ACAS will be scrapped. Near Associates please read!

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

Bullfrog wrote:

If you want to go into an exam with some confidence that you will pass, memorizing the lists is vital.

Many claim to believe this, however it simply isn't so. There certainly is no evidence that it is true. I know many candidates that finally learned how to study for these exams and then were able to knock the rest down --- in most cases the story they tell is that they gave up trying to memorize the material and decided to learn it instead.

[Bullfrog1220]

Jeanne Swanson wrote:

First, it really has nothing to do with mutual recognition. The Board has been granted the authority to establish mutual recognition policies under specific circumstances, and they will probably do so with the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (UK and Scotland), and the Institute of Actuaries of Australia. Whether we have Associate members does not impact this. These mutual recognition agreements will undoubtedly be at the FCAS level anyway.

tommie frazier wrote:

I will re-state why the CAS might be interested:

In order to facilitate mutual recognition, the CAS may want to remove the ACAS and create a single class of members.

I still don't quite understand the motive.

[Howard Mahler]

Originally Posted by Bullfrog

After reading Mr. Mahler's and Mrs. Fisher's testimony, I get the feeling that's not even feasible. So, why should I spend the next couple of years trying to pass three more exams just to become a member of a society that refuses to make meaningful changes, when necessary? Are the politics within the CAS really that bad?

Let me clarify my comments.
I spent 12 years on the CAS Exam Committee, including three years as the head.
During that time I was able to make a difference, and hopefully made the exams and exam process a little better.

My comments referred to the recent CAS Future Education Taskforce.

Unlike a taskforce whose job is to advise, the Exam Committee actually does things. I believe Ginda Fisher also made this distinction in her comments.

Howard Mahler

[Howard Mahler]

Originally Posted by Bullfrog

So the CAS is considering the possibility of removing ACAS, despite contrary recommendations from the task force assigned to looking into it.

One of the many, many items the FETF considered was the question of designations. I was told that the CAS Board found no value in the work of the FETF in this area.

After the CAS Future Education Taskforce concluded its work,
the CAS Board appointed a new taskforce to look into the ACAS question.
The CAS Board will be considering that new taskforce's recommendations.

Which is the what I believe started this thread.

Howard Mahler

P.S. I predict that if it is felt by the CAS Board that action can be taken without a vote of the membership, it is about a 75% chance that the ACAS will be phased out. This prediction is worth what you paid for it.
If it has to go to a vote of the membership (FCASs), I would estimate the odds at about 50% rather than 75%.
To make it clear, we would be talking about not granting any new ACASs after a certain future date. All current ACASs would retain their designations.

[Ginda Fisher]

I also felt that I was able to make a difference as a volunteer on committees that do things, such as they syllabus and exam committees. I hope the difference was an improvement.

I guess re designations the board will keep appointing task forces until it gets the answer it wants. I feel we need a "partway" designation that can be grandfathered when the syllabus changes. I don't know that "ACAS" is the right point, but I will be very disappointed if we drop ACAS without creating a new designation.

As for memorizing lists: I never did it. Well, I never memorized more than one or two lists per exam. If the question said "list five XYZs" and I understood the paper, I could usually get 3-4, and 70% is a passing score. The only exam I really struggled with was one where I initially thought I could pass by memorizing enough formulas - it wasn't until I buckled down and learned what they all meant that I actually passed the durn thing.

[jets fan]

Originally Posted by Jeanne Swanson

With all this in mind (and probably other considerations that I'm forgetting at the moment), the task force concluded that it would make the most sense for the CAS to only have one class of qualified membership. The Board did not vote on this recommendation yet, but it agrees with the direction.

I think this goes back to the beginning. Why did the CAS have two classes of membership in the first place? What was it that led us down that path (and why did we continue to stay with that path for so many years) verses what is reality right now and are those reasons that we started with (continued with) still valid? So far, I am for the idea of having two classes, but I think the line between them might be able to be moved to a different place to address different concerns.

* The educational level for the single class of membership (FCAS) should be set somewhere in between the current requirements for ACAS and FCAS.

I can't help but think that this would decrease the value of those FCAS designations that were earned before this change would go into place. I don't really subscribe to the "I went through Hell therefore you must also go through Hell" mentality (I think there's always room for improvement and change is often necessary), but right now FCAS means a certain knowledge level and if that knowledge level is lowered, the designation won't mean what it used to.

* We would continue to grant ACAS designations for some period of time so that those currently working toward the ACAS would be able to achieve it. They were talking about timeframes of either 3-5 or 7-10 years.

* There was no concensus on whether eventually all ACAS's would be turned into FCAS designations or if we would continue to have "run-off" ACAS's.

If current ACASs are automatically turned into FCASs, we're back to the point I made above - the value of the FCAS earned under the current requirements would lessen. And if we'll have run-off ACASs, I think it will be a long time before we finally get to having only one class of membership. I'll guess that the grace period ACASs and the current ACASs who are in the late 20s, early 30s age group will (hopefully) live another 40-50 years, so it will be at least that long before we really get to a one-membership society. So I would ask what current needs does going to a one membership society address if we won't realistically get there for another 40+ years (assuming we have run-off ACASs)?

* The Board agreed that there should be some form of recognition to candidates who have gone part-way through the exams. There's no details on what this might be, but it would not be a designation (letters).

I think this speaks to the "diploma idea" that was mentioned. But I am asking myself what the difference is between a diploma and the current piece of paper that says you passed 4 exams? Recognition in the yearbook? Currently, the candidates with 4 exams have their name in the list of passing candidates (which is public), the "verify your exam status" section of the CAS website (also public), and the "CAS Candidate Exam Status" list in the "Members Only" section of the CAS website (open only to CAS members) - they seem to already have a good amount of recognition. I guess I just don't see how having a diploma (and no letters) is any better than where we are right now.

I hope everyone keeps adding their input because there are a lot of different points of view to consider - I know my "stance" is not really etched in stone on these issues. But right now, I'm in the two membership classes camp (although I think the ACAS line can be altered) with no diploma for four exams.

[GefilteFish144]

As for memorizing lists: I never did it. Well, I never memorized more than one or two lists per exam. If the question said "list five XYZs" and I understood the paper, I could usually get 3-4, and 70% is a passing score. The only exam I really struggled with was one where I initially thought I could pass by memorizing enough formulas - it wasn't until I buckled down and learned what they all meant that I actually passed the durn thing.

For some papers (e.g., Ginda's paper on pricing aggregate deductibles -- very well written, by the way) the preferred method is learning the papers. But for many, especially on Part 7 and the CPCU material for Part 5, you had to memorize lists up the wazoo. If there were more emphasis on conceptual information and less emphasis on minute details the exam process would be a much better learning experience. Unfortunately, the CAS has not yet figured out how to test concepts instead of rote memorization, and whenever they experiment (e.g., 1997 Exam 7) the results tend to be disastrous.

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

GefilteFish144 wrote:

But for many, especially on Part 7 and the CPCU material for Part 5, you had to memorize lists up the wazoo.

I still maintain that this simply isn't so. Why don't you find a couple of problems off of a recent Part 7 or Part 5 exam that require a memorized list? Ginda’s right; I'll bet that if you understand why the law or the policy reads the way that it does you will be able today, possibly years after having taken the exam, to get 65-70% of the points. If you forget it all when you walk out of the exam room, you really have wasted your time studying.

[GefilteFish144]

Why don't you find a couple of problems off of a recent Part 7 or Part 5 exam that require a memorized list?

I took Exam 7 in May, and there were tons of problems that either required a memorized list or multiple choice problems that pulled data off a list to memorize. I'll give you an example:

Exam 7 #27

Which of the following coverages has been identified as a source of potentially significant exposure to terrorism losses?

1. Financial Guaranty
2. Workers Comp
3. Fidelity

This was pulled off a list from one of the appendices of the paper regarding Statement of Actuarial Opinion. This is an example of how often the CAS tests some petty detail in a particular paper rather than capture some of the more important issues regarding statements of opinions.

I can give you several more examples just in that one exam alone if I had the time.

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

Workers Comp? Sure, workers could get hurt on the job.

Financial Guaranty? Yes, a subway bombing could reduce ridership, leading to a default on a guarantied loan.

Fidelity? I don't think so. How could a terrorist attack increase employee fraud?

There you go. I'm sure that that is the right answer.