How to kick Course 6

[StuckInMud]

I am wondering about those DVDs of a seminar? Could that be a possible satisfactory "JAM Seminar" replacement (seeing as people are reporting that JAM is full already)?

[WhoDat]

I know several people who have made it through the exam process without a failing mark (wish I could lay claim to that). Unfortunately, what works for one person may not work for another--simple fact of life. A study method that works isn't good or bad, right or wrong--it's simply one that works for a particular person. Find what works for you. I did manage to get through 6 on the first shot by:

1) Reading the texts and taking notes (helps me recall information).
2) Doing practice problems suggested in the JAM manual.
3) Reading the JAM outline (not the condensed outline).
4) Listening to the JAM cd's while going to/from work.
5) Working through all the m.c. questions from past exams--very important if you haven't seen the format before. The mc isn't a large % of the exam, but it can give you some confidence heading into the essays if you can nail that section.

Except for listening to the JAM cd's while driving, I didn't focus much on just memorizing lists. Of courses 5 & 6, I think that this can more easily be passed from a good grasp of basic concepts. Maybe 5 can, but I didn't have much luck last time around.

I don't know anybody who used the BPP, but I don't recall seeing anything negative posted about it either. Good luck to all who take it in '05.

[fingerscrossed]

Where can I find information about the JAM seminar?

[Dr T Non-Fan]

www.studyjam.com

There, you'll discover that the seminars are full, as are the waiting lists.

Sorry.

[quixotic]

Dig…
"IMO, people who fail and claim they knew the material better than those that passed are only kidding themselves.”
"I don't understand why people think learning from study manuals implies that you have an inferior understanding of the material.”

These are classic BAMA comments. Let's point out the inherent logical inconsistency in BAMA's repartee, shall we? First of all, BAMA's trenchant admonishment: “You have to make a decision..."
and the sentence that follows thereafter "I don't understand why people..." are inconsistent. Even under the supposition that BAMA's qualification: "the correlation is close to 1" is true, there still exist a non-empty set of students who learn the material and DON'T pass the exam. The arcane and surreptitious manner in which the exams are created, graded, and the passmark determined increases the size of this set, or at least makes the proof that an element doesn't, in fact, belong to the set next to impossible. Further, it is common knowledge that the exams are intended to be a weed out process as much as, or even more, than they are meant to be an educational process. Given that these latter points are common knowledge to actuarial students; it requires a quorum of hubris to make such comments.

No, they are not mutually exclusive, but they are definitely not perfectly correlated. With such a massive amount of material on the syllabus, it is possible to "learn too much" in a sense (to much of the wrong thing).
Every other Course 6 except May 2004 had at least 10 points which required memorization of the challenging lists in the supplementary SN’s. This Course 6 had none, or hardly any. In addition, the syllabus contains a lot of interesting material that was not covered. Material that I thought to be more worthy of testing than some of the stuff they tend to ask.

While I greatly admire BAMA's exam success, I find some of BAMA's statements to be disturbing. Believe it or not, one most likely DOES, in fact, learn more by reading the texts carefully, and may at the same time, in fact, get a lower score than someone who did not learn as much but rather employed a more effective study strategy or just got lucky in the material that they chose to concentrate on, or ignore. This is not a paradox. From what I remember BAMA saying before May, living up to his appellation, BAMA gambled and didn’t study ¼ to 1/3 of the syllabus; no doubt skipping all the long lists in the SN’s which saved him A LOT of time not to mention hard drive space. Had they asked one or two of these LONG, abstruse, list questions from the SN's, things may have been different.

Certainly, someone as intelligent and with such an intimate knowledge of the actuarial examination process as BAMA should realize that aforementioned situation is not only possible, but significantly present in the current actuarial examination process.
To deny it is either an affront to one's fellow students, or a sign of ignorance.

It just so happens that the Course 6 texts are actually good, and fill in a lot of the details that the study matierials neglect. Material that the exam committee sought out this time, and put on the exam.

Don't make the same mistake I did. Read the texts.

[oscar peterson]

I wonder what percent of the 'never-failers' - or close to it - neglect the textbooks? I feel a poll coming on....... (....see exam general section)

[Ralph Wiggum]

Originally Posted by Bama Gambler

If you [ahem]waste[/ahem] a lot of hours reading the text books, then yeah 500 would be necessary. If you don't mind depending on Carmody to teach you how to work the problems, then you can save yourself a lot of effort. Before Carmody's seminar, studying was tough and I didn't feel like I knew much. After the seminar, studying was extremely productive and my confidence grew rapidly.

I completely disagree with the part about reading the texts as being a waste of time. I consider myself a pretty slow reader, .5-1 pages per minute depending on the text, so getting through it all takes maybe about 40 hours - a fraction of what you will study overall. I am 2 for 3 on the essays while doing this and have spent little more than the work provided hours on each exam. I admit 6 was the one that I missed, but I do tend to game the exams and focus on what I think will be tested (also relying heavily on Carmodys advice), so I missed the oddball questions last year.

[Roto]

Originally Posted by Ralph Wiggum

I completely disagree with the part about reading the texts as being a waste of time. I consider myself a pretty slow reader, .5-1 pages per minute depending on the text, so getting through it all takes maybe about 40 hours - a fraction of what you will study overall. I am 2 for 3 on the essays while doing this and have spent little more than the work provided hours on each exam. I admit 6 was the one that I missed, but I do tend to game the exams and focus on what I think will be tested (also relying heavily on Carmodys advice), so I missed the oddball questions last year.

.5-1 page per minute IS NOT a slow reader... not even close! I (seriously) read 10-15 pages PER HOUR. Of course, I'm convinced I suffer from ADD ...

[Ralph Wiggum]

Originally Posted by Roto

.5-1 page per minute IS NOT a slow reader... not even close! I (seriously) read 10-15 pages PER HOUR. Of course, I'm convinced I suffer from ADD ...

I find some of the texts do read that way. Are you taking notes/highlighting? I am usually just reading to be exposed to it all once.

[rekrap]

Originally Posted by Ralph Wiggum

I find some of the texts do read that way. Are you taking notes/highlighting? I am usually just reading to be exposed to it all once.

Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck! Duck!