Scoring on Exams

[alouie]

A lot of interviews that I have gone through have asked me what my score was on the 1/P exam. In general, do jobs care more about whether you pass or not, or are they looking for someone with a 9 or 10 on the exam? Sure it is an accomplishment to pass the exam, but is a company going to choose someone who gets a 9 or 10 more than a person with a 6?

[tpegan]

A lot of interviews that I have gone through have asked me what my score was on the 1/P exam. In general, do jobs care more about whether you pass or not, or are they looking for someone with a 9 or 10 on the exam? Sure it is an accomplishment to pass the exam, but is a company going to choose someone who gets a 9 or 10 more than a person with a 6?

In my experience, the actual grade does not matter just as long as it's greater than 5
.

[NoMoreExams]

A lot of interviews that I have gone through have asked me what my score was on the 1/P exam. In general, do jobs care more about whether you pass or not, or are they looking for someone with a 9 or 10 on the exam? Sure it is an accomplishment to pass the exam, but is a company going to choose someone who gets a 9 or 10 more than a person with a 6?

I've often heard, and agree with, the statement "anything more than a 6 and you overstudied". I personally would not want to work at a company where they want you to get a 9 or a 10. Your job isn't passing exams, it's working while trying to balance studying and your own personal life. If you can do all that and still pull of a 9 or a 10, that's great but that shouldn't be a requirement.

[JDav]

I've often heard, and agree with, the statement "anything more than a 6 and you overstudied". I personally would not want to work at a company where they want you to get a 9 or a 10. Your job isn't passing exams, it's working while trying to balance studying and your own personal life. If you can do all that and still pull of a 9 or a 10, that's great but that shouldn't be a requirement.

Ok, don't take this personally, because you're not the first person to quote this (IMO asinine) statement. But I don't want to deal with a firm that encourages minimal competence. Your job isn't to balance studying and personal life, it's to _become and do the work of an actuary_, and that means knowledge and experience. Just like I don't want to deal with schools who hire minimally competent teachers, or repair shops with minimally competent technicians (I'll leave medicine out of it, 'cause it's too easy), any firm or industry that celebrates and encourages "just barely enough to get by" is repugnant to me.

Have a good weekend.

[NoMoreExams]

Ok, don't take this personally, because you're not the first person to quote this (IMO asinine) statement. But I don't want to deal with a firm that encourages minimal competence. Your job isn't to balance studying and personal life, it's to _become and do the work of an actuary_, and that means knowledge and experience. Just like I don't want to deal with schools who hire minimally competent teachers, or repair shops with minimally competent technicians (I'll leave medicine out of it, 'cause it's too easy), any firm or industry that celebrates and encourages "just barely enough to get by" is repugnant to me.

Have a good weekend.

Your statement would be accurate if the exam performance directly correlated (and even then you know what can be said, however asinine, regarding correlation and causation) with your job performance. I've met plenty of FSAs that were horrible at communication and plenty of people that struggled with exams or did well enough to "just barely get by" but did great work. Regarding your objective to "become and do the work of an actuary", I will agree with but once again, refer to what I said above.

[JDav]

Your statement would be accurate if the exam performance directly correlated (and even then you know what can be said, however asinine, regarding correlation and causation) with your job performance. I've met plenty of FSAs that were horrible at communication and plenty of people that struggled with exams or did well enough to "just barely get by" but did great work. Regarding your objective to "become and do the work of an actuary", I will agree with but once again, refer to what I said above.

I'm not claiming direct correlation. But for anyone to chide someone for doing better than necessary is twisted, plain and simple. I don't hear anyone telling college students than anything more than a 3.5 GPA (or 2.0 if we want to really split hairs) is a waste.

[NoMoreExams]

I'm not claiming direct correlation. But for anyone to chide someone for doing better than necessary is twisted, plain and simple. I don't hear anyone telling college students than anything more than a 3.5 GPA (or 2.0 if we want to really split hairs) is a waste.

I'm not saying doing better than the min. is bad, what I was saying was that I wouldn't work for a company that makes it a requirement. I'm very happy when I walk out of the room and feel confident about the exam, but it does not make me any less happier when I get the results and it says 6 or 8 or 10. CAS recognizes this and this is why you only get a pass if you receive 6+. Your opinion as to what it takes to be an actuary i.e. "Your job isn't to balance studying and personal life, it's to _become and do the work of an actuary_, and that means knowledge and experience." seems very misguided to me and if I lived that way, I would probably be depressed. A job is just that, a job. You want to perform well and I believe a part of that is knowing where to draw your limits otherwise you'll burn out too fast.

[JDav]

"anything more than a 6 and you overstudied"

As I said before, my argument is not with you, it is with this statement. The clear implication is that there _is_ something wrong with an 8, or a 10, and that is a terrible message to send to anyone considering, or starting out in, this career.

[NoMoreExams]

As I said before, my argument is not with you, it is with this statement. The clear implication is that there _is_ something wrong with an 8, or a 10, and that is a terrible message to send to anyone considering, or starting out in, this career.

I think that statement needs to be taken with a grain of salt and perhaps some people take it too literally. If you define the objective as "pass the exam" then yes, that statement is right on the money, if you get a 7-10, you wasted time studying that you could've been using to do something else whether that would be working, partying, staring at the wall, etc. However even if one's objective is to merely pass, no one can predict what they would get if they studied X hours more or X hours less (short of obvious outliers). I've also heard that you should study for a 10 and hopefully get above a 5. These exams are not like high school or most college courses where there is a more defined line as to what it would take to get an A, B, ... Then again I also don't believe that these exams truely reflect what an actuary should know short of 8 (or CSP and DP) on the SOA side. The other exams, especially the prelim. ones will always have material that some actuaries won't use.

[feste22]

I've heard the quote as well. I think it's meant more as a reassurance, not meant to chide. It's meant to make the student know that they don't need to add on any more pressure than they're already facing.

If you've spent your life getting mostly A's and B's in classes, all through high school and college, it's a bit of an adjustment to be OK with a 6 out of 10. I got a 7 on my first exam, and I'm really glad my manager said that to me, because now, with a wife, a kid, and two jobs... even those 7's aren't so easy anymore.