Passing Percentages

[DanielSong39]

I have no wishes to become a troll, but I see that both scotth and Fujiwara make some valid points.

I've taken P and FM so far, and I'm studying for the C. For the first two tests, I used a textbook to get through all the concepts before I ever opened the study manual. In addition, I worked through every practice problem in the text. Many of them were much harder and longer than actual exam problems; some would literally take hours to solve.

When I took a look at the study manual and the SOA problems, I found I could do them - for the most part. At that point it was a matter of drilling and eliminating errors. I eventually reached a point where I was confident of passing, and did so.

I know that different people have different styles of learning. Seminars, manuals, study groups, etc. are all useful tools that have proven to be effective for some. On the other hand, I have a hard time understanding how one could read through all of the text listed in the syllabus, do every practice problem in the text, and still have trouble doing the exam problems. It's like seeing someone run the marathon and then hearing the person complain that he can't walk.

There are many ways to get to the same destination, so you should use a method that works for you. But there are a lot of resources out there, and you have access to many of them. I just don't think it's wise to rely on only one resource, no matter how much you like it.

[radoaos]

I really don't like not knowing what kind of questions will be on the exam. On P/FM I could almost write a guideline of how many questions from what section would be on the exam. Even the "tricky" questions. For MFE I feel like its a crapshoot. I guess that's why I've already spent twice the amount of study time in prep for my second sitting. Only way to feel confident of passing is to literally know everything on the syllabus.

Oh, and not just know it, but REALLY know it.

[Force of Interest]

Everyone feels better when the exam is easier to prepare for.

[DanielSong39]

radoaos, I think you have a valid point.

I've personally found that the true strength of a text comes from the end-of-chapter exercises that test the concepts that were laid out in the chapter. If the problems are lacking, it's like taking a stab in the dark.

I've been through this dilemma on a number of occasions during college. The instructors would lay out a lot of theory but fail to explain how to apply the theory to solve problems. This caused problems during exams, which often required you to do problems you'd never seen before, using approaches and methods that were not discussed in class.

With the FM, the Mathematics of Investment and Credit did a good job of preparing me for the exam, but I felt Derivative Markets was a bit sketchy. It wasn't as rigorous as it needed to be, and the problems were a little lacking.

Since MFE relies on the same text, I can understand where things can get a little dicey. Still, you're not being asked to get a perfect score; if you can do every problem at the end of the chapters, getting 15 right should not be unreasonable.

[ditkaworshipper]

Sounds about right to me. I'll admit I got a 5 last sitting because I only prepared for 3 weeks. This time I'm correcting that mistake and it should be a lot easier.