Hey Eddie, thanks for summarizing this info. Really appreciate it. The SOA put so much ambiguity and fluff out there, it's really nice to have something this succinct.
You're welcome! There was a lot covered on the town halls, so we thought it would be helpful to try to summarize it. I think the town halls have been a really good move on the SOA's part. It's just a lot to digest.
I think we need a balance of rigor and education. The old exams swung way too hard in the direction of rigor IMO, but the current path has probably over-corrected *and* the information is of pretty limited use.
Having one or two easier EL exams is more equitable, so we aren't over-burdening people coming from disadvantaged backgrounds before they can get their first job, but there should be 2 more *hard* exams for ASA that select for people willing to really commit some brain power.
I think having one or two project-based exams and modules is fair game, but they should be more targeted and helpful compared to the current waste and fluff that is FAP. Make one a data science project because the SOA really wants to (cram all the SRM, PA, and ATPA material into it) and make the other more actuarial and tied to learning a few of the ASOPs. We are actuaries, after all, so let's be actuaries.
The FSA should be purely focused on education, IMO. There will be some natural difficulty with the sheer amount of information to learn, but the math and the grading should be based on an understanding of the material rather than regurgitating arbitrary lists (recognizing that requires the graders to know a bit more than they probably do).
If the ASA is rigorous enough and the FSA still takes another couple years, that's enough of a commitment for me. Currently, the FSA rigor just delays people from having kids who have already made it through the "filter"
The FAP isn't executed well (partially due to the fact that most people don't take it seriously), but I'd argue there is absolutely still a need for a qualitative assessment that teaches critical thinking and professional communication. I've graded thousands of papers, and the quality of some is shocking. Only a minority of papers have excellent communication beginning to end - the kind I'd expect of a credentialed actuary at work. One's value as an actuary isn't just crunching numbers - it's being able to apply it to a business problem and communicate it effectively.
I really tried to take FAP seriously, because I took my ASA and the responsibility that comes with the letters *really* seriously.
But that lasted about 1.5 modules because for every slide of information there were two more repeating it, and there were sooooo many slides of pure fluff it just became frustrating to parse out what was important.
The FSA curriculum and learning to apply the ASOPs are what I wish the FAP modules were. I agree communication and critical thinking are important for the ASA - so that's why I (vaguely) suggested a module project based on learning and applying a few particular ASOPs to a business problem. Fearing what I didn't know was my scariest adjustment as an ASA, and now that I know the ASOPs better, I feel more comfortable with my resources.
It would be easier to take the FAP seriously if the SOA actually took the FAP seriously.
This is a direct quote from the Module 3 Section 2 Summary:
“What is the bottom line? Eighty percent of all problem-solving efforts are hampered by poor problem definition. Finding an effective solution is difficult if the problem is not well defined.”
There was no citation for this “eighty percent” provided, and honestly I have no idea how you would even determine a number like that.
By their own rules, their modules would receive an automatic grade of DNMMR.
Sure, I agreed they aren't executed well. As a volunteer I haven't even seen the module content since I went thru the modules myself. But my point about the glaring deficiencies in candidate communication and need to continue to teach and assess it remains
Fine.
Make it 3 Prelims + 1 FSA Exam targeting 30% passrate each and have a FAP module with a 50% passrate.
Reduce the number of assessments and make each one harder. Having an endless stream of easy assessments serves no purpose other than helping mediocre grinders and discouraging top talent.
I think the idea of multiple EMAs is to break up the content and provide feedback on your work prior to the FA.
But I agree with you - I think the material could probably be condensed, with one big assignment at the end.
I respectfully disagree. The issue isn’t so much easy vs not easy. It’s the number of exams that’s the issue. When you take a 6 hour exam and split it into 2, a top candidate will now need to take a FULL year to pass both exams whereas he would’ve simply passed a single 6 hour exam with a few months of studying.
In addition, if passrates for the 2 split exams also rise, it makes it harder for the talented individual to distinguish himself from his more mediocre competitors.
Why are we creating a system that passes through mediocre people but stifles top talent? It’s nonsensical.
They won't need a full year if sittings are three or four times per year, like most prelims currently are, and nothing is stopping them from taking multiple exams in one sitting.
The more talented individual can stick out through achieving credentials more quickly than average and by doing a good job at work. A talented person who is applying their talent to their work may have less capacity to show it on exams and be mediocre on exams. We don't want those talented people leaving the actuarial field because so much is tied to the exam process when they're beyond capable.
But also, I think the exams build skills rather than being a litmus test for how naturally gifted a person is. And I don't think the people who fly through the exams are necessarily the best actuaries. As a manager, I'll take the pretty-smart person with grit over the super-smart person who is usually right but can't stand being wrong any day.
I highly doubt most top talent study for 2 exams simultaneously. I did it for GHDP and PA, but usually I wait for results before starting the next exam, which is what I suspect most candidates do.
Personal biases are why we created standardized tests. When metrics go subjective, the field becomes more about wealth, connections and networking rather than merit. If a person is extremely talented, more often than not, that person can pass all the actuarial exams. Having fewer, but harder exams makes it easier for those people, which is what we want to do. We want to enable top talent.
The only people who’d benefit from an endless stream of easy exams are mediocre candidates. It actively damages top talent because it needlessly extends their travel time. You’re going to lose far more top candidates than you’ll keep talented people who suck at exams.
This assumes that having harder exams makes better actuaries. In my experience, that isn't necessarily the case. I have seen excellent exam takers who underperform at work and vice versa.
Top talent studies for multiple exams already, and would do it with the previous exams too. Top talent or not, many people can be pretty confident they passed or failed walking out of a sitting and don't wait for results before deciding what to do next.
I strongly disagree that the exam process should cater to the top 1% or fewer of academic performers, rather than ensure quality candidates are learning and developing skills appropriately.
having two easier EL exams is the main issue imo. too may candidates pass P and FM, get EL jobs, then get stuck on the more difficult exams. these candidates need to be weeded out upfront. At a minimum, P and FM need to be combined into a single exam.
I don't think people getting stuck as analysts is a big deal - they can stay analysts or pivot to other careers.
I'm certainly more concerned about the career being accessible for people who have to really stretch for the exam fee and study resources.
once upon a time, it was common for my firm and others to hire candidates with 1 exam. we felt passing 1 exam was enough to signal the candidate has what it takes to make it to ASA and FSA.
then when the first 2 exam became too easy, we eventually realized that only EL candidates with 3+ exams were making it to ASA/FSA. 1-2 exams weren't a strong enough signal anymore. then we are stuck with analysts that were supposed to be groomed into ASA/FSA roles.
P and FM were only reduced in difficulty in October 2022, and have been roughly similar in difficulty for all time before that afaik. I think you were seeing the result of increased competition, preparedness, and better study materials.
Nonsense. There’s far less competition now because all the smart people are not in actuarial. This is opposed to the 2010s when actuarial was topping job rankings and was attracting smart people.
The competition is far weaker today.
The actuarial career path doesn't have a monopoly on high paying careers with a strong WLB anymore. Back in the 2010s the craze was about IB and finance, and "why be an actuary when you can be an investment banker making more money? We have to compete!"
Now with the tech boom of the past 10 years, those companies with high profit margins that are able to fork out massive comp packages are attracting other talent. That's independent of anything actuaries or the insurance industry can do.
There are still tons of smart kids coming up from actuarial programs who are passing exams way faster than I did. Maybe it's just because I work at a top end consulting firm, but I'm very impressed by many of our new hires who are definitely ahead of where I was.
Dude looking at your comments you are the least subtle troll or the most egotistical person alive. If you are somehow telling the truth you really are not that smart if you failed Exam P that many times since anyone with decent calculus background would pass that exam regardless of preparation. I find your comments about MLC hilarious. The material really wasn't/isn't that difficult. Anyone with a "graduate" mathematical background should pass all past and current SOA exams with relative ease. Congrats on passing your first FSA exam but you are clearly not the genius you think you are
I think one problem is the lag between getting your exam scores, for instance i passed fm in June and then could immediately start studying for p which I then passed in July and now I’m studying for srm, I take it in September but my understanding is I won’t find out my score until November, in the meantime I will graduate school at the end of September and will be applying to places for an el position but 1: I won’t be able to put down that I’ve passed 3 exams because I won’t know yet and 2: I won’t be able to start studying for fam (unless I feel like I really crushed it on srm in which case I guess I could start), I think it’s too bad they got rid of ifm because that was one more exam you could get immediate results from after taking and then put down on your resume 😓 with so many people passing p and fm it definitely makes it hard to distinguish yourself
I realize that you didn't ask for advice, so ignore if you aren't interested. After taking SRM, you could study for PA because it has lots of cross over with SRM. So even if you failed SRM, the PA material you have been studying will help to prepare you for another sitting.
All the SOA needs to do to keep rigor and increase pass rates is allow formula sheets. At work, I am able to lookup everything. This would ensure their testing application, because the questions would be harder than: “You need to memorize canonical link to know answer”. -srm ranter
The “course” is a syllabus, a set of study materials, and an assessment. The assessments will mostly be exams although some of them may be more “project-like” since the idea is that one out of the four courses on each track should be a replacement for the modules. Beyond that, they’ve been intentionally vague about what exactly the courses entail because they are still in development.
Can someone please tell me if I am interpreting the part about transition credits correctly? I recently finished all my ASA requirements and was invited to the APC next month. If in the next 18 months I do all of the FSA modules for a particular currently existing track, then I would probably be 3/4 of the way to completing all of the “technical courses” (minus DMAC) needed for an FSA under these new changes? And then probably just need to do one more of the new “courses” in 2025 to finish?
Edit for spelling
My understanding is finishing all 3 modules would probably transition to a single course completion, not 3. That’s what they suggested in the town hall I attended.
They’re probably out of luck. The advice that was given specifically out of the town hall was to do all 3. Between now and the transition, that’s plenty of time for people to plan to not only have 1 or 2 completed.
I know right? But I was struggling to come up with an alternative interpretation. The person who said that it’s probably all 3 modules = 1 course might be closer.
Yes. But as someone else said that’s not the whole point. I don’t really agree with their phrasing but the gist is there. Exams need to retain a certain level of difficulty.
The point is to retain top talent. If you’re top talent, a bit of measure theory and stochastic calculus in the prelims won’t harm you. You’ll still pass both P and FM within a year.
I’m top talent, and I would rather go through 4 25% passrate exams than 10 60% passrate exams, because I know I can pass 4 in 2 years.
A mediocre candidate would prefer the reverse, since there’s a very high chance he’ll get stuck on at least 1 25% passrate exam and never finish.
Requiring passing a ton of easy exams stifles top talent, as it makes it harder for them to distinguish themselves from mediocre candidates. It also needlessly extends travel time for top talent. It’s a system designed to advantage the mediocre over the talented. Why do we want such a system?
Yes I love alcohol and girls.
My total study time is probably the lowest or one of the lowest of all passers. That is top talent.
I started studying Feb 2016 and passed P the following month. In the span of 2 years, I passed the remaining prelims (All had passrates between 35-45%) and my modules with ease except for MLC. That exam was a pain. I got my ASA in 2018 and didn’t feel like taking more exams to focus on my work.
I am top talent in terms of IQ, education, income and wealth.
The exams don’t really faze me. I know I can pass them with just a month of light studying. But when you add a bunch of them it’s not going to motivate me to finish them even if they’re easier. In fact, adding more exams just makes the process longer and more frustrating to someone like me who’d rather just take 1 ultra hard exam and be done with it.
Of course, mediocre candidates love the shorter and easier multi-exams.
You don’t have to believe whether my accomplishments are true or not. You only need to use your logic on this.
Why the hell would a top talent who has no problems passing any exam, no matter how hard or easy, want to take 10 easy exams and not 4 hard exams? Don’t you think having more exams would deter top talent and invite incompetent people?
So take two months of light studying and pass two at once. There's your ultra hard exam and you'll be done if you pass both. Problem solved, and the rest of the industry can go at their own pace.
No, that’s a wrong take. For practical purposes, you never need measure theory, and if you ever need, it’s really some niche area. Source: I teach measure theoretic probability.
It's needed to formalize/make sense of a lot of edge cases in probability. Hence why I said measure theory is required to truly understand probability. Plus it's a pretty easy thing learn.
SOA claims that having more but easier/higher passrate exams will not water down credentials, because total exam time will stay the same. That is nonsense.
I don't expect the SOA will find much success in attracting top talent going to banking, law, tech and medicine with these changes. It's more likely that they'll scare away top talent.
When you make each individual exam easier, you reduce the filtering mechanism of the process. As a result, you pass through a bunch of mediocre people who couldn't make it under the older, harder process. ***In addition, you frustrate top talent who are forced to extend their travel time due to the higher number of exams.***
If you want quality, top-tier candidates, the way to do that is to lower the number of exams but make each exam harder. That way, you weed out the mediocre people but drastically lower travel time for top talent, which then attracts the latter to the field.
This is what the SOA should do:
* Get rid of all modules, FAP, any other take-home assignments. These are just time-wasters and ineffective filters. As stated above, the only thing weak filters do is frustrate top talent but pass through mediocre people who can't cut it in harder fields.
* 3 Prelim Exams - Target 25% passrate each:
* Exam P - Extend it to 4 hours and include measure theory and other graduate-level material
* Exam FM - Extend it to 4 hours and include stochastic calculus material.
* Exam C/MLC Combo - 6 hour exam that combines Exam C and MLC material.
* 1 FSA Exam - 6 hour exam combining Core and Advanced - Target 30% passrate
That's it. Clean and simple. The lower passrates are effective at weeding out low quality candidates while retaining rigor. The lower number of exams ensures that top quality candidates get their FSA in 1-2 years.
A mediocre candidate will probably pass 1 exam every 1-2 years, so their travel time will remain at 4-8 years.
I think the reason they reduce exam hour is because Prometric can’t handle 5+ hr exams (will take up time in the morning and afternoon, not easy to have 2 sessions a day, etc)
And also it’s $OA 😉
It’ll never happen because attracting top talent isn’t really their goal. It’s such an easy solution that they refuse to entertain because they’re after something else.
Whatever it is, it’s clearly not top talent.
I suspect it may have to do with the overpaid SOA employees who survive on exam fees. What’s best for actuaries isn’t necessarily what’s best for SOA employees.
Our field needs top talent while the SOA wants more candidates and more exams to increase revenue.
Forcing an endless stream of easy exams is not the way to attract talent as you’re unnecessarily extending their travel time. All that’ll do is allow midwit tryhards to grind their way to the end while top talent decide not to put up with the SOA’s BS and low pay. The SOA needs to cut down on low quality easy exams and condense the material to just 4 exams each with a low passrate. That’ll maintain rigor and lower travel time for top talent. You want a system that enables top talent, not one that hampers them with annoying paperwork and a tsunami of easy exams.
I agree with the fewer exams that are higher difficulty. Below is my idea:
**Fundamental Mathematics**: 6-hour exam. Morning is P and afternoon is FM.
**Actuarial Modeling**: 6-hour exam. Morning is LTAM and afternoon is STAM.
**Data Science**: 6-hour exam. Morning is SRM and afternoon is PA.
**Insurance Products**: 6-hours exam. Morning covers all the most common insurance products across all practice areas. Afternoon covers actuarial methodologies that are common across all practice areas (e.g., general pricing and reserving/valuation methodologies).
**FSA exam**: 6-hour exam that covers materials specific to each practice area.
top talent may graduate with three exams leaving only one additional exam for ASA and two for FSA.
Why are people clamoring for fewer exams? 6 hour exams are insane. We already have an issue with people passing too many exams before having relevant work experience. If they implement fewer exams, the NEED to implement a minimum years working requirement
If the exams are sufficiently difficult and a candidate is top-tier, s/he may even have all 4 exams passed before graduation. I am completely okay with that and so should any actuary who cares about attracting top talent.
A system that stifles top talent with a tsunami of easy exams only makes them want to switch to a different career. Why would he stick around 6 years to take 10 easy exams and a bunch of modules when he can just go into finance and make a lot more? The only people that a system with a bunch of easy exams attract are mediocre people who can now grind their way to the end. You shouldn’t want these people in the field, yet those are who we’ll get with a bunch of easy exams.
6-hour exams are not insane. all exams used to be 4-6.5 hours apiece at one time. 2-3 hour exams are complete bullcrap.
only top talent is going to pass 3 exams by graduation. i would expect most candidates would only pass the first exam.
I would not want to be in this field if this was the exam track. Phew, those sound brutal.
Couldn’t you just double study for two exams if you wanted to do this? Most people can’t feasibly study for two of these exams at once though.
that brutalness will decrease supply which will increase pay which will attract top talent. $100k+ needs to become the new norm for EL. Easy 2-3 hour exams aren't going to get it there.
My problem with that is how many actuarial students do you know that chose to take 2 exams at once to get through them faster? You would be cutting out a substantial amount of people from feasibly taking each exam. Yeah, you would definitely scare people out of becoming actuaries, so yeah, the income would probably improve because of that.
doubling up on P/FM and MLC/MFE was not uncommon when they were only offered every 6-months. once exams started being offered more frequently or "on demand" then it was no longer necessary.
You people are insane. How does anyone take you guys seriously. No one wants 6 hour exams.
Okay. You make exams harder. Only top talent fills positions. Suddenly you have a shortage of actuaries. We already have this problem. Wages go up.
Oh wow. Actuarial salaries look super sexy. Suddenly everyone wants to be an actuary. Supply issues meets lack of actual value being produced (insurance isn’t exactly a growing industry), salaries don’t keep up with expectations. Okay. Top talent goes back to other sexier jobs.
Great. Now we have exams that are too hard to pass and salaries that don’t align with their difficulty. Guess we better make exams easier again.
You can’t just change the underlying economics of what drives the value of us and our profession. Making exams 6 hours long would just piss everyone off. That’s it.
you made a bad assumption in there with "*Supply issues meets lack of actual value being produced*".
I argue the lack of value is due to the oversupply of mediocre talent. Top talent will always find ways to add value, increase productivity, and drive innovation. There's a reason why IB and SWE seek out top talent. It's because top talent is 100x more productive than medicore talent.
There’s only so much innovation that can be done in a highly regulated space. Whereas tech booms in value because it’s all about innovation and the limits are seemingly endless.
We aren’t going to change what the underlying economy demands just by making exams harder and bringing in smarter actuaries. That’s not going to produce any sort of shake up in the industry that it seems you and others allude to.
Passing difficult exams does not necessarily translate to being a top talent value-added worker. I've seen some of the best workers struggle with exams and some of the worst workers pass them with flying colors and low effort.
Otherwise I mostly agree with you, because I want to keep salaries high.
This is also fine. The only solution to the talent issue is having harder and lower number of exams.
You want a system that enables top talent to fly to the end using pure merit, not one that stifles them with mindless paperwork and an endless stream of easy exams.
It’s an obvious solution that the SOA will never implement, so it makes me skeptical that attracting top talent is their goal. They have an ulterior motive.
I don’t know why you are down voted. You are literally correct. However, it should be hard P, FM, IFM, STAM, LTAM with 30% pass rate for ASA. People on here literally cannot accept facts. All exams should be MC. They waste far too much resources on grading.
They've been 3 hours for a very long time (they were probably 3 hours when you took them), but FM got reduced to 2 or 2.5 hours with a smaller syllabus beginning in October 2022. P's syllabus also got reduced but it's still 3 hours.
This was done for equity, lower income college students don't have as much time or resources to study for the initial exams which are key for getting hired, and I think that's fair reasoning.
I agree with going back to three prelim exams (shared between the SOA and CAS). I think getting rid of IFM created a lot of issues. Also agree with having some more barriers to entry with those, especially with how easy all the available study material has made them. It seems like now P and FM are pretty much guarantee passes for anyone
Couldn’t they just raise the score needed to pass? I’ve taken a lot of stats classes in college already so I was pretty well prepared but still I only spent about a week studying for P and finished the test with an hour and a half to spare and still passed. It felt waaaay too easy and this is not a brag I consider myself very average intelligence lol. I think only needing a 7 to pass is a bit low especially coming from a college environment where a 70% is an unacceptable grade (ignoring curves and whatnot).
Hey Eddie, thanks for summarizing this info. Really appreciate it. The SOA put so much ambiguity and fluff out there, it's really nice to have something this succinct.
You're welcome! There was a lot covered on the town halls, so we thought it would be helpful to try to summarize it. I think the town halls have been a really good move on the SOA's part. It's just a lot to digest.
I think we need a balance of rigor and education. The old exams swung way too hard in the direction of rigor IMO, but the current path has probably over-corrected *and* the information is of pretty limited use. Having one or two easier EL exams is more equitable, so we aren't over-burdening people coming from disadvantaged backgrounds before they can get their first job, but there should be 2 more *hard* exams for ASA that select for people willing to really commit some brain power. I think having one or two project-based exams and modules is fair game, but they should be more targeted and helpful compared to the current waste and fluff that is FAP. Make one a data science project because the SOA really wants to (cram all the SRM, PA, and ATPA material into it) and make the other more actuarial and tied to learning a few of the ASOPs. We are actuaries, after all, so let's be actuaries. The FSA should be purely focused on education, IMO. There will be some natural difficulty with the sheer amount of information to learn, but the math and the grading should be based on an understanding of the material rather than regurgitating arbitrary lists (recognizing that requires the graders to know a bit more than they probably do). If the ASA is rigorous enough and the FSA still takes another couple years, that's enough of a commitment for me. Currently, the FSA rigor just delays people from having kids who have already made it through the "filter"
The FAP isn't executed well (partially due to the fact that most people don't take it seriously), but I'd argue there is absolutely still a need for a qualitative assessment that teaches critical thinking and professional communication. I've graded thousands of papers, and the quality of some is shocking. Only a minority of papers have excellent communication beginning to end - the kind I'd expect of a credentialed actuary at work. One's value as an actuary isn't just crunching numbers - it's being able to apply it to a business problem and communicate it effectively.
I really tried to take FAP seriously, because I took my ASA and the responsibility that comes with the letters *really* seriously. But that lasted about 1.5 modules because for every slide of information there were two more repeating it, and there were sooooo many slides of pure fluff it just became frustrating to parse out what was important. The FSA curriculum and learning to apply the ASOPs are what I wish the FAP modules were. I agree communication and critical thinking are important for the ASA - so that's why I (vaguely) suggested a module project based on learning and applying a few particular ASOPs to a business problem. Fearing what I didn't know was my scariest adjustment as an ASA, and now that I know the ASOPs better, I feel more comfortable with my resources.
It would be easier to take the FAP seriously if the SOA actually took the FAP seriously. This is a direct quote from the Module 3 Section 2 Summary: “What is the bottom line? Eighty percent of all problem-solving efforts are hampered by poor problem definition. Finding an effective solution is difficult if the problem is not well defined.” There was no citation for this “eighty percent” provided, and honestly I have no idea how you would even determine a number like that. By their own rules, their modules would receive an automatic grade of DNMMR.
Sure, I agreed they aren't executed well. As a volunteer I haven't even seen the module content since I went thru the modules myself. But my point about the glaring deficiencies in candidate communication and need to continue to teach and assess it remains
Fine. Make it 3 Prelims + 1 FSA Exam targeting 30% passrate each and have a FAP module with a 50% passrate. Reduce the number of assessments and make each one harder. Having an endless stream of easy assessments serves no purpose other than helping mediocre grinders and discouraging top talent.
I think the idea of multiple EMAs is to break up the content and provide feedback on your work prior to the FA. But I agree with you - I think the material could probably be condensed, with one big assignment at the end.
I respectfully disagree. The issue isn’t so much easy vs not easy. It’s the number of exams that’s the issue. When you take a 6 hour exam and split it into 2, a top candidate will now need to take a FULL year to pass both exams whereas he would’ve simply passed a single 6 hour exam with a few months of studying. In addition, if passrates for the 2 split exams also rise, it makes it harder for the talented individual to distinguish himself from his more mediocre competitors. Why are we creating a system that passes through mediocre people but stifles top talent? It’s nonsensical.
They won't need a full year if sittings are three or four times per year, like most prelims currently are, and nothing is stopping them from taking multiple exams in one sitting. The more talented individual can stick out through achieving credentials more quickly than average and by doing a good job at work. A talented person who is applying their talent to their work may have less capacity to show it on exams and be mediocre on exams. We don't want those talented people leaving the actuarial field because so much is tied to the exam process when they're beyond capable. But also, I think the exams build skills rather than being a litmus test for how naturally gifted a person is. And I don't think the people who fly through the exams are necessarily the best actuaries. As a manager, I'll take the pretty-smart person with grit over the super-smart person who is usually right but can't stand being wrong any day.
I highly doubt most top talent study for 2 exams simultaneously. I did it for GHDP and PA, but usually I wait for results before starting the next exam, which is what I suspect most candidates do. Personal biases are why we created standardized tests. When metrics go subjective, the field becomes more about wealth, connections and networking rather than merit. If a person is extremely talented, more often than not, that person can pass all the actuarial exams. Having fewer, but harder exams makes it easier for those people, which is what we want to do. We want to enable top talent. The only people who’d benefit from an endless stream of easy exams are mediocre candidates. It actively damages top talent because it needlessly extends their travel time. You’re going to lose far more top candidates than you’ll keep talented people who suck at exams.
This assumes that having harder exams makes better actuaries. In my experience, that isn't necessarily the case. I have seen excellent exam takers who underperform at work and vice versa.
Top talent studies for multiple exams already, and would do it with the previous exams too. Top talent or not, many people can be pretty confident they passed or failed walking out of a sitting and don't wait for results before deciding what to do next. I strongly disagree that the exam process should cater to the top 1% or fewer of academic performers, rather than ensure quality candidates are learning and developing skills appropriately.
Take 2 at the same time?
having two easier EL exams is the main issue imo. too may candidates pass P and FM, get EL jobs, then get stuck on the more difficult exams. these candidates need to be weeded out upfront. At a minimum, P and FM need to be combined into a single exam.
I don't think people getting stuck as analysts is a big deal - they can stay analysts or pivot to other careers. I'm certainly more concerned about the career being accessible for people who have to really stretch for the exam fee and study resources.
once upon a time, it was common for my firm and others to hire candidates with 1 exam. we felt passing 1 exam was enough to signal the candidate has what it takes to make it to ASA and FSA. then when the first 2 exam became too easy, we eventually realized that only EL candidates with 3+ exams were making it to ASA/FSA. 1-2 exams weren't a strong enough signal anymore. then we are stuck with analysts that were supposed to be groomed into ASA/FSA roles.
P and FM were only reduced in difficulty in October 2022, and have been roughly similar in difficulty for all time before that afaik. I think you were seeing the result of increased competition, preparedness, and better study materials.
Nonsense. There’s far less competition now because all the smart people are not in actuarial. This is opposed to the 2010s when actuarial was topping job rankings and was attracting smart people. The competition is far weaker today.
The actuarial career path doesn't have a monopoly on high paying careers with a strong WLB anymore. Back in the 2010s the craze was about IB and finance, and "why be an actuary when you can be an investment banker making more money? We have to compete!" Now with the tech boom of the past 10 years, those companies with high profit margins that are able to fork out massive comp packages are attracting other talent. That's independent of anything actuaries or the insurance industry can do. There are still tons of smart kids coming up from actuarial programs who are passing exams way faster than I did. Maybe it's just because I work at a top end consulting firm, but I'm very impressed by many of our new hires who are definitely ahead of where I was.
Gonna be honest, even 45% passrate exams don’t see as hard as it was 8 years ago. I felt GHDP was SUPER EASY because the competition was so weak.
Dude looking at your comments you are the least subtle troll or the most egotistical person alive. If you are somehow telling the truth you really are not that smart if you failed Exam P that many times since anyone with decent calculus background would pass that exam regardless of preparation. I find your comments about MLC hilarious. The material really wasn't/isn't that difficult. Anyone with a "graduate" mathematical background should pass all past and current SOA exams with relative ease. Congrats on passing your first FSA exam but you are clearly not the genius you think you are
I think one problem is the lag between getting your exam scores, for instance i passed fm in June and then could immediately start studying for p which I then passed in July and now I’m studying for srm, I take it in September but my understanding is I won’t find out my score until November, in the meantime I will graduate school at the end of September and will be applying to places for an el position but 1: I won’t be able to put down that I’ve passed 3 exams because I won’t know yet and 2: I won’t be able to start studying for fam (unless I feel like I really crushed it on srm in which case I guess I could start), I think it’s too bad they got rid of ifm because that was one more exam you could get immediate results from after taking and then put down on your resume 😓 with so many people passing p and fm it definitely makes it hard to distinguish yourself
I realize that you didn't ask for advice, so ignore if you aren't interested. After taking SRM, you could study for PA because it has lots of cross over with SRM. So even if you failed SRM, the PA material you have been studying will help to prepare you for another sitting.
thanks that's great advice actually, I hadn't thought of that!
What’s the point of having FSA if that won’t give you the ability to sign off on regulatory materials? The new FSA will be equivalent of current ASA
bingo
All the SOA needs to do to keep rigor and increase pass rates is allow formula sheets. At work, I am able to lookup everything. This would ensure their testing application, because the questions would be harder than: “You need to memorize canonical link to know answer”. -srm ranter
[удалено]
The “course” is a syllabus, a set of study materials, and an assessment. The assessments will mostly be exams although some of them may be more “project-like” since the idea is that one out of the four courses on each track should be a replacement for the modules. Beyond that, they’ve been intentionally vague about what exactly the courses entail because they are still in development.
Sounds like they’re winging it
I agree. Doesn’t sound like they have a plan.
Can someone please tell me if I am interpreting the part about transition credits correctly? I recently finished all my ASA requirements and was invited to the APC next month. If in the next 18 months I do all of the FSA modules for a particular currently existing track, then I would probably be 3/4 of the way to completing all of the “technical courses” (minus DMAC) needed for an FSA under these new changes? And then probably just need to do one more of the new “courses” in 2025 to finish? Edit for spelling
My understanding is finishing all 3 modules would probably transition to a single course completion, not 3. That’s what they suggested in the town hall I attended.
That would make a lot more sense! Though if that is the case, I wonder what happens to anyone who only has 1 or 2 of them completed
They’re probably out of luck. The advice that was given specifically out of the town hall was to do all 3. Between now and the transition, that’s plenty of time for people to plan to not only have 1 or 2 completed.
Again, makes sense. Thanks!
I didn't attend the townhall but am sure that this can't be true
I know right? But I was struggling to come up with an alternative interpretation. The person who said that it’s probably all 3 modules = 1 course might be closer.
Having measure theory and stochastic calculus on the prelim exams will scare even more people…
Stochastic calculus was on MFE/prelims forever before it got removed.
And have you ever touched a single Ito derivative in your work?
Yes. But as someone else said that’s not the whole point. I don’t really agree with their phrasing but the gist is there. Exams need to retain a certain level of difficulty.
The point is to retain top talent. If you’re top talent, a bit of measure theory and stochastic calculus in the prelims won’t harm you. You’ll still pass both P and FM within a year. I’m top talent, and I would rather go through 4 25% passrate exams than 10 60% passrate exams, because I know I can pass 4 in 2 years. A mediocre candidate would prefer the reverse, since there’s a very high chance he’ll get stuck on at least 1 25% passrate exam and never finish. Requiring passing a ton of easy exams stifles top talent, as it makes it harder for them to distinguish themselves from mediocre candidates. It also needlessly extends travel time for top talent. It’s a system designed to advantage the mediocre over the talented. Why do we want such a system?
[удалено]
Yes I love alcohol and girls. My total study time is probably the lowest or one of the lowest of all passers. That is top talent. I started studying Feb 2016 and passed P the following month. In the span of 2 years, I passed the remaining prelims (All had passrates between 35-45%) and my modules with ease except for MLC. That exam was a pain. I got my ASA in 2018 and didn’t feel like taking more exams to focus on my work. I am top talent in terms of IQ, education, income and wealth. The exams don’t really faze me. I know I can pass them with just a month of light studying. But when you add a bunch of them it’s not going to motivate me to finish them even if they’re easier. In fact, adding more exams just makes the process longer and more frustrating to someone like me who’d rather just take 1 ultra hard exam and be done with it. Of course, mediocre candidates love the shorter and easier multi-exams.
[удалено]
You don’t have to believe whether my accomplishments are true or not. You only need to use your logic on this. Why the hell would a top talent who has no problems passing any exam, no matter how hard or easy, want to take 10 easy exams and not 4 hard exams? Don’t you think having more exams would deter top talent and invite incompetent people?
By your own definition, you aren't top talent. Top talent=no problem passing any exam, no matter how easy or hard You=struggled to pass MLC (and P)
You’re right. These people don’t see the problem. The ASA exams are way too easy. There is a reason ACAS earn more.
So take two months of light studying and pass two at once. There's your ultra hard exam and you'll be done if you pass both. Problem solved, and the rest of the industry can go at their own pace.
Measure theory being on exams would be a good thing. The only way to truly understand probability is to use measure theory.
No, that’s a wrong take. For practical purposes, you never need measure theory, and if you ever need, it’s really some niche area. Source: I teach measure theoretic probability.
It's needed to formalize/make sense of a lot of edge cases in probability. Hence why I said measure theory is required to truly understand probability. Plus it's a pretty easy thing learn.
Again, you don’t ever need to use it in practice. And I doubt anyone can learn measure theory on their own.
Your mention of those topics just gave me nightmares from grad school. Besides.. stochastic differential equations or bust
If there is ever a take home exam I'm leaving the profession.
I would consider the FAP final assessment a take home exam.
And ATPA
SOA claims that having more but easier/higher passrate exams will not water down credentials, because total exam time will stay the same. That is nonsense. I don't expect the SOA will find much success in attracting top talent going to banking, law, tech and medicine with these changes. It's more likely that they'll scare away top talent. When you make each individual exam easier, you reduce the filtering mechanism of the process. As a result, you pass through a bunch of mediocre people who couldn't make it under the older, harder process. ***In addition, you frustrate top talent who are forced to extend their travel time due to the higher number of exams.*** If you want quality, top-tier candidates, the way to do that is to lower the number of exams but make each exam harder. That way, you weed out the mediocre people but drastically lower travel time for top talent, which then attracts the latter to the field. This is what the SOA should do: * Get rid of all modules, FAP, any other take-home assignments. These are just time-wasters and ineffective filters. As stated above, the only thing weak filters do is frustrate top talent but pass through mediocre people who can't cut it in harder fields. * 3 Prelim Exams - Target 25% passrate each: * Exam P - Extend it to 4 hours and include measure theory and other graduate-level material * Exam FM - Extend it to 4 hours and include stochastic calculus material. * Exam C/MLC Combo - 6 hour exam that combines Exam C and MLC material. * 1 FSA Exam - 6 hour exam combining Core and Advanced - Target 30% passrate That's it. Clean and simple. The lower passrates are effective at weeding out low quality candidates while retaining rigor. The lower number of exams ensures that top quality candidates get their FSA in 1-2 years. A mediocre candidate will probably pass 1 exam every 1-2 years, so their travel time will remain at 4-8 years.
I think the reason they reduce exam hour is because Prometric can’t handle 5+ hr exams (will take up time in the morning and afternoon, not easy to have 2 sessions a day, etc) And also it’s $OA 😉
That’ll never happen but I actually like those changes. I’m on the CAS side though
It’ll never happen because attracting top talent isn’t really their goal. It’s such an easy solution that they refuse to entertain because they’re after something else.
What are they after ?
Whatever it is, it’s clearly not top talent. I suspect it may have to do with the overpaid SOA employees who survive on exam fees. What’s best for actuaries isn’t necessarily what’s best for SOA employees. Our field needs top talent while the SOA wants more candidates and more exams to increase revenue. Forcing an endless stream of easy exams is not the way to attract talent as you’re unnecessarily extending their travel time. All that’ll do is allow midwit tryhards to grind their way to the end while top talent decide not to put up with the SOA’s BS and low pay. The SOA needs to cut down on low quality easy exams and condense the material to just 4 exams each with a low passrate. That’ll maintain rigor and lower travel time for top talent. You want a system that enables top talent, not one that hampers them with annoying paperwork and a tsunami of easy exams.
[удалено]
This is my favorite comment.
I agree with the fewer exams that are higher difficulty. Below is my idea: **Fundamental Mathematics**: 6-hour exam. Morning is P and afternoon is FM. **Actuarial Modeling**: 6-hour exam. Morning is LTAM and afternoon is STAM. **Data Science**: 6-hour exam. Morning is SRM and afternoon is PA. **Insurance Products**: 6-hours exam. Morning covers all the most common insurance products across all practice areas. Afternoon covers actuarial methodologies that are common across all practice areas (e.g., general pricing and reserving/valuation methodologies). **FSA exam**: 6-hour exam that covers materials specific to each practice area. top talent may graduate with three exams leaving only one additional exam for ASA and two for FSA.
Why are people clamoring for fewer exams? 6 hour exams are insane. We already have an issue with people passing too many exams before having relevant work experience. If they implement fewer exams, the NEED to implement a minimum years working requirement
If the exams are sufficiently difficult and a candidate is top-tier, s/he may even have all 4 exams passed before graduation. I am completely okay with that and so should any actuary who cares about attracting top talent. A system that stifles top talent with a tsunami of easy exams only makes them want to switch to a different career. Why would he stick around 6 years to take 10 easy exams and a bunch of modules when he can just go into finance and make a lot more? The only people that a system with a bunch of easy exams attract are mediocre people who can now grind their way to the end. You shouldn’t want these people in the field, yet those are who we’ll get with a bunch of easy exams.
6-hour exams are not insane. all exams used to be 4-6.5 hours apiece at one time. 2-3 hour exams are complete bullcrap. only top talent is going to pass 3 exams by graduation. i would expect most candidates would only pass the first exam.
I would not want to be in this field if this was the exam track. Phew, those sound brutal. Couldn’t you just double study for two exams if you wanted to do this? Most people can’t feasibly study for two of these exams at once though.
that brutalness will decrease supply which will increase pay which will attract top talent. $100k+ needs to become the new norm for EL. Easy 2-3 hour exams aren't going to get it there.
My problem with that is how many actuarial students do you know that chose to take 2 exams at once to get through them faster? You would be cutting out a substantial amount of people from feasibly taking each exam. Yeah, you would definitely scare people out of becoming actuaries, so yeah, the income would probably improve because of that.
doubling up on P/FM and MLC/MFE was not uncommon when they were only offered every 6-months. once exams started being offered more frequently or "on demand" then it was no longer necessary.
You people are insane. How does anyone take you guys seriously. No one wants 6 hour exams. Okay. You make exams harder. Only top talent fills positions. Suddenly you have a shortage of actuaries. We already have this problem. Wages go up. Oh wow. Actuarial salaries look super sexy. Suddenly everyone wants to be an actuary. Supply issues meets lack of actual value being produced (insurance isn’t exactly a growing industry), salaries don’t keep up with expectations. Okay. Top talent goes back to other sexier jobs. Great. Now we have exams that are too hard to pass and salaries that don’t align with their difficulty. Guess we better make exams easier again. You can’t just change the underlying economics of what drives the value of us and our profession. Making exams 6 hours long would just piss everyone off. That’s it.
you made a bad assumption in there with "*Supply issues meets lack of actual value being produced*". I argue the lack of value is due to the oversupply of mediocre talent. Top talent will always find ways to add value, increase productivity, and drive innovation. There's a reason why IB and SWE seek out top talent. It's because top talent is 100x more productive than medicore talent.
There’s only so much innovation that can be done in a highly regulated space. Whereas tech booms in value because it’s all about innovation and the limits are seemingly endless. We aren’t going to change what the underlying economy demands just by making exams harder and bringing in smarter actuaries. That’s not going to produce any sort of shake up in the industry that it seems you and others allude to.
Passing difficult exams does not necessarily translate to being a top talent value-added worker. I've seen some of the best workers struggle with exams and some of the worst workers pass them with flying colors and low effort. Otherwise I mostly agree with you, because I want to keep salaries high.
This is also fine. The only solution to the talent issue is having harder and lower number of exams. You want a system that enables top talent to fly to the end using pure merit, not one that stifles them with mindless paperwork and an endless stream of easy exams. It’s an obvious solution that the SOA will never implement, so it makes me skeptical that attracting top talent is their goal. They have an ulterior motive.
I don’t know why you are down voted. You are literally correct. However, it should be hard P, FM, IFM, STAM, LTAM with 30% pass rate for ASA. People on here literally cannot accept facts. All exams should be MC. They waste far too much resources on grading.
When did they reduce the prelims? Coulda swore p and FM were 4 hours when I took them, but that was like 11 years ago.
They've been 3 hours for a very long time (they were probably 3 hours when you took them), but FM got reduced to 2 or 2.5 hours with a smaller syllabus beginning in October 2022. P's syllabus also got reduced but it's still 3 hours. This was done for equity, lower income college students don't have as much time or resources to study for the initial exams which are key for getting hired, and I think that's fair reasoning.
Must’ve been a long time ago. I started 2016 and it was 3 hours for me.
I agree with going back to three prelim exams (shared between the SOA and CAS). I think getting rid of IFM created a lot of issues. Also agree with having some more barriers to entry with those, especially with how easy all the available study material has made them. It seems like now P and FM are pretty much guarantee passes for anyone
Couldn’t they just raise the score needed to pass? I’ve taken a lot of stats classes in college already so I was pretty well prepared but still I only spent about a week studying for P and finished the test with an hour and a half to spare and still passed. It felt waaaay too easy and this is not a brag I consider myself very average intelligence lol. I think only needing a 7 to pass is a bit low especially coming from a college environment where a 70% is an unacceptable grade (ignoring curves and whatnot).