OK I'm having to repeat myself now but just for clarity:
I'm arguing that for CA3 in Aug, then in Nov, there's been a fundamental shift in the nature of Q1.
- First with the introduction of graph requirements (data entry, graph creation, labelling, inserting tidily into document etc.) in addition to 600 words, without corresponding increase in exam time- unfair.
- Secondly in Nov by not having an actuarial topic. Whoever wrote Q1 didn't even fulfil the description of what the exam is meant to be. This means the acted preparation had become inadequate.
I ask why acted were not informed of these developments & given the chance to update their materials? Why do the examiners suddenly want to waste our time with graphs in Q1 & want us to communicate coffee machine marketing instead of an actuarial topic? That's not fair compared to all the CA3 exams for many years. I'm not asking to be only examined on things I've seen before but that Q1 satisfies its description and is in line with what we've been prepared to do by acted. Q2 I have no complaints about.
You made a jibe about me wasting energy. I'll tell you what wasting energy really is - spending hours and £ sending assignments to be marked by acted, stressing over whether the words I've used are too actuarial 'jargon' or not, having to explain to acted markers (& some of them used to mark the CA3 exam) that 'premium' and 'lump-sum' are not jargon that I shouldn't be punished with 20 marks deductions etc. when in the end the exam paper failed to give us an actuarial topic in Q1. Now that's a waste of time and energy.
Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2016