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

[DaBears]

Originally Posted by bdschobel

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of exam candidates dating back more than 30 years to my days on the Part 1 and 2 Committee know how much I care about them. The last thing I need to do at this stage is to prove that. When I agree with a complaint, I battle on the candidate's behalf, but when I disagree, like this time, I say so. Would you prefer that I always agree or speak only when I do agree? I think not. Anyway, that would be someone else, not me!

Bruce

Bruce,
I agree that you have shown for years how much you care about students and the exam process. I don't question your intentions. And I don't think anyone is saying you have to agree with candidates all the time, or we won't trust you anymore. That would be silly! I think you may simply not realize how insensitive the 4-pt comment seems. Just try to step back for a moment and realize that for many people, a 4-pt question can separate them from a 6, and can mean another six months of studying. So it's not "no biggie", it's very much a biggie.
Thanks,
DaBears

[bdschobel]

I understand the value of 4 points and realize that 4 points -- or even 0.1 point -- can be the difference between passing and failing. I was merely trying to put the question into perspective. Some people are blowing that comment way out of proportion. And using it to suggest that I don't care about exam candidates is simply over the top. Really, to anyone who knows me and my long history with the exams, it just looks ridiculous.

Bruce

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

FTR, I think it's great that Bruce posts here, and if he was really such an arrogant and condescending guy he probably wouldn't "lower himself" to mixing it up with the commoners. Having said that, the posts that fawn in his direction are also misplaced, because this type of deference offsets much of the advantage of having him post here.

Re the issue at hand, the bottom line to me is that by all indications (i.e. candidates posting to this thread), none or almost none of the candidates were able to discern in advance that ASOP 6 was part of the required reading, and the only ones who prepared for it exam-style were those who lucked out and happened to notice the update. This belies bdschobel's claims. You can give this or that reason why everyone should have figured it out, but if no one did then you're the outlier. As before, your job as test-giver is to give instructions that people can figure out. If you didn't, then you goofed, not everyone else. And when you goof, you should own up.

I find this particularly relevant because in another thread Bruce has defended the lightening up of the ASA exams process as necessary to attract more of "the best and the brightest" to the profession - supposedly this is to be accomplished by shortening the travel time. But if you ask me, "the best and the brightest" are quite possibly - considering how good and bright they are - less intimidated by the difficulty of exams as by their capricious nature and by the arrogant attitude of the SOA as regards to exam takers.

[JMO]

OK, I am going to try one more time. If there was any confusion, any discussion, any recognition at all by the students that there was some inconsistency in having the SOP on the learning objectives and not on the required course of reading:
Was there anyone who raised the issue with the ombudsman? Why not?

[JMO Fan]

This incident seems one of the occasional awkward results of actuarial exams (and the SoA & CAS) being largely a result of volunteer efforts. (NTTAWWT) I had an experience helping to grade a SoA exam that might be interesting:

Years ago, I was asked last-minute to substitute for a coworker who was on a fellowship exam committee. The coworker had written a question that was put on the exam, and was supposed to go to central grading to grade the answers, but she couldn't go (for personal reasons). She gave me her grading outline, I studied the material a bit, and traveled to the grading location.

The question was targeted at a long sidebar in a late chapter of the syllabus book. As I began grading, it became clear that a number of the answers consistently included material that wasn't on the grading outline, and omitted most of the points on the outline. Suspicious, I scanned the syllabus book, and found the referenced material in an earlier section.

In preparing the exam, the final drafters had slightly modified my coworkers question in an attempt to make it clearer. They had inadvertently inserted a phrase which sounded like a direct reference to the earlier section of the book. I had to create a totally revised grading outline impromptu, regrade all the papers.

Ultimately, we on the exam committee went through every paper with initial grades between 4 and 7 that had an attempted answer on that question. We made sure that nobody failed due solely to messing it up, and that those whose answers were based upon the 'wrong' section of the book got full credit for their answers. The result was very similar to tossing the question out.

We wanted every prepared candidate to pass the exam. So we did the best we could with an awkward situation. I assume that current graders have the same attitude.

[bdschobel]

Absolutely right.

Bruce

[The Head Detective]

Originally Posted by JMO

OK, I am going to try one more time. If there was any confusion, any discussion, any recognition at all by the students that there was some inconsistency in having the SOP on the learning objectives and not on the required course of reading:
Was there anyone who raised the issue with the ombudsman? Why not?

From what I can gather, a lot of the people "complaining" here did not actually sit for this exam. There is a general concern with how the situation was handled by the SOA.

Regarding your comment, I think people diligent enough to contact the ombudsman about this should be rewarded (by about 4 points). But what does that have to do with whether it's okay for the SOA to make changes to the syllabus four days before the exam?

[Monkey Bars]

So you're not condescending, eh? Here are a few of your gems, from this post alone:

"I reject these complaints"

"It is an ASOP! One ought not be surprised to find that professional examinations in a specialty track at FSA level would refer to the Actuarial Standards of Practice in that practice area. Can you really claim to be surprised?"

"Now can you really tell me with a straight face that this is just "remotely related to group/health practice"? "

"the FSA credential is accepted as "basic education""

"And the question was just 4 points, for crying out loud!"

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

"Spare me this nonsense. You can't seriously believe this."

"Really, to anyone who knows me and my long history with the exams, it just looks ridiculous."


You don't get it. The point a lot of us are trying to make is that we want an SoA president we can respect. I don't have to give you my name. I don't owe you anything. You, however, are the SoA president-elect. Starting acting like it.

[Commander Keen]

Originally Posted by Monkey Bars

So you're not condescending, eh? Here are a few of your gems, from this post alone:

"I reject these complaints"

"It is an ASOP! One ought not be surprised to find that professional examinations in a specialty track at FSA level would refer to the Actuarial Standards of Practice in that practice area. Can you really claim to be surprised?"

"Now can you really tell me with a straight face that this is just "remotely related to group/health practice"? "

"the FSA credential is accepted as "basic education""

"And the question was just 4 points, for crying out loud!"

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

"Spare me this nonsense. You can't seriously believe this."

"Really, to anyone who knows me and my long history with the exams, it just looks ridiculous."


You don't get it. The point a lot of us are trying to make is that we want an SoA president we can respect. I don't have to give you my name. I don't owe you anything. You, however, are the SoA president-elect. Starting acting like it.

wow. none of those seem overly condescending to me... Seems like there's been a lot of people being unnecessarily condescending towards Bruce, I guess he should lay back and take it, right?

[Commander Keen]

and you're right. The president should go back into hiding and avoid interacting with the society members and future members. That'd be a good thing, right?