CSP-GH Examination Committee and Question 11

[drakestudent]

Originally Posted by bdschobel

How much longer are we going to talk about this without saying anything new? The exam is over, the grades are released, nothing is going to change. Some people believe that the SOA did a terrible thing; others, like me, disagree. Are we done now?

Bruce

There are several folks out there who studied for 4-6 months and waited more than 2 months for the results of this examination. Results have been out, what, 10 days now? That's a very small faction of the time that many students poured into taking this test.

Just because YOU have attended several meetings addressing the botched examination and how it should have been handled and just because YOU want the whole issue to blow over doesn't mean that the CSP-GH takers who were victimized are over it yet.

No one is forcing you read or comment on this thread, Bruce.

[bdschobel]

Have a ball!

And the exam was not botched. Nobody in the SOA's E&E hierarchy or staff agrees with you on that. Enough already!

Bruce

[drakestudent]

Originally Posted by bdschobel

Have a ball!

And the exam was not botched. Nobody in the SOA's E&E hierarchy or staff agrees with you on that. Enough already!

Bruce

If there was nothing wrong with the examination, you probably wouldn't have discussed it in all those meetings you were complaining about.

[bdschobel]

OK, the exam was a terrible travesty. Nobody's results count. Everybody has to retake it. (Just kidding!)

Bruce

[dhyamamoto]

I am somewhat dismayed by this thread because when I read the question, I thought it was pretty basic and almost a "gimme." For anyone working in the area, the response should have been automatic. Before I get slammed making that statement, yes, I know that most taking this exam do not work in this area but the reason I wrote it here is that if you ever do actually work on retiree group benefit valuations, you have a lot more studying to do.

[Surfohio]

Raise your hand if you got a 5 on this exam, did not read about the updated syllabus prior to the exam, and think you got fewer two points on this problem.

[JMO]

Originally Posted by Surfohio

Raise your hand if you got a 5 on this exam, did not read about the updated syllabus prior to the exam, and think you got fewer two points on this problem.

Sorry, I didn't take the exam at all.

[yanz]

Originally Posted by Surfohio

Raise your hand if you got a 5 on this exam, did not read about the updated syllabus prior to the exam, and think you got fewer two points on this problem.

wouldn't the breakdown tell you that for sure? Looks like all 3 are [easy to check] facts

[bdschobel]

Originally Posted by Surfohio

Raise your hand if you got a 5 on this exam, did not read about the updated syllabus prior to the exam, and think you got fewer two points on this problem.

At the risk of getting my facts not quite right, something like 90% of the candidates got less than 1 point on the question. So it had essentially no effect on who passed and who failed. Can we move on, please? Pretty please? Pretty please with sugar on top?

Bruce

[drakestudent]

Originally Posted by dhyamamoto

I am somewhat dismayed by this thread because when I read the question, I thought it was pretty basic and almost a "gimme." For anyone working in the area, the response should have been automatic. Before I get slammed making that statement, yes, I know that most taking this exam do not work in this area but the reason I wrote it here is that if you ever do actually work on retiree group benefit valuations, you have a lot more studying to do.

If you've read this thread, you should have found that my objection had nothing to do with the question being easy (as I'm sure some, particularily those who knew of the syllabus change, found it) or hard (I've talked at least one person who thought they did well on it even though they didn't know of the syllabus change, but only managed a 1, so in all reality you probably needed to know the list directly from the study note to get sufficient credit).

My objection is to the fact of inequal information and the fact that the SOA was alerted of the situation and admittedly did nothing to remedy it. Some takers knew a question on this information was coming, and others had no way of knowing to read the appendix tested, as they were not informed nor given time to react. Therefore, to be fair to everyone, the exam should have be graded out of the points that everyone had fair access to, not those where there was a great inequity.

Don't you think this seem like a reasonable solution to the problem?