|
|
|
From the President
CAS Exam Restructuring by Patrick J. Grannan
There has been a great deal of discussion by the CAS Board and committees, as well as by other members and exam candidates, regarding the content and results of the new Exams 3 and 4 first administered in May 2000. These two exams are given jointly by the CAS and the SOA, and are part of a broader restructuring of the CAS exams, which I believe will be very beneficial to the casualty actuarial profession.
We owe a great debt of thanks to the many CAS members who contributed their time and energy over the past few years to the restructuring of the exams. This was an important project to help prepare candidates better in several respects for their future careers. Some important accomplishments of the restructuring follow:
This was a large step in the evolution of the exams to meet the changing educational needs of casualty actuaries. There has been significant evolution and expansion of the areas in which casualty actuaries work over the past several years. This has been a very positive development for our profession. It is essential that the exams reflect these changes, and that they do so without significantly increasing the total amount of effort required of candidates. The partitioning of exams was eliminated. There were good arguments for breaking some exams into smaller pieces. In hindsight, it is clear that partitioning had the unintended effect of lengthening the time it takes candidates to make their way through the exams. The overall percentage of candidates passing remained at about the same level as prior to partitioning. However, it became common for candidates to sit for only a portion of a partitioned exam. As a result, the average amount of exam progress per candidate per sitting dropped by about 20 percent during the 1990's as compared to the 1980's. This translated directly into longer "travel time" through the exams. Nation-specific material was brought together on one exam to the extent practical. This better accommodates the education needs of casualty actuaries in Canada. It also positions the CAS to better meet the needs of actuaries in other counties. Exams 3 and 4 became joint exams with the SOA. It is critically important that appropriate learning objectives for casualty actuaries be achieved by any joint exam, and some of the controversy over Exams 3 and 4 has focused on whether this is the case for these two exams. However, to the extent that the CAS and SOA have the same learning objectives for an exam, it is advantageous to give the exam jointly. This avoids the need by candidates still in school to choose between the CAS and SOA any earlier than necessary. It also allows more efficient use of volunteer time and other resources in giving the exams.
The CAS Board discussed Exams 3 and 4 at length in its last two meetings. The November 2000 discussion led to a reduction in the amount of material, especially on Exam 3 for the May 2001 sitting, and to a plan to develop syllabus material that will better facilitate study outside a classroom setting. At its March 2001 meeting, the Board concluded, after extensive discussion, that we should investigate restructuring Exams 3 and 4 to better meet the needs of CAS candidates. The Board looks forward to a report in May by a task force that is considering alternative exam structures.
The CAS has also hired education professionals from the Chauncey Group (an ETS subsidiary) to act as consultants to our Education and Syllabus Committees. We are optimistic that they will contribute to further refinement in the written learning objectives for the exams and in the quality of the exams themselves.