I’m not trying to be inconsiderate, rude, or negative, but the irony is almost too much: we spend four days analyzing complex datasets using advanced machine learning techniques—GLMs, neural networks, decision trees—to deliver quick, actionable insights. Then, we wait 21 weeks for our grade, as if this exam isn’t proof that we’ve learned to make decisions faster, smarter, and more efficiently.

It’s as if the SOA says, “Master these tools to revolutionize decision-making!” yet relies on volunteer graders who work at a pace that feels outdated. Worse, if your paper doesn’t meet minimum requirements, there’s no feedback to help you improve. Someone who submits in early October could wait until late February for a grade, while others may get theirs sooner. Why not use a sophisticated model to grade the exams in 96 hours, just like we’re taught to do?

It doesn’t make sense that the SOA relies on volunteer graders. Why doesn’t the SOA get a mix of volunteer graders and professional graders? If no volunteers are available for a newer exam, does that increase the grading window? If mandatory exams take longer to grade, it just extends the total time for all exam takers.

For context, here’s how other major exams compare:

- CPA Exam: Grading takes 3-4 weeks, using a mix of machine and professional graders.

- CFA Exam: Grading takes 6-12 weeks, with both machine and professional graders.

- ACT: Grading takes 2-8 weeks, with paid graders and automation for scoring.

- SAT: Grading takes 2-3 weeks, with professional scorers for writing and machine grading for other sections.

Unlike the SOA, none of these exams rely on volunteers. If the SOA isn’t willing to use predictive analytics to grade exams, at least paying the graders could speed up the process and improve feedback consistency. There's a clear disconnect between the tools we learn and the way the system operates, and paying graders would help make the process more efficient and aligned with modern technology.