CAS Continuing Education Calendar
by Sholom Feldblum

After years of working through the CAS Examinations, new Fellows are eager to climb the next rung of the CAS ladder-writing an actuarial paper of their own. After all, they have accumulated a wealth of theory, and have seen insurance practice in a variety of settings. They recognize the gaps in the actuarial literature, and have numerous insights of their own with which to fill them.

Yet putting pen to paper is easier said than done. Ideas that seemed clear come out in frustrating fits and starts. Studying for the CAS Examinations seems like child’s play compared to this.

The comparison with previous actuarial papers makes the task even more difficult. Having spent years poring over dozens of scholarly papers on the CAS Syllabus of Examinations, new Fellows often feel intimidated: How are they to produce a paper of equal worth?

In the late 1980’s, Stephen W. Philbrick was the chairperson of the Committee on Review of Papers. After announcing the new Proceedings papers that would be presented at each CAS Spring and Annual Meeting, he would conclude with remarks addressed particularly to the new Fellows and Associates in the audience, saying:

For several years you have been diligently studying the papers on the CAS Syllabus of Examinations. Now that you have become Fellows or Associates of the society, you have the opportunity to turn these years of study into lasting contributions to other actuaries."

"Many new members of our society find the writing of an actuarial paper to be overwhelming. But writing a discussion of a recently submitted paper is easier. A discussion may be two pages long, or it may be 20 pages long. It may be the correction of an error that you perceive in the paper, or it may be the addition of another theme to the paper’s theses."

Philbrick’s language is pan-phrased, of course. But his advice was incisive. Proceedings papers seem imposing, especially to new Fellows and Associates. Discussions of recently published papers not only enhance everyone’s appreciation of the issues, but also ease the new Fellow’s transition from a reader oactuarialowapers to a contributor to actuarial thought.

Writing discussions is particularly useful when:

1. the new Fellow or Associate has already studied the paper for an ac-tuarial exam, and
2. the paper presents a broad, non-technical, actuarial subject.

For instance, three of the papers presented at the 1996 CAS Annual Meeting in November, "Risk-Based Capital Requirement," "Personal Auto Premiums," and "Interest Rate Risk and Capital Requirements," are on the 1997 CAS Syllabus of Examinations, Parts 6 and 1O. Many new Fellows and Associates have practically memorized these papers. During their months of study, they undoubtedly found numerous ideas with which they disagreed, and perhaps an equal number of ideas that they considered only half-formed. Herein lie the germs of useful discussions: a page of why the author was wrong in certain instances, or a new application of the author’s procedure.

Producing an entire paper of one’s own is indeed difficult, and the pros-pect of having one’s paper rejected by the Proceedings is so discouraging that a new actuary sometimes fears to begin. However, discussions of recent papers are easier to write, and are more likely to be accepted by the Proceedings. Writing a discussion is the first step in contributing to actuar-ial science.

Shalom Feldblum, FCAS, is a frequent contributor to the Proceedings of the Casualty Actuarial Society, and an assistant vice president at Liberry Mutual Group in Boston.