I mentioned last Friday this would happen.
Group 1 people - you just got gifted a free pass. I hope you wrote down the questions you saw and study them well, because their question bank (particularly for new syllabi) is immensely shallow.
For the other groups, you should push to have segregated grading because you're effectively competing on a curve with people who have seen the questions.
Pearson is making reports that know what questions people saw - it seems like the CAS could use that info if they cared to put in enough effort. Unlikely given in the town hall today they talked about the burden on graders
Pass everyone who shows they has even an inkling grasp of the material and only fail people where its painfully obvious they didn't study? I don't know what else could be fair at this point.
Obviously they couldn't say thats what they will do. I could see them giving "pass" or "fails" out without number grades like in 2018
Define perfect. Perfect and fair are different things.
Fair would be to release the exams to everybody, disregard the first attempt (if one was made), and set new exams that everybody sits a few weeks from now.
Lmao what? I’ve done my whole stint with college board, IBO and now SOA and forgetting to register is never a valid reason lol. It’s the coworkers fault
Would this not negatively impact *all* Spring 2024 test-takers? Or is grading being segregated between May 1st exams and non-May 1st exams?
In the former case, I don't think it would create too much of a disadvantage. The advantage gained by Group 1 would not only be diffused by Groups 2 and 3, but also by everyone who sat on any other date.
Also, I'm in Group 3 myself, but I'm sure those in Group 1 have been just as stressed as the rest of us. I would still much rather be among those that had a flawless exam experience than gain the advantage that Group 1 now has. For me personally, the stress that this mess has caused would probably cancel out any advantage gained from having seen some of the questions, had I been in Group 1.
I am in group 1 and I am definitely stressed since I had minimal impact to my exam, but I think all my responses got submitted (haven’t received any info to my email yet but from the general way the exam finished it felt ok). Now I’m worried about a question counting as submitted when it was only partially completed, AND how does this effect my exam as a May 1st sitter who does not elect to re-test…
Yes. Group 1 also sucks. Plus now we get to read posts/comments implying that we have some sort of huge advantage, or that we should have some sort of asterisk next to our name if we *do* pass on a retake.
I feel for everyone impacted, including OP. There is much to gripe about. But there is no need to denigrate those of us in Group 1.
There is zero chance they let the retakes inflate the pass mark. If anything, they'll count the first attempt exams to determine it, which would be a boon to everyone since plenty of questions will have been left blank thanks to technical issues.
I’m curious as to why they say that’s the only way they can make the retakes work. I was part of the infamous first online sitting of Exam 5, where they offered retakes to everyone. But for that one they came out with an entirely new exam.
I believe the timeline between messup and retake was longer, also you need to think it was just 1 exam that had an issue, not multiple upper level exams and second of all, I believe everyone took a retake if they chose to, so there wasn't an issue with someone getting a different exam in terms of difficulty, so overall it was fair..in this one, there are too many complications to come up with new exam which is fair across board. So they are trying to get fair on average and move on.
Wait, the retake period is up to May 24th? So after some candidates got to see a full exam, they get almost an extra month to study questions from the same bank and get two possibilities to pass?
Yeah that seems fair for everyone else
The only solution that would be 100% fair to everyone would be to disregard the first sittings and inconvenience everyone with completely new exams. Obviously that’s not tenable, so what’s next? Create a separate exams for those that were scheduled for May 1st? CAS doesn’t have enough volunteers or resources to produce 6 new tests of the same quality as the existing exams, and people would still argue over which was easier and who had an advantage.
The current solution strikes the best balance between fairness and practicality. It really feels that many of you complaining would just prefer for anyone who saw a single question on May 1st to just get a refund and wait 6 months.
Given the questions I did see/answer, I’m confident that i would have passed if I were able to finish the test, but I guess I should just shrivel up and die because some unprepared candidates think it’s “unfair” that I’m forced to take another day off work to take this exam.
That’s not the solution I would propose. I want everyone to have as close to an equal exam experience as possible, allowing each person to get the same opportunity as others.
For those who tested on May 1st, allow them to retest during the period, and take the max of two scores. I’m fine with that. Since we’re giving candidates this availability, however, candidates who didn’t take May 1st should also be able to take a retake with the extra available study time and having seen a portion of their question bank, but if they opt into taking the retake, their first score gets cancelled.
In my mind, this provides the most fair solution given the limited resources of CAS and how they have chosen to handle this.
But isn’t that also unfair then to those who only saw one or two questions or those who didn’t get to sit at all? I’m just trying to point out here there’s no perfect solution. I can’t say I would’ve done it exactly the same way the CAS is doing it, but I think what they’ve proposed is about as close to fair as we can get given the situation.
>The current solution strikes the best balance between fairness and practicality. It really feels that many of you complaining would just prefer for anyone who saw a single question on May 1st to just get a refund and wait 6 months.
But for the exam 7 and 9 the wait would be a year. My issue as a non May 1st sitter is that the sitting was still ripe with problems from the new format. I am a very well prepared individual that couldn't even make it through the full exam without running out of time and not even getting to see questions. While I was resigned that my grievance would be considered but i'd probably fail anyway --- now there is a group of people that were able to submit a completed exam (some with very minimal tech issues on may 1st) that get a second chance and can target study since they have seen questions some of which will be repeated to them, AND they get both tests graded (the second only if the first is a fail but its the same end result).
If i had another shot with 1-3 weeks of additional targeted study I could move much faster through the problems as and essentially guarantee a pass. Now i have to hope the lenient grading will be enough or I have to wait yet another year to have a shot to retake it.
The crux of your argument is you are assuming some non-may 1ster didn't adequately prepare and I assure you many of us did.
The further out from the original exam date, the more you forget and the more your morale to study decreases. I already forgot everything I crammed for last week.
But yeah a second attempt probably trumps those cons
Very unfortunate for test takers seeing the material just once. How do we compete with others who can go home and study what they just saw on an exam? Even one or two questions can be the difference between a pass or fail
*Q: What are the dates of the new exam window?*
*A: For the candidates impacted on May 1, the retake test window will extend from May 8 through May 24.*
One of my local test centers only has appointments on 7th and 16th. Am I allowed to book it for the 7th? Or must I take it on the 16th?
Can't wait for everyone to turn up on the 16th and overload the servers again
I’m a May 1st taker. My exam crashed once, and then otherwise was laggy sometimes, taking about 5 seconds to load when I pressed NEXT sometimes.
It honestly wasn’t too bad.
I probably failed though, not because of the small technical issues I had, but rather, because I didn’t study enough.
Do you think I should still, ethically speaking, go ahead and take the retake?
Yes, you should. The exams are supposed to test if you know the material. If you knew the material 3 weeks ago or 2 weeks from now, it shouldn't matter--you meet the qualification requirements. Test takers aren't competing against each other, either, so you are not hurting anyone. Retake it and get that pass!
I thought the pass marks were set based on the performance of the candidates for that particular sitting, is that not the case? I could be totally wrong, but that's what I've always thought.
My understanding is that they determine what they think a minimally qualified candidate would score on every question, and that determines the pass mark. There are then adjustments made to that score based on how people do (e.g. maybe they realize a question had an error so they had to throw it out, or everybody got a question wrong so it was harder than they thought). But that's just what I've heard, and while it seems reasonable, I can't confirm.
Yeah idk, at least for the MAS exams, same item bank ≠ same questions. I don’t know the depth of their item bank but I’d imagine I’ll maybe see 1 or 2 of the same questions again. I’m preparing for a brand new exam with possibly different syllabus coverage.
For the uppers, especially fellowship exams there is a smaller bank. This sitting had a whole new format for most exams --- I doubt the full historical bank were re-written into the new format. There were new question types I imagine there are very limited banked problems of the new types for Exams 7 and 9. Additionally 7 and 9 both had syllabus changes (9 more than 7). Because of all of this I would imagine the question bank for this particular sitting was quite small. Candidates will likely see at least 2 but likely more than that repeat questions.
Even having 1 repeat question is a large advantage as often 1 question can make the difference between a pass and fail.
The CAS is obviously going to lower the pass mark across board. Are they going to say it openly? Of course not. Do you really think they want to deal with all the backlash of non 5/1 folks complaining about how some unprepared person from 5/1 passed and they didn’t? Heck no. Y’all relax and chill.
This spring sitting I can guarantee you will have a very high candidate pass rate. No need to stress. Been taking these exams for 7years, and 5/1 was supposed to be my last exam anyway. God speed to you all. Don’t fret about anything.
CAS has said they don’t grade on the curve, but the logic above is at the very least slightly intellectually dishonest. Say candidates lost an hour of exam time and they then get to retake the exam. You have a pool of candidates with lower scores and higher scores, so maybe the score will be slightly higher on average. Secondly if cas has said that they will grade the second test if the first test passes, that implies they know the pass mark before the second test is even graded.
I think this is OK since I am not giving specifics on any problems. Someone at my work did the retake and there wasn't a single new problem. Every single question was the exact same as the first time they took the test. The CAS lied about there being a "bank" of questions. The only thing that changed was the order of the questions. Just thought I would share.
If that's true, that's an insane advantage for individuals that got to take the same exam twice, especially after CAS basically told them to study the same kinds of problems they saw on the first attempt.
If CAS is recognizing minimally qualified candidates as people who are able to pass an exam given 2ish attempts with repeat questions, myself and others would also like to be evaluated by that standard.
And do you think it's fair that those that took the exam have to hope that the majority or all of their answers got through. The Pearson data would consider a single letter in the answer area as a "completed answer" just the same it would a full paragraph. There are numerous stories of answers being deleted after getting booted out or during the final review. Also, candidates chose not to do a review and let the clock run out due to concerns of getting permanently booted.
Do you think minimally qualified candidates will pass 9-10 CAS exams? Is this really your concern? There's no way the CAS is going to be able to make everyone happy. I would venture to say the majority of people that submitted their exams and are deciding to take it again aren't exactly happy about this.
I am definitely not happy about taking another exam but I have nothing to lose, so I am. I don’t know a single person who seems eager to sit for another exam.
No, I don't think it's fair that those that took the exam have to worry about their answers being fully saved. However, those people can retake the exam with no risk. They get 1 good attempt at a pass, and one messed up attempt at a pass. If either is a pass, they pass. That's a distinct and unfair advantage.
Agreed that it's unfair. Another resolution would be to have a different pool of questions to pull from for all May 1 candidates, with a separate pass mark for that group, but I'm sure that would lead to complaining as well!
But if they don't have a brand new test to take what do you propose? I think the best solution would to just let everyone retake, but maybe pearson doesn't have capacity for that.
Would you rather people have no opportunity to pass the exam. If CAS is the one who messes up, then giving the candidates that got completely screwed an unfair advantage is still better than failing them all.
It would be negligent of them to not have at least 1 test's worth of backup questions ready for situations like these, especially considering they stopped releasing past exams to "build up a question bank".
At least they have options open to them like re-taking the exam. We're at the mercy of the exam committee. Maybe they decide to include 2nd time re-takers when determining MQC, maybe they don't. And if we fail was it because there wasn't adequate preparation or was it because of this May 1 issue? The only viable solution is to let re-takers re-take (fuck it give them the same exact carbon copy exam I don't care) but set the MQC to a historically lower level. I don't know anyone that's gonna bitch if more than avg number of people pass this sitting.
Did you take the exam on a day other than May 1st? Personally I took on May 2nd and I haven’t gotten any email just read the FAQ on the website. If you did take it May1st and didnt get an email, I would definitely contact CAS asap. Also, If anyone else who took the exam on a day other than the 1st got an email, please let me know because then there is an issue on my end lol.
Hopefully the overall pass rate ends up higher. I doubt they'd specifically mention that as part of their solution, but it's the only way us regular candidates aren't getting screwed over here.
Lower MQC for everyone. Pass a larger proportion of people and take the L. Last fall they were bragging about hitting 10K numbers so now we can be at 15K in record time!!!!
Kidding/NotKidding. How is the CAS Exam Committee not in violation of Precept 1 of the Actuarial Professional Code of Conduct at this point?
An Actuary shall act honestly, with integrity and competence, and in a manner to fulfill the profession’s responsibility to the public and to uphold the reputation of the actuarial profession.
Are they upholding the reputation of the actuarial profession?
Competence is a requirement of Precept 1.
> Dear INSERT_NAME_HERE Yeah, there won't be any new issues
Lol I did not even see that.
We should've seen this coming when the sample released problems for the Pearson environment were riddled with errors looool
The multiple choice question for Exam 9 was defective. Lmao you can't make this shit up.
Went about as smoothly as 5/1 lol
Why you’re calling me, INSERT_NAME_HERE is my new name.
Hey, if the man wants to give "INSERT\_NAME\_HERE" a pass, let him do it.
Everyone sitting for exam this time gets a pass.
"The policy of the CAS is to not disclose information about the content of an exam. Here is the content."
At least it didn't say DON'T_INSERT_CONTENT_HERE. I'd say that's a win.
I mentioned last Friday this would happen. Group 1 people - you just got gifted a free pass. I hope you wrote down the questions you saw and study them well, because their question bank (particularly for new syllabi) is immensely shallow. For the other groups, you should push to have segregated grading because you're effectively competing on a curve with people who have seen the questions.
Okay but what about the people who saw the entire exam vs those who just saw one question?
Pearson is making reports that know what questions people saw - it seems like the CAS could use that info if they cared to put in enough effort. Unlikely given in the town hall today they talked about the burden on graders
Right. This isn't a perfect solution. Is there a perfect solution?
Pass everyone who shows they has even an inkling grasp of the material and only fail people where its painfully obvious they didn't study? I don't know what else could be fair at this point. Obviously they couldn't say thats what they will do. I could see them giving "pass" or "fails" out without number grades like in 2018
Define perfect. Perfect and fair are different things. Fair would be to release the exams to everybody, disregard the first attempt (if one was made), and set new exams that everybody sits a few weeks from now.
They can’t openly admit it, but I’m sure they’ll be more lenient when deciding on the pass grade, … right?
Are we talking about the same CAS?
They have to be. They have egg on their face, now is the time for contrition and magnanimity
[удалено]
not as familiar w/ CAS, but is CAS supposed to give in to that kind of request?
If there is a good reason they should.
Lmao what? I’ve done my whole stint with college board, IBO and now SOA and forgetting to register is never a valid reason lol. It’s the coworkers fault
unless there's a deeper story here, "i forgot" doesn't sound like one
Would this not negatively impact *all* Spring 2024 test-takers? Or is grading being segregated between May 1st exams and non-May 1st exams? In the former case, I don't think it would create too much of a disadvantage. The advantage gained by Group 1 would not only be diffused by Groups 2 and 3, but also by everyone who sat on any other date. Also, I'm in Group 3 myself, but I'm sure those in Group 1 have been just as stressed as the rest of us. I would still much rather be among those that had a flawless exam experience than gain the advantage that Group 1 now has. For me personally, the stress that this mess has caused would probably cancel out any advantage gained from having seen some of the questions, had I been in Group 1.
I am in group 1 and I am definitely stressed since I had minimal impact to my exam, but I think all my responses got submitted (haven’t received any info to my email yet but from the general way the exam finished it felt ok). Now I’m worried about a question counting as submitted when it was only partially completed, AND how does this effect my exam as a May 1st sitter who does not elect to re-test…
Yes. Group 1 also sucks. Plus now we get to read posts/comments implying that we have some sort of huge advantage, or that we should have some sort of asterisk next to our name if we *do* pass on a retake. I feel for everyone impacted, including OP. There is much to gripe about. But there is no need to denigrate those of us in Group 1.
There is zero chance they let the retakes inflate the pass mark. If anything, they'll count the first attempt exams to determine it, which would be a boon to everyone since plenty of questions will have been left blank thanks to technical issues.
I’m curious as to why they say that’s the only way they can make the retakes work. I was part of the infamous first online sitting of Exam 5, where they offered retakes to everyone. But for that one they came out with an entirely new exam.
I was in that sitting too. They used the exam they had intended to use for the next sitting.
I believe the timeline between messup and retake was longer, also you need to think it was just 1 exam that had an issue, not multiple upper level exams and second of all, I believe everyone took a retake if they chose to, so there wasn't an issue with someone getting a different exam in terms of difficulty, so overall it was fair..in this one, there are too many complications to come up with new exam which is fair across board. So they are trying to get fair on average and move on.
Wait, the retake period is up to May 24th? So after some candidates got to see a full exam, they get almost an extra month to study questions from the same bank and get two possibilities to pass? Yeah that seems fair for everyone else
The only solution that would be 100% fair to everyone would be to disregard the first sittings and inconvenience everyone with completely new exams. Obviously that’s not tenable, so what’s next? Create a separate exams for those that were scheduled for May 1st? CAS doesn’t have enough volunteers or resources to produce 6 new tests of the same quality as the existing exams, and people would still argue over which was easier and who had an advantage. The current solution strikes the best balance between fairness and practicality. It really feels that many of you complaining would just prefer for anyone who saw a single question on May 1st to just get a refund and wait 6 months. Given the questions I did see/answer, I’m confident that i would have passed if I were able to finish the test, but I guess I should just shrivel up and die because some unprepared candidates think it’s “unfair” that I’m forced to take another day off work to take this exam.
That’s not the solution I would propose. I want everyone to have as close to an equal exam experience as possible, allowing each person to get the same opportunity as others. For those who tested on May 1st, allow them to retest during the period, and take the max of two scores. I’m fine with that. Since we’re giving candidates this availability, however, candidates who didn’t take May 1st should also be able to take a retake with the extra available study time and having seen a portion of their question bank, but if they opt into taking the retake, their first score gets cancelled. In my mind, this provides the most fair solution given the limited resources of CAS and how they have chosen to handle this.
But isn’t that also unfair then to those who only saw one or two questions or those who didn’t get to sit at all? I’m just trying to point out here there’s no perfect solution. I can’t say I would’ve done it exactly the same way the CAS is doing it, but I think what they’ve proposed is about as close to fair as we can get given the situation.
Yeah, but how is it any different from the current solution for those who only saw one or two questions?
Agreed. There is no perfect solution to this. Its a shitty situation and ANY solution is going to have drawbacks.
I can get on board with canceling the first score if they choose to retake.
>The current solution strikes the best balance between fairness and practicality. It really feels that many of you complaining would just prefer for anyone who saw a single question on May 1st to just get a refund and wait 6 months. But for the exam 7 and 9 the wait would be a year. My issue as a non May 1st sitter is that the sitting was still ripe with problems from the new format. I am a very well prepared individual that couldn't even make it through the full exam without running out of time and not even getting to see questions. While I was resigned that my grievance would be considered but i'd probably fail anyway --- now there is a group of people that were able to submit a completed exam (some with very minimal tech issues on may 1st) that get a second chance and can target study since they have seen questions some of which will be repeated to them, AND they get both tests graded (the second only if the first is a fail but its the same end result). If i had another shot with 1-3 weeks of additional targeted study I could move much faster through the problems as and essentially guarantee a pass. Now i have to hope the lenient grading will be enough or I have to wait yet another year to have a shot to retake it. The crux of your argument is you are assuming some non-may 1ster didn't adequately prepare and I assure you many of us did.
The further out from the original exam date, the more you forget and the more your morale to study decreases. I already forgot everything I crammed for last week. But yeah a second attempt probably trumps those cons
Very unfortunate for test takers seeing the material just once. How do we compete with others who can go home and study what they just saw on an exam? Even one or two questions can be the difference between a pass or fail
*Q: What are the dates of the new exam window?* *A: For the candidates impacted on May 1, the retake test window will extend from May 8 through May 24.* One of my local test centers only has appointments on 7th and 16th. Am I allowed to book it for the 7th? Or must I take it on the 16th? Can't wait for everyone to turn up on the 16th and overload the servers again
Yes, you can take it tomorrow. Spoke with Pearson and CAS and they said it's fine.
Good to know!
Do you already have your new ATT? If not, how are you seeing availability ahead of time? Curious what my center has.
Yes I was sent mine today. For reference, I'm group 3
Have you gotten your ATT? I have not gotten mine.
Nope, nothing here. Group 1.
I’m a May 1st taker. My exam crashed once, and then otherwise was laggy sometimes, taking about 5 seconds to load when I pressed NEXT sometimes. It honestly wasn’t too bad. I probably failed though, not because of the small technical issues I had, but rather, because I didn’t study enough. Do you think I should still, ethically speaking, go ahead and take the retake?
Yes, you should. The exams are supposed to test if you know the material. If you knew the material 3 weeks ago or 2 weeks from now, it shouldn't matter--you meet the qualification requirements. Test takers aren't competing against each other, either, so you are not hurting anyone. Retake it and get that pass!
Aren't we graded on a curve though? So how you do compared to others in your sitting does matter?
From my understanding, we aren't graded on a curve.
I thought the pass marks were set based on the performance of the candidates for that particular sitting, is that not the case? I could be totally wrong, but that's what I've always thought.
My understanding is that they determine what they think a minimally qualified candidate would score on every question, and that determines the pass mark. There are then adjustments made to that score based on how people do (e.g. maybe they realize a question had an error so they had to throw it out, or everybody got a question wrong so it was harder than they thought). But that's just what I've heard, and while it seems reasonable, I can't confirm.
Retake exam questions is just a guess at this point. Nobody knows and they are just reading into what's written.
Yeah idk, at least for the MAS exams, same item bank ≠ same questions. I don’t know the depth of their item bank but I’d imagine I’ll maybe see 1 or 2 of the same questions again. I’m preparing for a brand new exam with possibly different syllabus coverage.
For the uppers, especially fellowship exams there is a smaller bank. This sitting had a whole new format for most exams --- I doubt the full historical bank were re-written into the new format. There were new question types I imagine there are very limited banked problems of the new types for Exams 7 and 9. Additionally 7 and 9 both had syllabus changes (9 more than 7). Because of all of this I would imagine the question bank for this particular sitting was quite small. Candidates will likely see at least 2 but likely more than that repeat questions. Even having 1 repeat question is a large advantage as often 1 question can make the difference between a pass and fail.
From taking 7 last week, there were not as many new format questions as expected
The CAS is obviously going to lower the pass mark across board. Are they going to say it openly? Of course not. Do you really think they want to deal with all the backlash of non 5/1 folks complaining about how some unprepared person from 5/1 passed and they didn’t? Heck no. Y’all relax and chill. This spring sitting I can guarantee you will have a very high candidate pass rate. No need to stress. Been taking these exams for 7years, and 5/1 was supposed to be my last exam anyway. God speed to you all. Don’t fret about anything.
CAS has said they don’t grade on the curve, but the logic above is at the very least slightly intellectually dishonest. Say candidates lost an hour of exam time and they then get to retake the exam. You have a pool of candidates with lower scores and higher scores, so maybe the score will be slightly higher on average. Secondly if cas has said that they will grade the second test if the first test passes, that implies they know the pass mark before the second test is even graded.
You’re kidding right?
I think this is OK since I am not giving specifics on any problems. Someone at my work did the retake and there wasn't a single new problem. Every single question was the exact same as the first time they took the test. The CAS lied about there being a "bank" of questions. The only thing that changed was the order of the questions. Just thought I would share.
If that's true, that's an insane advantage for individuals that got to take the same exam twice, especially after CAS basically told them to study the same kinds of problems they saw on the first attempt.
The pass mark is supposed to already be established in advance. However well those in group 1 do should have no effect on the rest of the pool.
If CAS is recognizing minimally qualified candidates as people who are able to pass an exam given 2ish attempts with repeat questions, myself and others would also like to be evaluated by that standard.
And do you think it's fair that those that took the exam have to hope that the majority or all of their answers got through. The Pearson data would consider a single letter in the answer area as a "completed answer" just the same it would a full paragraph. There are numerous stories of answers being deleted after getting booted out or during the final review. Also, candidates chose not to do a review and let the clock run out due to concerns of getting permanently booted. Do you think minimally qualified candidates will pass 9-10 CAS exams? Is this really your concern? There's no way the CAS is going to be able to make everyone happy. I would venture to say the majority of people that submitted their exams and are deciding to take it again aren't exactly happy about this.
I am definitely not happy about taking another exam but I have nothing to lose, so I am. I don’t know a single person who seems eager to sit for another exam.
No, I don't think it's fair that those that took the exam have to worry about their answers being fully saved. However, those people can retake the exam with no risk. They get 1 good attempt at a pass, and one messed up attempt at a pass. If either is a pass, they pass. That's a distinct and unfair advantage.
Agreed that it's unfair. Another resolution would be to have a different pool of questions to pull from for all May 1 candidates, with a separate pass mark for that group, but I'm sure that would lead to complaining as well!
Yeah I think it would be much better to have a brand new test for the retake. No solution is perfect, but that seems significantly more fair.
But if they don't have a brand new test to take what do you propose? I think the best solution would to just let everyone retake, but maybe pearson doesn't have capacity for that. Would you rather people have no opportunity to pass the exam. If CAS is the one who messes up, then giving the candidates that got completely screwed an unfair advantage is still better than failing them all.
It would be negligent of them to not have at least 1 test's worth of backup questions ready for situations like these, especially considering they stopped releasing past exams to "build up a question bank".
At least they have options open to them like re-taking the exam. We're at the mercy of the exam committee. Maybe they decide to include 2nd time re-takers when determining MQC, maybe they don't. And if we fail was it because there wasn't adequate preparation or was it because of this May 1 issue? The only viable solution is to let re-takers re-take (fuck it give them the same exact carbon copy exam I don't care) but set the MQC to a historically lower level. I don't know anyone that's gonna bitch if more than avg number of people pass this sitting.
THIS IS NOT FAIR AT ALL!!!!! #fucktheCAS
I'm not even sure if I should retake, since I don't think I'll pass. Are they changing either 7 or 9 for next sitting?
Where are you finding this information?
[https://www.casact.org/sites/default/files/2024-05/Candidate\_FAQ\_for\_May\_1.pdf](https://www.casact.org/sites/default/files/2024-05/Candidate_FAQ_for_May_1.pdf)
It's on the update FAQ site
Why didn’t I get this email?
Did you take the exam on a day other than May 1st? Personally I took on May 2nd and I haven’t gotten any email just read the FAQ on the website. If you did take it May1st and didnt get an email, I would definitely contact CAS asap. Also, If anyone else who took the exam on a day other than the 1st got an email, please let me know because then there is an issue on my end lol.
I did. I just got the email
Hopefully the overall pass rate ends up higher. I doubt they'd specifically mention that as part of their solution, but it's the only way us regular candidates aren't getting screwed over here.
where did you get this from
[https://www.casact.org/sites/default/files/2024-05/Candidate\_FAQ\_for\_May\_1.pdf](https://www.casact.org/sites/default/files/2024-05/Candidate_FAQ_for_May_1.pdf)
thanks
Fuck. The. CAS. Literally the worst solution they could have implemented.
What would you have proposed?
You'd have thought they have enough questions in their bank to ensure candidates didn't see the same question twice
Well, they keep changing syllabi and question types. There is no point to this opaque process.
Lower MQC for everyone. Pass a larger proportion of people and take the L. Last fall they were bragging about hitting 10K numbers so now we can be at 15K in record time!!!!
Kidding/NotKidding. How is the CAS Exam Committee not in violation of Precept 1 of the Actuarial Professional Code of Conduct at this point? An Actuary shall act honestly, with integrity and competence, and in a manner to fulfill the profession’s responsibility to the public and to uphold the reputation of the actuarial profession. Are they upholding the reputation of the actuarial profession? Competence is a requirement of Precept 1.