Anyone else hate NEAS' VEE?

[DiscoCzyk]

I've heard that these are so easy...maybe it's just me, but I'm having a terrible time with the regression analysis. I find that every time I sit down to read the stuff I get SO ANGRY about the typos, and the homework questions about topics from the NEXT MODULE, and the idiotic Jacob and Rachel dialogues that just serve to confuse the hell out of me. WHY is Jacob there? To tell me what NOT to know? I really, really, really don't understand.

Ah, I feel better.

Did anyone else have these issues? If so, can you recommend a way around them?

[MarsLasar]

Yes, NEAS sucks big time.
Many have found alcohol to be of assistance when doing the homework.

[Selena]

NEAS is very good for people like me, who do not want to waste time studying, but need to get a VEE credit. Do not read the material - read the sample questions and you will be fine.

[Bühlmann]

Neas can get the job done much less painfully than transition exams. Take it FWIW.

[DiscoCzyk]

By 'sample problems' do you mean the practice problems that are in each module? That's been my plan so far. The problem is that I've never seen this material before, so I have no idea what this professor is talking about. I've passed four - count them - FOUR of the big exams, but I feel incredibly dense every time I try to learn this stuff. Sigh.

[Selena]

...but I feel incredibly dense every time I try to learn this stuff. Sigh.

That's what I tried to tell you - DO NOT try to learn the stuff! Just do the practise problems a few times - they will have exactly the same problems on the final, you will need to just plug in different numbers. Mechanic, but simple.

[DiscoCzyk]

Wow...ok. That sounds great. Thanks!

[scs099]

This class is very confusing. I don't even know where to begin with that Regression project. The directions couldn't be anymore vague. They don't answer questions that are posted on their message board or respond to e-mails. Hopefully, the test will be like the practice test problems.

[NewTubaBoy]

Trust me... it's better than any alternative out there. Just suck it up, do the stuff and deal with it. It's not like they're sticklers. You'll be fine.

[Bühlmann]

You know what I hate more than NEAS VEE classes? Having to take more exams! It is much better than taking the CAS transitional exams. I hear and understand your gripes, but as Tuba said, just suck it up and get it done.

[Garden_Variety]

I second or third that opinion. Taking the NEAS pathway is MUCH easier than the transition exams. B*tch all ya want but it is the easier route. As long as you do it between full exams you'll be fine.

[DiscoCzyk]

I think the reason I'm b**ching is that you don't REALIZE it's easy before you do the practice problems. I was chugging along on the modules, reading the book, and then reading the dialogues between the two idiots - Jacob and Rachel. And then I would do the homeworks - which had absolutely nothing to do with the stuff I had just read.

Now that I've done the practice problems, I feel a little better.

[twig93]

With NEAS, if you don't understand something in their material, your first assumption should be that they made a mistake and that your understanding is better than theirs. Seek to verify this with the textbook (which, to my knowledge, is error-free). 99% of the time, this will clear up any discrepancy between your understanding and NEAS' writings.

All the typos suck big time, as does the unresponsiveness of NEAS staff and instructors. But it is still the best route to VEE. Just talk with folks who are taking college courses, Actex (which was also rife with typos), or CAS Transitional Exams. NEAS beats out the alternatives as the least objectionable route. (For Applied Stats anyway - I think there are better options like CLEP exams for the other subjects.)

[Cammy]

Where did you get this material? Actuarial Bookstore or something similar? If it is the one that I am thinking of - was is worth the $550 (or $295 for each half)? I am asking those who had to pay for this out of pocket. I know that there are some employers who will pay for it.

[StudyStrongSU]

here is my $.02. Then NEAS is an easier way to pass the VEE if you can put up with the typos, poor guidence, and can think outside the box. But for the project, the instructions are vague becasue they want you to take the ideas and run with them on your own. From page 15 of 29, "The SOA wants to see if a candidate can use the concepts of regression analysis...We avoid exact instructions for every step so that you must think through the techniques." The instruction packet gives a couple of statments that say, For the Student project, you select regression assumprions, run the regression analyses, test hypothesese, make forecasts, and show we derive conclusions (pg 6). There are a couple of other times where its says "for the student project". Collect these and create a summary around what they are asking for.

[will19]

I took the transitional VEE Applied Stats exam and it was a piece of cake.

[_BullDog_]

You all should have taken the Actex course, It rocked.

[scs099]

You all should have taken the Actex course, It rocked.
I'm wishing I would have. The NEAS project is way, way, way too vague in the directions. I've never had a project in any math class I took in college. Lame. NEAS doesn't answer any questions people ask. It is very frustrating.

[_BullDog_]

I've never had a project in any math class I took in college.

What kind of math classes did you take?

[NewTubaBoy]

I am really confused as to why people think that this NEAS project is so difficult. I read through the material and did it with no problem. Yes, there are no step by step instructions on how to do it, but is that really what there should be? I mean, in the real world when you're working you're not always given precise step by step guidance... or at least you shouldn't have to be.

Thinking back to college overall this class was WAY easier than anything I did in college. People just like to complain.

[DiscoCzyk]

I'm one of those people who think the project is difficult. But I think it's because I was trying to wade through the idiocy of the Jacob and Rachel dialogues, the instructions that refer to data sets that don't exist, and the references to instructions that don't exist. But that's just me.

Serioulsy, I've decided to just make up my own. I guess that's the only way around it.

[Bühlmann]

I can understand people's beef with the project. If you print it all out, it is kind of a lot of paper. People just want to know what needs to be done and there needs to be a summary sheet explaining what needs to be done. I found it confusing b/c one page would spell something out, but then the next would sort of go off on a tangent.
Some people would call what I would do "babying" perhaps, but I call it being organized and clear in one's instructions. Confusion isn't an educational tool. I read those pages about 10 times before I decided on something and went with it.

[Bühlmann]

You all should have taken the Actex course, It rocked.

They should offer a split class for Time Series and Regression. That would get a lot of business.

[MarsLasar]

Confusion isn't an educational tool. I read those pages about 10 times before I decided on something and went with it.

NEAS views typos and confusion as positive and helpful to the student.
Here is one homework lesson they require (check out the bottom),


Regression Analysis, Module 21: "Maximum Likelihood Estimation"


Homework Assignment


(The attached PDF file has better formatting.)


Updated: June 29, 2005


We derive equation 10.10 on the top of page 274. For the homework assignment, write out the derivation, following the steps in this posting. When you are done, you should have the same lines as equation 10.10 (corrected for the typo).


The second equation in section 10.2.1 (on page 273) is the same as the equation on page 33. The value (Yi – α – βXi) is the residual; the residuals have a normal distribution with a mean of 0 and a variance of σ2. (The μ from page 33 is zero in this equation.) Compare the equations on pages 33 and 273.


The likelihood of a set of values is the product of the likelihood of each value. The next equation on page 273 takes the product of the likelihoods for the N observations. This equation has two typos: the square root sign is missing around 2πσ2, and the 2σ2 on the right hand side has been placed within the parentheses for the exponent of 2.


To derive equation 10.10, use the equation beginning p(Yi). (To avoid confusion, don’t use the equation with the typos.) We take the logarithm of that equation. ln (A × B) = ln (A) + ln (B), and ln(exp(B)) = B, so the logarithm is


–½ln(2π) –½ln(σ2) – (Yi – α – βXi)2 / (2σ2)


(The ½ on the two terms on the left comes from the square root sign, which is missing in one of the equations on page 273. By mistake, equation 10.10 has the σ2 on the right hand side in the numerator, not the denominator; this is corrected in equations 10.11, 10.12, and 10.13.)


We do this N times, once for each observations. Equation 10.10 has the constant terms multiplied by N and a summation for the terms involving X and Y.


As the homework assignment, write out the equations for each step. Maximum likelihood sounds complex. It is not complex, but it takes a few minutes to understand the concept. Working through these equations is one way to grasp the concept.


Jacob: If there are typos in the equations, why do we use them for the homework?


Rachel: If the derivation in the textbook were error-free, there would be less value in the homework assignment. If the derivation were erroneous, we would not expect you to correct it. But the derivation simply has minor typos. The typos are minor; they keep you alert as you do the homework assignment.

I'm not sure, but this may be a reason people say NEAS sucks.

[Bühlmann]

Here's the difference. If Mahler's notes have a typo and you tell him, he corrects it and thanks you. If a Neas study note has a typo and you post it on the discussion board, it will fall on deaf ears for eternity.

[twig93]

Here's the difference. If Mahler's notes have a typo and you tell him, he corrects it and thanks you. If a Neas study note has a typo and you post it on the discussion board, it will fall on deaf ears for eternity.

Or they will try to turn it into a learning experience for you; like above. :exams:

Did they ever fix the thing about Centered Moving Averages? For a while they were trying to say that there was a mistake in the book because the book had a formula for a 5-period CMA and if you applied that to quarterly data, you'd double-weight one of the quarters. Well, duh - that's just an illustration of why you shouldn't use a 5 period CMA when the cyclical data that you have is grouped into 4 periods per cycle. A high school student could figure out that if you're applying quarterly data to a CMA, you should use the 4-period CMA, not the 5-period CMA!

After numerous calls/emails from me (and possibly others) they finally updated their text to indicate that according to Pindyck & Rubinfield it is not possible to calculate a CMA centered over an even number of periods. (They chose to selectively ignore the fact that the text actually calculates a CMA for a 12 month period.) Idiots.

But I still say that NEAS is the easiest route to VEE. At least if you don't factor in the psychological cost.

[blahblahblah]

I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE Jacob & Rachel. I left this as the last requirement for my ASA because I've had the hardest time motivating myself to weed through all of their crappy conversations to figure out what simple concept the stupid homework is asking for... even so, I can hardly make myself do it...I just get ticked off every time I start trying to read it. It takes way more time to do than it should because its presented in such a bizarro format. I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE Jacob & Rachel.

[ActuaryWannaB/SkiBum]

Yes, NEAS sucks big time.
Many have found alcohol to be of assistance when doing the homework.

I think I am going to try this.....it might help and it would make it less painful to listen to Jacob and Rachel all the time. After a little tequila Jacob might actually seem smart!