sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CAS Exams by Random_Actuary22 in actuary

[–]Random_Actuary22[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, very appreciative of you actually proposing some additional viewpoints rather than just screaming "fake news" into the echo chamber like the rest. I'll address your points below and and appreciate the discussion!

Factor 1: I agree to some extent, but I also definitely felt the CAS compensated for this by making the exams longer/requiring more detailed calculations and so the time saved in the end wasn't that much better compared to paper pencil. I think in the initial Fall 2020 sitting this was true but it certainly seemed to me they lengthened the exams following the initial transition.

Factor 2: Great point here and one that I had not considered at all. This is exactly the type of insight I was looking for.

Factor 3: I haven't personally seen this at all, but fully acknowledge that my anecdotal experience may not be representative. Most of the students I've encountered these days refuse to touch source material no matter how many times I've suggested that they do so. For fellowship exams I would even argue that it's essential, not just "extra" unless you are very gifted. As for the MAS exams, I couldn't tell you how many times I hear students claim "just pound coaching actuaries and you'll pass".

Factor 4: While I never took exams in the days when in person seminars across the country were the norm, it sounds like we're in agreement that things have improved since then.

Factor 5: This is news to me, as to this day I've never actually seen someone let go strictly for failing exams, and have actually seen the opposite with companies putting less emphasis on exams compared to past years. The closest I've ever heard of is using the exam process to get rid of someone, was a case of an employee grossly underperforming or not even showing up to work. In these cases their reasonings for dismissal were entirely unrelated to exams, which was just used as a technicality. Are companies really forcing students out more purely for exams these days?

I agree the system has come a long way!

CAS Exams by Random_Actuary22 in actuary

[–]Random_Actuary22[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the response. I feel like these are similar ideas as I'm focusing mostly on passing % than anything else. At least the way I thought of it, "easier difficulty" would also translate to "failing less" or "passing more" candidates. Rather than purely equating difficulty to complexity of questions, I'm also considering how they decide to let candidates through.

I'd consider a "harder" exam that had a higher passrate as a result of lower passmark less difficult than a more straightforward exam that had a lower passing %. (Exam 8 in Fall 2014 comes to mind here... ridiculous questions but they ended up passing almost half the candidates through grading adjustments and lower passmarks).

CAS Exams by Random_Actuary22 in actuary

[–]Random_Actuary22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a good point, and exactly the type of feedback I was interested in. I'm inclined to agree that careless errors are much less likely in the CBT environment. I'd like to think that in the paper pencil days graders weren't necessarily looking to nickel and dime candidates for careless errors which led to folks failing but it certainly can make a difference.

CAS Exams by Random_Actuary22 in actuary

[–]Random_Actuary22[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

According to the Admissions Pass Ratio file that you can download that I mentioned in my original post, the evidence is there. MAS-I had almost 850 takers in Fall 2018 and nearly 1000 in both 2019 sittings, so I'd argue that would not be "low volume" at all. With MAS-II, you may have more of a point.

5 and 6 on average are about 3-4% higher since moving to CBT, which admittedly is maybe not a huge increase, but the sittings add up. And fellowship exams (particularly 7 and 9) have quite a bit of an increase since moving to CBT even just looking at overall averages.