Learning during the Modules

[Interrogative Statement]

OK, so I'm just kind of wondering what others' thoughts are on this.

I feel like as I'm going through the readings for the modules, I'm just learning absolutely nothing. I don't use hardly anything I read on the EOMs, and I feel like because I've learned nothing, I'm going to be outgunned when the IA hits.

Are the readings actually necessary? When some things are really long, or about pension plans I don't really care about, I just start either skimming or skipping it altogether. I'm wondering how anyone who has passed their FAP did it successfully.

[Muhammad_Ali]

I somewhat agree with you and hold the same view but at the same time how would you design the the first EOM without knowing the control cycle. So there's something there but not a whole lot... in my humble view.
I'm at EOM 4 and of course I do skim & skip as well. My guess is that IA and FAP are going to be similar to EOM's just longer.

[Candy Holiday]

I did some research on this when I first started the FAP. Here is what I found. People do none of the readings since they do not pertain to the EOM exercises. They skip right to the exercise. They then go and look up things as needed. The only things in the FAP content that might actually assist you in the exercises are the case studies.

The IA, as far as I can tell, is you correctly guessing what the SOA wants you to tell them. Some are luckier than others.

In short - no you don't learn from the FAP. You learn on the job when your mentors take the time to show you this work in the actuarial profession is actually done.

[sarahl1286]

For modules 1-4, I really tried to read them and get something out of them. By the time I got to 6 and 7, I had learned my lesson and realized that trying to read this stuff was totally pointless and as such I did not even bother trying to read 6-8.

[ebeebs]

Originally Posted by Candy Holiday

The IA, as far as I can tell, is you correctly guessing what the SOA wants you to tell them. Some are luckier than others.

In short - no you don't learn from the FAP. You learn on the job when your mentors take the time to show you this work in the actuarial profession is actually done.

There's no guessing involved. You answer what they ask. I don't think those who have passed the IA would appreciate their hard work being dismissed as lucky.

But yeah, you don't learn from it.

[Dofer]

Originally Posted by ebeebs

There's no guessing involved. You answer what they ask. I don't think those who have passed the IA would appreciate their hard work being dismissed as lucky.

But yeah, you don't learn from it.

I think there is some learning involved in these modules, however a lot of it is just regurgitation of the same things over and over again. I believe they are just trying to instill a good work ethic for actuaries by drilling you with a lot of information that you may already know whether it be from work experience or just common sense.

I can say that I definitely do have a deeper understanding of what I have been working on for the past 4 years and I enjoy the exposure to other practices, such as life and property/casualty insurance. The case studies were the most helpful in this sense.

You don't need to read EVERYTHING they tell you to. You will quickly learn to filter out the nonsense and hone in on the important material.

[Candy Holiday]

Originally Posted by ebeebs

There's no guessing involved. You answer what they ask. I don't think those who have passed the IA would appreciate their hard work being dismissed as lucky.

But yeah, you don't learn from it.

I'm not dismissing anyone's hard work. On the contrary I think everyone who has gotten this far in the process has indeed worked very hard. I also think that anyone who has gotten this far and put in this much work has to be bright (i.e. they're definitely not dim). That being said I find it hard to believe that anyone on these boards (whom I'm sure are all bright) would have an answer to anything on the IA that might not be applicable (i.e. not good enough for 'minimum requirements') to a real world situation. Call it nieve optimism but I just don't think anyone on here would have an IA solution that wasn't a perfectly legitimate and acceptable interpretation to the problems they present, yet I've seen people talk about getting DNMMRs. I'm just not sold.

[ebeebs]

Originally Posted by Candy Holiday

I'm not dismissing anyone's hard work. On the contrary I think everyone who has gotten this far in the process has indeed worked very hard. I also think that anyone who has gotten this far and put in this much work has to be bright (i.e. they're definitely not dim). That being said I find it hard to believe that anyone on these boards (whom I'm sure are all bright) would have an answer to anything on the IA that might not be applicable (i.e. not good enough for 'minimum requirements') to a real world situation. Call it nieve optimism but I just don't think anyone on here would have an IA solution that wasn't a perfectly legitimate and acceptable interpretation to the problems they present, yet I've seen people talk about getting DNMMRs. I'm just not sold.

Bold: I'd call it that.
There is minimal carryover from passing a bunch of math exams.