Actuarial Outpost Spring 2016 MLC Progress Thread
 Register Blogs Wiki FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

 Fill in a brief DW Simpson Registration Form to be contacted when new jobs meet your criteria.

 Long-Term Actuarial Math Old Exam MLC Forum

#21
11-02-2015, 04:12 PM
 actuarialyle Member SOA Join Date: May 2014 College: college is for squares Posts: 1,698

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; 11-02-2015 at 05:27 PM..
#22
11-03-2015, 10:00 AM
 Gurrpah Member SOA Join Date: Jun 2015 Studying for MLC College: Alumni of Indiana Wesleyan University Posts: 133

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bama Gambler I want to let potential customers know that I never recommend memorizing 10 formulas that are easily shown to be equivalent. In fact I rarely recommend memorizing a formula. Just because a formula shows up on my formula sheet doesn't mean I recommend that you memorize it. Most life contingency formulas can be talked through logically. I teach a deep understanding of life contingencies. That is the best way to handle any type of problem they can throw at you and also the best way to solve problems in a timely manner. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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 no-brainer.
__________________
P FM MFE MLC C
FINA ECON STAT

Last edited by Gurrpah; 11-03-2015 at 10:10 AM..
#23
11-03-2015, 10:22 PM
 Z3ta Member SOA Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 361

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 $\epsilon$, $\delta$ 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
11-03-2015, 11:45 PM
 Salamander Sandwich Member SOA Join Date: Feb 2015 College: MLC University Favorite beer: Anything not commonly sold Posts: 101

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Z3ta 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 $\epsilon$, $\delta$ 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?
LMAO at delta-epsilon proofs for a life contingency exam.

You are way, way overthinking this. This is not a real analysis exam nor would a delta-epsilon 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
11-04-2015, 12:28 AM
 Z3ta Member SOA Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 361

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Salamander Sandwich LMAO at delta-epsilon proofs for a life contingency exam. You are way, way overthinking this. This is not a real analysis exam nor would a delta-epsilon 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.
I said not as rigorous as epsilon-delta proofs...

I'm not overthinking anything or suggesting proving theorems to solve a problem on an exam. This was also an open-ended 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; 11-04-2015 at 12:32 AM..
#26
11-05-2015, 08:53 AM
 davesned29 Member SOA Join Date: Oct 2010 Studying for FAP College: Quinnipiac University Posts: 158

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 throw-in topics at the end.
__________________
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only by success.
P.S. Taxation is theft.
FSA Modules: Reg & Tax ERM Fin. Econ.
Exam ILI-LPM
#27
11-05-2015, 09:48 AM
 timmbo1987 Member SOA Join Date: Mar 2014 Studying for Global Conquest College: Ball State University, Alumni, M.A. Favorite beer: Coffee and more Coffee Posts: 111

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.
__________________
P/1, FM/2, MFE/3F, MLC/3L, VEE, FAP, STAM , PA
#28
11-05-2015, 09:49 AM
 Bama Gambler James Washer / Notes Contributor SOA Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: B'ham, AL Posts: 17,238

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

We help people pass actuarial exams.

#29
11-05-2015, 09:51 AM
 Lorenzo Von Matterhorn Member SOA Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 751

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bama Gambler I'm redoing the sections on pensions, non-diversifiable risk, profit measures, universal life and participating insurance for the Spring 2016 version of the seminar.
When will these updates be made for the Spring 2016 sitting? I plan on placing orders very soon.
#30
11-05-2015, 10:01 AM
 Bama Gambler James Washer / Notes Contributor SOA Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: B'ham, AL Posts: 17,238

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

__________________

We help people pass actuarial exams.