSP and DP, they look like they're going to be roughly Course 8 split into two pieces, with probably a bit more material added. I'm not as worried about the SOAs ability to write a 6.5 hour exam on this material since they've been doing it for quite some time now. The development of the modules seems like a much, much bigger undertaking with many more potential opportunities for delay.

[SharksFan08]

Reasonable? Sure. Given that you've already spent 5-6 months preparing for it, what's setting aside another month to give yourself time to prepare for the exam?

This is a ridiculous statement. Are you just trying to be argumentative with Twig?

Twig, why don't you just get married and take your honeymoon in the beginning of August? I don't think you're going to pin the SOA down to anything right now, so you might as well make an educated guess that they'll offer it toward the end of the month, and plan accordingly.

[_BullDog_]

This is a ridiculous statement. Are you just trying to be argumentative with Twig?

Twig, why don't you just get married and take your honeymoon in the beginning of August? I don't think you're going to pin the SOA down to anything right now, so you might as well make an educated guess that they'll offer it toward the end of the month, and plan accordingly.

Or plan it for Sept.

[almost actuary]

Almost all candidates should know by now that the exam date should be somewhere in August/September.

If you feel that your personal obligation, whether it be marriage, vacation or otherwise, is more important than taking an SOA exam, then plan accordingly. If, on the other hand, you're willing to block out some time to plan to take the exam, then adjust your life to accompany it.




OK, this is just ridiculous. The point is that we can't plan accordingly. Like Twig, I am getting married this year. A wedding is an event that is usually planned months in advance, and my date is already set. My honeymoon will be in early September. I can't tell you how stressful it is for me to have the fear, and it is not an unreasonable fear, that the exam date will be delayed like everything else has been so far and that it will be in early September. The point is, with the exam window less than 6 months away now, the SoA owes us the courtesy of setting a date. People's lives are already planned around these exams and that is only what we are trying to do in this case.

[wat?]

OK, this is just ridiculous. The point is that we can't plan accordingly. Like Twig, I am getting married this year. A wedding is an event that is usually planned months in advance, and my date is already set. My honeymoon will be in early September. I can't tell you how stressful it is for me to have the fear, and it is not an unreasonable fear, that the exam date will be delayed like everything else has been so far and that it will be in early September. The point is, with the exam window less than 6 months away now, the SoA owes us the courtesy of setting a date. People's lives are already planned around these exams and that is only what we are trying to do in this case.

Then I congratulate you. Marriage is great - a once-in-a-lifetime (well, it's supposed to be) opportunity that shouldn't be altered because of an exam that will probably be offered at least another 3-4 times next year. You'll have many more opportunities to enjoy taking these exams - but congratulations on finding that one in your life.

[wat?]

This is a ridiculous statement. Are you just trying to be argumentative with Twig?

Partially - maybe. I don't feel as much so today.

But I still do believe that if there are events that are very important in your life, marriage being one of them, you can hold off taking an exam that will be offered many more times in your life. So, either you can accept the fact that the dates aren't set yet and plan your life accordingly, letting the exams take second priority, or you can block out the whole time and wait patiently for more information.

[wat?]

For me it's all about getting done as soon as is humanly possible. I am more worried about being the guniea pig for the modules since they are a brand new way of delivering study material. Based on what I've seen about CSP and DP, they look like they're going to be roughly Course 8 split into two pieces, with probably a bit more material added. I'm not as worried about the SOAs ability to write a 6.5 hour exam on this material since they've been doing it for quite some time now. The development of the modules seems like a much, much bigger undertaking with many more potential opportunities for delay.

But they are reintroducing material that was cut out in 2000. If the prospective exam committees have experience with nation-specific material in the upper-level exams, then they should be comfortable with it.

Plus, I'd rather not be on the receiving end of two 6 1/2 hour exams if I can help it. Which I'm trying to.

[SharksFan08]

But I still do believe that if there are events that are very important in your life, marriage being one of them, you can hold off taking an exam that will be offered many more times in your life. So, either you can accept the fact that the dates aren't set yet and plan your life accordingly, letting the exams take second priority, or you can block out the whole time and wait patiently for more information.

I agree with you. Just to be clear, what I find upsetting is not that the first and second modules were delayed, or the uncertainty regarding FAP 1. In fact, my company won't pay for my FAP registration until after I take Exam C (but they will pay before the Exam C results come out), so a later administration of FAP 1 would be much better for me personally.

But from the perspective of a student, it's very easy to look at the relevant recent events and feel like, in the SOA's eyes, you aren't important. Earlier notice of Module 2's delay would have been trivial for the SOA to provide. Likewise, a statement such as "if we are able to provide the FAP 1 exam in August, it would be given on August 31," seems like a trivial concession. The stubborn refusal to communicate with students is what makes me feel like we aren't valued, and that's not a good way to feel about an organization that you're working very hard to join.

The concession I'll make for the SOA is that they would undoubtedly face the "if you give a mouse a cookie" effect.

[almost actuary]

Then I congratulate you. Marriage is great - a once-in-a-lifetime (well, it's supposed to be) opportunity that shouldn't be altered because of an exam that will probably be offered at least another 3-4 times next year. You'll have many more opportunities to enjoy taking these exams - but congratulations on finding that one in your life.


This is an assumption made by you and which, to my knowledge, is based on little to no fact given that the SOA has only said that they intend for the exams to be offered more than once a year beyond 2007. I would not be surprised if Exam 1 is not offered again until mid to late next year.

It boils down to the fact that the SOA is disappointing many of us, by not acting with the professional courtesy of commiting to an exam date, in addition to rolling out a new exam and learning format before it has even been completed. How is that for professionalism?

[bdschobel]

The frequency at which these exams can be given will depend on the speed with which students complete the modules. Note that to date only six candidates have completed the Module 1 exercise. If we get a steady flow of candidates and can produce the exams quickly enough, they will be given as often as four times a year. But we won't commit to that until we get some experience with FAP.

Bruce

[wat?]

This is an assumption made by you and which, to my knowledge, is based on little to no fact given that the SOA has only said that they intend for the exams to be offered more than once a year beyond 2007. I would not be surprised if Exam 1 is not offered again until mid to late next year.

Fine. But do you intend to get married once a year? I doubt it. I don't think postponing the FAP exam 1 by 4 months (since we do know it will be in January/February 2007 that the second administration will happen, with the credibility of posts to the AO) will hamper your progress through exams in the long-term scale of things. Even if this exam were given annually, you could still pass on the exam - the whole point being, marriage is more important than missing a sitting of an exam. Unless you don't think so.

It boils down to the fact that the SOA is disappointing many of us, by not acting with the professional courtesy of commiting to an exam date, in addition to rolling out a new exam and learning format before it has even been completed. How is that for professionalism?

I'm sorry to hear that you are among the group that needs to be guinea pigs for this. Maybe the fact that the new system needed to be rolled out immediately is a testament to how passionately the SOA felt that the 2000 system needed to be phased out.

If you look at documentation, this is not something the SOA voted on in 2004 to do and started on with a few months to work on it - the idea was first considered back in 2001-2002.

And with the exam date, I think they're actually doing you a courtesy of not setting an exam date yet. You say you're getting married - that should keep you busy for a month or so before the wedding. Suppose the 5th module is released August 1st and the SOA fixed their date at August 31st. What time does that leave you to do anything? You won't be ready, and you'll be complaining at a later time how you weren't given the time to finish because of your circumstances.

Instead, the SOA can gauge how students are progressing through the modules and getting a feel for how quickly the students are going through them and then setting a date, rather than saying, "Well, it should take them Xi hours for module i, so we should have a decent amount of students taking the exam by _____." From an administrative view, I think that makes the most sense - get as much information about how the subscribers are using the product, then plan accordingly, rather than blindly forcing individuals to finish.

[wat?]

The frequency at which these exams can be given will depend on the speed with which students complete the modules. Note that to date only six candidates have completed the Module 1 exercise. If we get a steady flow of candidates and can produce the exams quickly enough, they will be given as often as four times a year. But we won't commit to that until we get some experience with FAP.

Bruce

:lol: I think I'm done.

[almost actuary]

:lol: I think I'm done.


Thank goodness.:roll2:

[SharksFan08]

You can bold it, underline it, and make it a larger font, but I guess even with all of that I'm too dumb to see what the point is.

[wat?]

Thank goodness.:roll2::bighug: I heart you, too.

[bdschobel]

You can bold it, underline it, and make it a larger font, but I guess even with all of that I'm too dumb to see what the point is.
Allow me to assist you. This board has seen a huge amount of moaning and groaning about the fact that Module 2 will be released on March 6, instead of in February, as previously announced. But only six candidates are ready to move on to Module 2. So why all the complaining?

The same principle may apply to the first exam. A few people are outraged that the date hasn't been set yet, but clearly the SOA can have no confidence that a sufficient number of candidates will be ready in August. That's why we are keeping our options open.

Bruce

[Gandalf]

That's why we are keeping our options open.
Bruce
That is arguably one sensible reason for not committing that FAP 1 will be given on August 31. That the SOA may not be ready is arguably a second sensible reason.

Neither is a sensible reason for not saying "If FAP 1 is given in August, it will be given on August 31." (or some other specific date)

[almost actuary]

Allow me to assist you. This board has seen a huge amount of moaning and groaning about the fact that Module 2 will be released on March 6, instead of in February, as previously announced. But only six candidates are ready to move on to Module 2. So why all the complaining?

The same principle may apply to the first exam. A few people are outraged that the date hasn't been set yet, but clearly the SOA can have no confidence that a sufficient number of candidates will be ready in August. That's why we are keeping our options open.

Bruce


Bruce,

I thought that candidates were not to submit the end of module exercise until March 1. That is what we were told in the initial FAP email. So, are you jumping the gun a little in saying that only 6 people have completed Module 1? Don't you think that people will be starting to submit the exercises beginning today, as we were advised to do?

[wat?]

That is arguably one sensible reason for not committing that FAP 1 will be given on August 31. That the SOA may not be ready is arguably a second sensible reason.

Neither is a sensible reason for not saying "If FAP 1 is given in August, it will be given on August 31." (or some other specific date)

At the same rate, can't you say "If the exam's given in March 2006, it'll be March 1st?"

Assuming the demand (or the module timeframe) won't accompany that proposed date of August 31st, the SOA will have to deal with issuing a September date for the exam, when June rolls around, which puts test-takers in the same situation as if there were no announcement.

Specifying a certain day in a month only cements plans for that particular month. It doesn't say anything about later months. I.e. specifying day x for August doesn't say anything about test dates in September.

[bdschobel]

Bruce,

I thought that candidates were not to submit the end of module exercise until March 1. That is what we were told in the initial FAP email. So, are you jumping the gun a little in saying that only 6 people have completed Module 1? Don't you think that people will be starting to submit the exercises beginning today, as we were advised to do?
Maybe so.

Bruce

[SharksFan08]

Allow me to assist you. This board has seen a huge amount of moaning and groaning about the fact that Module 2 will be released on March 6, instead of in February, as previously announced. But only six candidates are ready to move on to Module 2. So why all the complaining?

Great, thank you. I need just a little further assistence, though. See, here I've thought that people are complaining about the SOA's lack of communication and disclosure. Could you assist me in finding some posts where people are complaining about the actual 6 day delay? People complaining because they're "ready to move on Module 2," but impeded by its late release?

[SharksFan08]

Assuming the demand (or the module timeframe) won't accompany that proposed date of August 31st, the SOA will have to deal with issuing a September date for the exam, when June rolls around, which puts test-takers in the same situation as if there were no announcement.


I think what people are saying is that's a risk they're willing to take.

[Gandalf]

At the same rate, can't you say "If the exam's given in March 2006, it'll be March 1st?"

Assuming the demand (or the module timeframe) won't accompany that proposed date of August 31st, the SOA will have to deal with issuing a September date for the exam, when June rolls around, which puts test-takers in the same situation as if there were no announcement.

Specifying a certain day in a month only cements plans for that particular month. It doesn't say anything about later months. I.e. specifying day x for August doesn't say anything about test dates in September.
True. It lets candidates finalize their plans for 30/31 of August. That's a tremendous improvement over the current situation. The original form of this proposal, posted here was:

"If FAP is given in August, it will be August 31; otherwise it will be Sept 20" (or some other suitable specific dates), thereby clarifying 30/31 of August and 29/30 of September. If the SOA needs more leeway than that, there's always

"If FAP1 is in August, it will be August 31.
If FAP 1, is in September, it will be September 20.
If FAP 1 is in October, it will be October 18".

Adjustments if the SOA is not confident it will be ready by October are left as an exercise for the reader.

I can understand that they might not want to think about exact dates for FAP 2 this early, but I sure hope they won't be waiting until two months beforehand. Also, as many have noted, due to vacations especially, August is an especially bad month for uncertainty about the whole month.

[wat?]

I think what people are saying is that's a risk they're willing to take.

That's fine - for the people planning for August stuff.

Then comes the people that are planning for September activities that won't know what to do.

Plus, if you fix a date in September, I'd imagine you'd fix the date towards the end to get the maximum demand, which pushes back the timeframe of those working on modules. That affects the module population adversely - those not worried about scheduling conflicts are having their exam pushed back, so that it runs into progressing through the next modules, which affects the demand for FAP 2.

I don't know - to me, specifying the date doesn't seem to have the hidden advantages that you guys seem to be implying, except to appease those that have posted specific scheduling concerns in the month of August. In twig's case, it's not a schedule conflict - I think her marriage is much more important than this exam.

[Bühlmann]

I want a "Wat? Cares" bumper sticker for my car.
:)