The most aggravating thing about this...

[MES88]

is not that all the rarely appearing concepts were tested. If this was a 200 question exam, I'd have no problem with the committee pulling a bunch of questions from obscure corners of the syllabus. But it's not. It's a 30 question exam; meaning that in order to test all those weird little unemphasized concepts, they had to omit the heart of the material which we all worked so hard to learn.

Think about what we're supposed to get when we pay for an exam; we're supposed to be given a chance to demonstrate our knowledge to prospective employers. With this exam, that opportunity was not afforded to us. 90% of what we studied was not even touched upon. People with a thorough knowledge of the core principles of life contingencies would lose out to people who only studied select mortality + the little bit of new material (if any such people exist). We literally did not get what we paid, and more importantly, worked hard for. It's a disgrace.

[StudyingIsFun]

I think what is so sad is that this exam is going to come down to who guessed better. I would guess that the top 5% of people will still pass and then everyone from the 30th to 95th percentile will be a complete crap shoot. There will be the ones that got less than 14 and then a huge chunk of people around 15-20 with a lot of it coming down to pure guessing.

Also, a well-prepared student should be able to get all of the questions in, even if it takes the full 3 hours. I was extremely well-prepared and I completely skipped 4. What a horrible test!

[liquidz]

Originally Posted by StudyingIsFun

I think what is so sad is that this exam is going to come down to who guessed better. I would guess that the top 5% of people will still pass and then everyone from the 30th to 95th percentile will be a complete crap shoot. There will be the ones that got less than 14 and then a huge chunk of people around 15-20 with a lot of it coming down to pure guessing.

Also, a well-prepared student should be able to get all of the questions in, even if it takes the full 3 hours. I was extremely well-prepared and I completely skipped 4. What a horrible test!

Exactly what I just said.

[chaching001]

Originally Posted by StudyingIsFun

I think what is so sad is that this exam is going to come down to who guessed better. I would guess that the top 5% of people will still pass and then everyone from the 30th to 95th percentile will be a complete crap shoot. There will be the ones that got less than 14 and then a huge chunk of people around 15-20 with a lot of it coming down to pure guessing.

I completely agree with this. This is exactly what it's going to come down too

[liquidz]

You know what else? I think the SOA says that "The goal of the SOA and CAS Education and Examination system is to pass all candidates who have demonstrated adequate knowledge of the syllabus material"

With that being said, can you believe how little the emphasized the new topics and how much they emphasized traditional topics? Even in the SOA sample problems, 17/300 was new problems. This is 6 percent. On the exam, 14/30 was new topics, which is close to 50 percent.

So when they say they are trying to pass candidates with adequate knowledge of the syllabus, is it fair that adequate of the syllabus is knowing mostly new topics and ignore the rest of the traditional topics?

Also, was that test really trying to see if we had adequate knowledge of the syllabus or was it trying to go way past adequate knowledge. Cause if you ask me, people with adequate knowledge should be able to fairly attempt all 30 question of the exam and on average use 6 minutes per problem. Clearly, from all the posts, this was not the case. People that were very very well prepared, still found it hard to do most problems under 6 minutes. You tell me, is this considered testing adequate knowledge of the syllabus?

[StudyingIsFun]

Originally Posted by liquidz

You know what else? I think the SOA says that "The goal of the SOA and CAS Education and Examination system is to pass all candidates who have demonstrated adequate knowledge of the syllabus material"

With that being said, can you believe how little the emphasized the new topics and how much they emphasized traditional topics? Even in the SOA sample problems, 17/300 was new problems. This is 6 percent. On the exam, 14/30 was new topics, which is close to 50 percent.

So when they say they are trying to pass candidates with adequate knowledge of the syllabus, is it fair that adequate of the syllabus is knowing mostly new topics and ignore the rest of the traditional topics?

Also, was that test really trying to see if we had adequate knowledge of the syllabus or was it trying to go way past adequate knowledge. Cause if you ask me, people with adequate knowledge should be able to fairly attempt all 30 question of the exam and on average use 6 minutes per problem. Clearly, from all the posts, this was not the case. People that were very very well prepared, still found it hard to do most problems under 6 minutes. You tell me, is this considered testing adequate knowledge of the syllabus?

I completely agree.

Also, I was thinking the same thing you were in the last paragraph. I reread that yesterday and saw that they are trying to separate people who have adequate knowledge from those that do not. How on earth would they do that with this ridiculous exam?! I can appreciate a challenging exam. This one was unfair.

[ldk]

Originally Posted by liquidz

You know what else? I think the SOA says that "The goal of the SOA and CAS Education and Examination system is to pass all candidates who have demonstrated adequate knowledge of the syllabus material"

With that being said, can you believe how little the emphasized the new topics and how much they emphasized traditional topics? Even in the SOA sample problems, 17/300 was new problems. This is 6 percent. On the exam, 14/30 was new topics, which is close to 50 percent.

So when they say they are trying to pass candidates with adequate knowledge of the syllabus, is it fair that adequate of the syllabus is knowing mostly new topics and ignore the rest of the traditional topics?

Also, was that test really trying to see if we had adequate knowledge of the syllabus or was it trying to go way past adequate knowledge. Cause if you ask me, people with adequate knowledge should be able to fairly attempt all 30 question of the exam and on average use 6 minutes per problem. Clearly, from all the posts, this was not the case. People that were very very well prepared, still found it hard to do most problems under 6 minutes. You tell me, is this considered testing adequate knowledge of the syllabus?

And when did the SOA even put those last 18 questions on the SOA site? I recall downloading those questions in January only to have to redownload it again in March because they had been updated - again. This to me shows a casual and lacadaisic (Sp?) attitude towards this material. It certainly does not send the message: 'Hey students we consider this material and format very important.'

[actuarygirl22]

**like and agree with all the posts on here**

Originally Posted by idk

It's very frustrating going through this, but I'm not alone. After talking to a co-worker, if an exam was very difficult and convoluted, PAK can be wrong for about 3 questions and the exam will be unfair for the following 2-3 sittings. So for this time around, don't rely on PAK!!

So basically we're still screwed?

[liquidz]

Right, and I am not alone when I say that a lot of us on AO have been trying to challenge ourselves. We find the most difficult source of materials, we try to get the best ADAPT score we can get (going past recommended level), we try to talk to each other and understand concepts, and we spend days sweating tears and blood preparing for a new syllabus. So we obviously would not mind a challenging exam to feel rewarded after spending so much time and effort learning the materials.

I feel that I do understand the concepts and tools the SOA wanted us to learn and apply to our everyday job. But this test suggests otherwise. Why shoot our confidence down? Why not try to make is believe in ourselves? Why not help us become better actuaries by being fair and just?

No, instead, they treat us with disrespect and misguidance. They treat us with disgrace and make us feel like complete idiots. They make us doubt ourselves and make us think we are not cut out for this profession. I know for a fact I am pretty damn good at my job. I am pretty damn good with dealing on a day to day basis with actuarial models. But this test suggests otherwise. Why? Just because I cant complete an unfair exam in the amount of time they think is "adequate" for me to complete the "adequate" knowledge of the misguided syllabus set forth by them? It is pathetic, it is a disgrace. Hardworking individuals like ourselves do not need to be shot down like this.

[mkr2]

What the SOA did with this exam was unfair at best, possibly unethical. They gave us a syllabus, and SAMPLE QUESTIONS that were supposed to represent the exam material.

Is it just me, or did we all learn within the first 5 minutes of whatever intro to stats class we took, that the sample is supposed to reflect the real world?