The first issue to me seems inexcusable. I have discussed this with several CAS
members and students and everyone seems to feel the same way. First of all,
this should never have happened. Second of all, the explanation does not
exactly make anyone feel any better. I, too, would be interested in what some
others think.
The second issue is very important as well. Many, many people were absolutely
stunned to see that their candidate number was not on the first Pass List. This
to me suggests the setting of a fairly high pass mark. A fundamental question
is this: Should the exam committee take into account the higher level of
preparedness exhibited by most students this sitting? This was the last chance
for students to gain credit for exams 6,8, and 10 before the Y2K transition. So
needless to say, competition is likely to be very high. Just because overall
exam scores are high does not necessarily mean that the exam was easy. It could
mean that students were studying harder than ever. Isn't the purpose of exams
to demonstrate a "level of competence"?
Anyone else's thoughts or comments would be appreciated.
Loren_J._Nickel@ffic.com on 07/02/99 04:51:08 PM
To: casnet@lists.casact.org
cc: (bcc: Mike Adams/BOCA/NCCI)
Subject: Part 8 debacle!
How does everyone feel about this?
What can/should be done about it?
For those who have not heard here is a brief synopsis:
Part 8 results were published on Thursday and then taken down on Friday with
only this message to console the candidates:
?Part 8US/8C--Not available. The approved list will be posted next week. The
previously posted 8US/8C list did not have final approval. We regret any
inconvenience or problem the earlier posting may have caused. (7/2/99)?
Many of the students feel (as shown in the student discussions) that the problem
lies with where to draw the pass mark. Some of us feel that the CAS has not
considered how the transition would affect the ?level of competence? of
prospective candidates. It makes sense that higher qualified candidates would
result if you require Part 7 and Part 8 for transfer credit on the new Part 7.
This results because only students with Part 7 would take Part 8 for fear of
losing credit (discourages first time exam takers and increases the level of
preparedness). This could also be seen by an increase in the number of
candidates taking Part 10 (i.e. skipping past part 8).
It appears that CAS members may be worried that their past exam success may be
devalued if they see a pass ratio higher than 40%. Maybe some fellows would like
to comment on that view.
I think the largest problem is the secrecy involved in setting the pass mark and
not informing students when things go wrong. There has been no explanation to
why the CAS withdrew the posted results. I for one would like to some sort of an
explanation and proposed solution.
I would really appreciate some comments from CAS members and students.
Visit the CAS Web Site at http://www.casact.org
=======================To subscribe or unsubscribe from CASNET:
Send an e-mail to caslists@lists.casact.org
Type in the body join casnet to subscribe
or leave casnet to unsubscribe.
Visit the CAS Web Site at http://www.casact.org
===============================================
To subscribe or unsubscribe from CASNET:
Send an e-mail to caslists@lists.casact.org
Type in the body join casnet to subscribe
or leave casnet to unsubscribe.