Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I just registered myself! Good luck! What study resources are you using? I’m just reading Warner & Modlin and using the posted past exams.
Hi everybody – would like to modify my commentary on this due to the recent delay in the Exam 5 results – TAKE THE CAS ONLINE COURSES!
Thank you! In that case for the original author I 100% recommend “knocking out” online course 2 while awaiting exam results. I’m in a similar boat and I want to attempt online course 1 although I tend to go into a bit of a post exam “rest mode” for a bit after I take an exam. We’re all eagerly and hopefully awaiting results at the moment and can’t really “move on” or “go back to studying for Exam 5” until we know if we passed or failed.
I don’t really bother with deducting points as there is judgement involved and I don’t always know if an exam grader would have accepted or rejected my answer. I figure my time is better spent moving on to the next question!
How do you deduct points against yourself?
Yes q 2 would be (475 + 30) * .45 sorry this response wasn’t emailed to me you must not have replied directly to my thread.
Yes. Start with the easy one- 2017 q 1 is clearly 5% bc started writing then. Next do 247.5/(100+450)= .45 for 2 q 2017 And so forth.
Studyingissofun I just want to confirm something about the exam administration this time as it is CBD – are we still given the same amount of time to take the exam (I believe 6 minutes per question with a total of 4 hours is it)?
If this is the case, did you feel that you were able to finish the exam more quickly since you were using excel instead of just a calculator?
You are correct excuse my comment. However I would say that in about 99% of practice problems, we are just given the number of exposures or claims required for full credibility. I guess what i am saying is that for this sitting they really often either presented a new “twist” on a topic causing a deviation of some sort either large or small from the source material OR in this case with the standard normal example, they went deep into the syllibus and selected the least commonly practiced/mentioned topics (I forgot that this was even in the source material and of course I did not double check this before posting) for the exam.
Thank you TryhardActuary for posting this. Fall 2019 was also my second attempt and I also got a 5. I got a 4 the fist time that I took the exam. Something needs to happen because the exam and the study materials should match – weather that be the source materials change to match the exam (in which case the CAS should continue to publish exams after they have been given) or the exams should be a better match of the source materials.
Yes I feel that the source materials should also change and perhaps teach Harwayne’s method in more depth in addition to other topics.
I don’t want this, or any exam, to be “too easy”. There was also a question for credibility that involved using the normal distribution table in order to calculate total number of claims needed for full credibility. I don’t believe that using the normal distribution for calculating credibility was covered in the materials (to this degree) for this exam and there are plenty of other methods to choose from that ARE covered in the source material. This begs the question as to why in the world was this selected as the method for calculating the compliment of credibility?
I would like to express my concern regarding the degree of difficulty for the fall 2019 sitting of this exam and also the relationship of the exam to the source material.
I feel that the questions were sometimes asked in a way that was arguably too different from the way that the concepts are presented in Werner and Modlin. Once I review the solutions to these questions, I understand and even appreciate the new way of looking at the topic, however I don’t feel that the exam was an appropriate place to introduce new “twists” on tested concepts.
For instance, in the text and all prior exams and practice exams that I took, Hawayne’s method had three territories, one base and two to use for the compliment. Each territory had two sub categories. Then in the exam itself, the Harwayne question had TWO territories and FOUR subcategories within each territory.
I’m torn about this as of course we should all understand how to modify calculations for any number of territories and subcategories, however unfortunately I don’t feel that this was covered thoroughly enough in the Werner and Modlin source material.
This is not the only example of this problem.
Now the CAS has announced that it will no longer be publishing exams that are given. The problem is that if the exams are going to be asking questions in a very different way from how the topics are presented in Werner and Modlin, then they should be publishing the exams so that either study material creators can modify their materials or students can at least have more practice material that will actually be applicable to the material that will be in the exam.
Either that or I feel that the exams should more closely represent the source material. Harwayne’s method isn’t thoroughly covered in Werner and Modlin. It’s covered but not in great depth and I feel that this question was one that one would not be able to answer correctly if their understanding of Harwayne’s method did not extend beyond the scope of the source material.
Either source material needs to change to better match the exams or the exams need to better match the source material.
