Amp – I definitely complain a lot. I personally with just exam 9, have studied well over a 1,000 hours for that exam. I have shared my thoughts that I think they do a poor job testing the material, rather than testing exam aptitude or IQ of candidates.
I think it is fair to point out the committee hasn’t passed these challenging exams. They keep asking more and more from candidates.
Amp – You’re partially correct. There’s always something you can do better to pass an actuarial exam. That said, always an element of luck involved. Don’t assume the people complaining haven’t put in the work. I guarantee you there’s no one who’s gonna be passionate about these discussions who’s putting in less than 400+ solid, proactive hours per sitting. When you know you messed up and didn’t put in the work, you’re more likely to stay silent. That’s what I’ve observed but hey, I could be wrong.
One thing I find fascinating is that when you talk to someone who got their FCAS in the 90s (the True/False era), they make it sound like they had it so much harder than us. They talk about having “more exams” not having any familiarity with the degree of difficulty with recent exams.
And amp, I guess that’s democracy. If you something wrong, speak up. I also guarantee that i put in 400+ and felt like really good going into exam. I feel like I know material well, but also feel very paranoid stating assumptions in exam settings for fear of deductions. And for sure, some exams I passed could have gone either way. I will say that there was luck involved. A qualified candidate should never feel lucky to pass.