

FlashChat  Actuarial Discussion  Preliminary Exams  CAS/SOA Exams  Cyberchat  Around the World  Suggestions 

LongTerm Actuarial Math Old Exam MLC Forum 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
#21




TIA is your best option to pass, hands down. May be taking it for a third time this spring, but that is seemingly because of my own cognitive restrictions, not due to preparation styles. ASM is also good but dry so I would complement it with the amazing depth of TIA's video course catalogue. [James Washer] even sent a few emails and reminders down the stretch wishing us good luck. Tis a good dude, and an even better life contingencies professor.
Last edited by actuarialyle; 11022015 at 05:27 PM.. 
#22




Quote:
I used TIA exclusively for MLC and would highly recommend it. Almost all of the formulas have a meaningful verbal interpretation, which James Washer focuses on heavily. This exam isn't a "memorize formulas and problems, then regurgitate on exam day" type exam. I think in order to pass, you need to fully understand each topic to the point where you could derive any formula yourself just by thinking through what the formula represents. I think this is a real effective teaching style that James incorporates into his lectures and video solutions. When I was at the point of taking practice exams and working problems, I found the video solutions TIA offers to be extremely helpful. You are able to watch videos at double the normal speed, so when you have those problems that you already kind of know how to do, but want to see how someone else would work it or do something different, this becomes real helpful. Absolutely worth the price. I failed MLC the first time and was offered a free extension of my online seminar. With that extension I was able to go through all the material again and become fully prepared for the next exam (fall 2015) and I'm fairly certain I passed this time around. My employer did pay for the seminar, but after presenting to them the gargantuan problem bank and number of hours of lectures offered by TIA (and the renewal policy), it was a nobrainer.
__________________
Last edited by Gurrpah; 11032015 at 10:10 AM.. 
#23




What is the prevalence of exam takers that would want video lessons showing more rigor than what's currently available? Maybe not as rigorous as , proofs but the essence of a proof with assumptions at least verbally stated.
The main techniques that drive a proof are more important than the result because they are the basis for reasoning out more results. In my opinion, understanding these techniques is the best way to be flexible and confident on an exam. It is hard to forget a formula if the formula has to be the way it is through familiar reasoning given in proofs of these concepts. Are videos lessons created with this ideology something students would prefer or run from? Is the consensus that current study materials provide this already? 
#24




Quote:
You are way, way overthinking this. This is not a real analysis exam nor would a deltaepsilon proof shed any light on the development of these formulas. The material in TIA is presented in a very intuitive way. If you want to do the integrals for everything you can, but this still wouldn't require sophisticated proofs. You are trying to reinvent the wheel when you have 5 minutes per MC problem. 
#25




Quote:
I'm not overthinking anything or suggesting proving theorems to solve a problem on an exam. This was also an openended question not just referring to MLC, but to study materials in general. I want rigor when I'm learning something technical because it means I believe the results and know my way around better. I'm wondering how many other people feel the same way. Last edited by Z3ta; 11042015 at 12:32 AM.. 
#26




I've used TIA exclusively for MLC as well. Full disclosure: this is my 3rd sitting. I didn't study enough during any of the sittings due to life happenings (new job, divorce, sell a house, buy a house, etc), so take my advice for whatever it's worth.
That being said, I love the way that James presents formulas as ideas, constantly encouraging the student to think through what the formulas mean, instead of just how they're written. I think that kind of approach works well when preparing for an exam that requires a certain depth of understanding, like all actuarial exams do. On the other hand, I would say that the TIA seminar spends an exorbitant amount of time on Constant Force and DML. Maybe these ideas were more prevalent when this seminar was put together, but it seems half of every lesson is spent discussing how the ideas presented simplify under these assumptions. CF certainly still has validity due to Markov Chains and it actually does show up in regular calculations of Ax on the exam, but I'm just saying that the seminar seems to focus a lot on these assumptions while pensions and universal life feel like just throwin topics at the end.
__________________
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only by success. P.S. Taxation is theft. FSA Modules: Exam ILILPM 
#27




Will the 13th edition of ASM Study Manual for MLC be adequate for the Spring 2016 sitting? I have everything else, i.e. textbook(s), solutions manuals, SOA Sample MC & WA questions.
__________________

#28




I'm redoing the sections on pensions, nondiversifiable risk, profit measures, universal life and participating insurance for the Spring 2016 version of the seminar.

#30




Here is the scheduled release dates. These dates are long before my suggested study schedule would have you watching those lessons.

Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  

