I made an inquiry to the SOA about how my May 2014 exam was graded, and I asked if they would re-grade it based on the information I provided. They sent me feedback which I disagreed with, but when I provided a detailed response explaining my position, I was told it would not be forwarded to the exam committee. Since my fellow exam-takers are probably curious to know more about the grading process, I'll post the correspondence in this thread.
The problem in question is problem 10(b)(i). The question can be found on pages 4 and 5 of http://ift.tt/1uPSQk2 . The model solution is on pages 30-33 of http://ift.tt/1uPSQk6 .
When I took the exam, I struggled with this problem for a few reasons. One is that while I have much experience with MCEV, the problem was on traditional EV, so I had to adjust my thinking. Another is that there were several ambiguities in the question, and I spent a lot of time trying to organize all the commentary I felt I needed to write to explain how I was interpreting the problem. I didn't write anything to the SOA immediately after the exam, but I don't know if writing them about the ambiguities would have made a difference.
When I got my results, I attributed my score of 1 out of 10 on this problem to the fact that I skimmed the traditional EV during my studies, focusing on STAT and GAAP since much of that was new to me. It wasn't until I read through the model solutions in early September that I realized I might deserve more points on this problem. I sent the SOA an e-mail in mid-September, and I got a response from the exam committee in mid-October. I responded to the exam committee on October 24, but received a reply the same day that the matter was considered closed, and my response would not be forwarded to the committee.
I believe I have done everything I can for the May exam and will have to hope for the best on the October exam. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what I could have done differently on problem 10(b)(i). Given the same question again, I would attempt to solve it the same way, though I would probably write a cleaner solution without the $100 million error which I apparently made in May. Since the exam committee does not feel my approach is valid, I suspect I would not score much higher than I did in May.
Here are some links to the study notes I referenced in my correspondence.
Embedded Value: Practice and Theory: http://ift.tt/1uPSOIS
Understanding Profitability in Life Insurance: http://ift.tt/10KS0aF
The problem in question is problem 10(b)(i). The question can be found on pages 4 and 5 of http://ift.tt/1uPSQk2 . The model solution is on pages 30-33 of http://ift.tt/1uPSQk6 .
When I took the exam, I struggled with this problem for a few reasons. One is that while I have much experience with MCEV, the problem was on traditional EV, so I had to adjust my thinking. Another is that there were several ambiguities in the question, and I spent a lot of time trying to organize all the commentary I felt I needed to write to explain how I was interpreting the problem. I didn't write anything to the SOA immediately after the exam, but I don't know if writing them about the ambiguities would have made a difference.
When I got my results, I attributed my score of 1 out of 10 on this problem to the fact that I skimmed the traditional EV during my studies, focusing on STAT and GAAP since much of that was new to me. It wasn't until I read through the model solutions in early September that I realized I might deserve more points on this problem. I sent the SOA an e-mail in mid-September, and I got a response from the exam committee in mid-October. I responded to the exam committee on October 24, but received a reply the same day that the matter was considered closed, and my response would not be forwarded to the committee.
I believe I have done everything I can for the May exam and will have to hope for the best on the October exam. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what I could have done differently on problem 10(b)(i). Given the same question again, I would attempt to solve it the same way, though I would probably write a cleaner solution without the $100 million error which I apparently made in May. Since the exam committee does not feel my approach is valid, I suspect I would not score much higher than I did in May.
Here are some links to the study notes I referenced in my correspondence.
Embedded Value: Practice and Theory: http://ift.tt/1uPSOIS
Understanding Profitability in Life Insurance: http://ift.tt/10KS0aF
Grading inquiry on May 2014 exam
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire