Adding material to a syllabus 4 days before an exam and not telling anyone

[Commander Keen]

So, if they hadn't "added" this to the syllabus 4 days before the exam, there would be no complaint, right? Guess they should have waited until a day after...

[Turkish]

The fact that it was on the learning objectives makes it hard to argue the inappropriateness of the question. I should have read the syllabus and learning objectives more carefully.

That said, this was not well communicated. It is not obvious that Appendix F is part of chapter 9 as Bruse asserts. That was apparently the reason for the update on 5/7. Those of us taking this exam are not complete morons, and many people were confused. Next time just put ASOP 6 along side the other 10 or so ASOP.

No one is going to blow a work assignment because they have vague of confusing directions from management either. However, thank you for acknowledging that the syllabus was vague and confusing.

[bdschobel]

Originally Posted by DaBears

I strongly disagree with your apparent position that this is no big deal. Your argument that we should have been prepared for any ASOP remotely related to group/health practice is bizarre....

I love this comment. ASOP 6 is entitled "Measuring Retiree Group Benefit Obligations." Here's a link to it:

http://www.actuarialstandardsboard.o...sop006_084.pdf

Now can you really tell me with a straight face that this is just "remotely related to group/health practice"? Is it really so unreasonable that the SOA expected an FSA in the group/health benefits specialty track to be familiar with this ASOP -- especially when we listed such familiarity as a learning outcome?

One goal of the SOA is to produce actuaries who understand the material relevant to their practice area. The AAA and the CIA count on us to do that, which is why the FSA credential is accepted as "basic education" for purposes of qualification standards. I do not believe that we made a mistake or crossed some sort of line here. And the question was just 4 points, for crying out loud!

Bruce

[cincinnatikid]

Originally Posted by L.G. Fuad

So, if they hadn't "added" this to the syllabus 4 days before the exam, there would be no complaint, right? Guess they should have waited until a day after...

I, for one, have as much objection to the timing and manner in which the material was added as I do the actual testing of it. For the record, I feel I did quite well on this particular question, so I don't think the inclusion or exclusion of this question will have any impact on my own grade.

Adding "clarification" around an upcoming test question and slipping it in the fine print of a web page 4 days prior to an exam, regardless of intent, creates an uneven playing field for the students. It reeks of inpropriety and I find it to be completely unprofessional.

A thought-based question on current events is quite different than the regurgitation of a list of items from an ASOP, so I'll just toss that comparison out as uninformed "bellyaking". Let me know where the rule is that all actuaries are required to have all ASOPs memorized and be able to regurgitate them at any moment, and I will gladly withdraw all my objections and promptly turn in my credentials. (Hint: if you're looking for it on the soa website, it's probably hidden somewhere in the middle of an 'updates' page).

When I get my FSA, I sincerely intend to complete all assignments to the best of my ability, regardless of confusing or vague instructions, as I did in this situation. However, I also sincerely intend to continue to complain about practices that I view as being wrong.

[bdschobel]

Originally Posted by Turkish

The fact that it was on the learning objectives makes it hard to argue the inappropriateness of the question. I should have read the syllabus and learning objectives more carefully.

That said, this was not well communicated. It is not obvious that Appendix F is part of chapter 9 as Bruse asserts. That was apparently the reason for the update on 5/7. Those of us taking this exam are not complete morons, and many people were confused. Next time just put ASOP 6 along side the other 10 or so ASOP.

No one is going to blow a work assignment because they have vague of confusing directions from management either. However, thank you for acknowledging that the syllabus was vague and confusing.

Bolded comment #1: It was not perfectly communicated. I might debate "well."

Bolded comment #2: If this level of imperfect communication rises to "vague and confusing" in your mind, you're going to have trouble in your career.

Bruce

[JMO]

"many people were confused"

Speaking of communication, how many of the confused ones made any effort to obtain clarification? Perhaps someone did, in that last week before the exam, leading to the website clarification. Or maybe the clarification was not related to any feedback from students. Whatever.

[Turkish]

Bruce, I was being sarcastic. I guess I wasn't obvious enough, though. Next time I will be more clear for you.

I acknowledge that I messed this up and was not careful enough in my preparation. My bad.

[The Head Detective]

Originally Posted by L.G. Fuad

So, if they hadn't "added" this to the syllabus 4 days before the exam, there would be no complaint, right?

Right.

Modifying the syllabus four days before the exam looks shady.

[DaBears]

Originally Posted by bdschobel

Is it really so unreasonable that the SOA expected an FSA in the group/health benefits specialty track to be familiar with this ASOP -- especially when we listed such familiarity as a learning outcome?

cincinnatikid responded eloquently:

Originally Posted by cincinnatikid

A thought-based question on current events is quite different than the regurgitation of a list of items from an ASOP, so I'll just toss that comparison out as uninformed "bellyaking". Let me know where the rule is that all actuaries are required to have all ASOPs memorized and be able to regurgitate them at any moment

The point here is not "do I understand ASOP 6", the point here is "did I memorize the lists and think of that as a list that I would be asked about". Understanding a concept or a standard of practice is very different from memorizing it perfectly for an exam question.

Originally Posted by bdschobel

One goal of the SOA is to produce actuaries who understand the material relevant to their practice area. The AAA and the CIA count on us to do that, which is why the FSA credential is accepted as "basic education" for purposes of qualification standards. I do not believe that we made a mistake or crossed some sort of line here. And the question was just 4 points, for crying out loud!

I'm happy to hear that you agree that one goal of the SOA is to produce actuaries who understand the material relevant to their practice area. I agree that's important. I don't agree that having memorized lists from an ASOP that was not in fact on the syllabus is at all relevant to understanding my practice area. The text in question has appendices A through F, which are appendices to the text, not to any particular chapter. Are you telling me that in future, if even one chapter is assigned from a textbook, I should assume that all appendices to the text are fair game?

Let's be fair here. The FSA exams do not test whether I'm a good actuary. FAP and the old Course 7 do a much better job of that. The FSA exams test whether I can memorize certain lists perfectly and then manage to figure out which list a given question is trying to trigger. I had certainly hoped when the exam system got redesigned that some of the elements of Course 7 (ie understanding the business issues and actuarial techniques and applying them to a given case study) would be preserved in the FSA-level education. I can only hope that the FSA modules are similar to the FAP, because the FSA exams certainly preserve the most hair-pulling aspects of the essay exams, while increasing the workload (ie number of pages).

I also find it kind of silly to compare what we expect from the SOA with regard to exam syllabi versus what we would expect in a real-world work assignment. I have never once had a work assignment where the request is to memorize 1800 pages and then regurgitate specific items from those pages on a chosen day. It's just not the same situation, and that's a false analogy.

I do understand that the people on the exam committee are volunteers and are doing their best. That's why I actually wasn't all that angry about it until I read Bruce's position here. I assumed that they did the best they could, and they would see that it created an unfair situation in the end, and they would do their best to rectify it, whatever that solution may be. I don't actually expect them to throw the question out since that would be unfair to those who saw the update and spent time answering the question. I just expected them to look at the results and make some reasonable adjustment. I clearly was naive, something I thought I'd outgrown long ago with respect to the examination process.

[bdschobel]

Originally Posted by DaBears

...Let's be fair here. The FSA exams do not test whether I'm a good actuary. FAP and the old Course 7 do a much better job of that. The FSA exams test whether I can memorize certain lists perfectly and then manage to figure out which list a given question is trying to trigger. I had certainly hoped when the exam system got redesigned that some of the elements of Course 7 (ie understanding the business issues and actuarial techniques and applying them to a given case study) would be preserved in the FSA-level education. I can only hope that the FSA modules are similar to the FAP, because the FSA exams certainly preserve the most hair-pulling aspects of the essay exams, while increasing the workload (ie number of pages)....

Wow. I really hope that the FSA-level exams are not as bad as you describe here. I am one of the reviewers of the ILA track exams, and I can say with some confidence that your words would not describe those exams in any way. The ILA track has a more manageable amount of reading, and the exam that we gave earlier this month had little regurgitation of lists and such things.

We seem to agree completely on the goals of the E&E system, although we may disagree as to how well the SOA is meeting those goals. Considering that your knowledge of the GHB exams far exceeds mine, I'm going to have to acknowledge that your complaints may have some validity. We're going to have to look at that when we review the November exams at the end of July.

Bruce