Candidates Respond

Barry Franklin

In my view the CAS reaction to the unfortunate disruption in the Pearson VUE exam delivery technology has been appropriate and well-communicated. I do believe the CAS Risk Management Committee should undertake a rigorous assessment of the risks associated with all outsourced functions and report back to the CAS Board with its findings. I would also suggest the CAS require Pearson VUE to have an independent assessment of its exam delivery technology performed, if that has not already been done.

Raju Bohra

The outage experienced at the Pearson VUE testing centers on May 1, 2024, caused personal and professional distress and disruption to our candidates and employers. The CAS leadership and Examination Working Groups quickly issued a statement on May 2 and by May 6 provided a concrete path forward. While no solution could wholly redress the loss to affected candidates, the CAS response was proper and professional. The information provided candidates and the opening of an extended testing window provided as fair an opportunity as possible to allow candidates to re-take their exams.

Pearson VUE along with competitor testing firms, such as Prometric, are widely used by professional and academic organization to administer exams. As was done when Pearson VUE was originally selected by the CAS, we should continue to re-evaluate their performance and technology as well as other competitor alternatives. This evaluation should include a thorough analysis of their systems, infrastructure, and contingency plans to identify any potential weaknesses or areas for improvement.

David Foley

From my non-candidate perspective, the CAS reaction to the issue with the May 1st exam sitting was appropriate and very responsive. Within 24 hours, the CAS had investigated the issue with candidates and Pearson VUE leading to the identification of three (3) cohorts of candidates. There appears to be on-going communication between candidates, employers and Pearson VUE based on the May 3rd note from CAS President Frank Chang. The FAQ explaining the new window for testing was released on May 6th and there were continuing updates from the CAS through May 17th. The CAS subsequently updated the Candidates of the timing of results along with an explanation for the delay.

The frustration and inconvenience the candidates experienced is real. This issue adversely impacts the candidate, their family, their employer, and their fellow employees who pick up extra work during study and exam periods. Unfortunately, stuff happens, and the CAS appeared prepared and responded quickly and decisively.

I am not privy to the contract with Pearson VUE, but potential actions include:

1. Contractual performance standards such that failure to meet the standards results in a substantial financial penalty for Pearson VUE.
2. The CAS should develop relationships with other vendors in the examination marketplace. These relationships should include monitoring of how well these other vendors perform.
3. Contingency plans need to be in place should the need arise to move from Pearson VUE to another vendor. A change in vendors is not easy and could be very disruptive without proper planning. Thus, a detailed playbook must be developed should the need to change become real.

Richard Gibson

I am certainly not privy to all of the discussions that occurred subsequent to the Pearson VUE problems. That said, as a rule, when something goes wrong, the first question that I ask myself is “what is the best thing to do now”. It would seem that the CAS management/leadership did just that by identifying a plan of action that allowed for the completion of the interrupted exams. No doubt this was not as convenient as having the exam administration go off smoothly, but it appears to be fair under the circumstances. As respects future mitigation, I would suspect that there have been ongoing discussions with Pearson VUE regarding future expectations and stress testing their service. Further, one could ask if there is another testing service that has the scale and availability to handle the CAS exam administration.

Yi Jing

I first feel sorry for those candidates who have been affected by the Pearson VUE issue. Given how much efforts and time candidates have put into preparing the exam, the last thing they wanted is not being able to complete their exam due to technical issues by the testing center. I felt that the responses and guidance CAS provided immediately after the issue occurred were appropriate and helpful for those affected, although there were some confusions at the beginning. Going forward, I think CAS should reassess the relationship with Pearson VUE and make sure no recurrence of the same issue. CAS can solicit feedback from CAS candidates with regard to testing centers for future areas of improvement.

Anand Khare

This will be long. Some people reading this won’t remember the full context of CAS expansion into computer-based testing, and so I’ll begin by providing that context. This is relevant for all three of these “ask the candidates” questions.

Context:

In 2010 and earlier, all CAS exams were pencil and paper. Starting in 2011, the CAS began administering the multiple-choice Online Course 1 and 2 exams at Prometric testing centers in partnership with The Institutes, the credentialing body for the CPCU designation. This partnership has been successful and is ongoing.

In 2013, the CAS began discussing computer-based testing for the upper-level exams. After some delay, computer-based testing was piloted for the Spring 2018 sitting of Exam 5, in partnership with PSI and TrueAbility. There were serious problems with this exam and the plan to roll out widespread computer-based testing was postponed.

In 2020, the CAS was forced by the pandemic to roll out computer-based testing, this time on Pearson VUE, with little advance notice. The upper-level exams have been administered on Pearson VUE since 2020. There have been occasional technical and scheduling issues.

Relevant for the third question – In conjunction with this switch to computer-based testing, the CAS stopped releasing older exam questions. This was done because computer-based exams rely on a deep “question bank”, rather than set of fixed questions for each exam.

In 2024, there were serious problems with Spring exams administered on May 1, the last day of the 7-day testing window, that impacted all CAS exams. Some candidates couldn’t take their exams or couldn’t finish them. The CAS offered retests. CAS messaging is here.

Response:

It’s important to draw a distinction between the circumstances that led to the issue, the CAS response to date, and the steps that the CAS might take going forward.

Conditional on the issue having occurred as it did, I think the CAS response to date has been good. On May 1, the CAS office sent an email to candidates informing them of the issue and notifying them that the testing window was being extended. On May 2, CAS leadership issued a public statement. On May 3, candidates were presented with a concrete solution. There’s a comprehensive FAQ and there’s been plenty of exposition. The quality of the solution and the speed and depth of communication all look good to me.

A note on fairness – I followed this situation as it was unfolding on the r/actuary subreddit, and I saw some comments there that espoused the view that the May 1 candidates were unfairly advantaged, since only the May 1 candidates had the opportunity to retake their exams. This view is correct. But running down the list of possible solutions, every other potential course of action would have been either even less fair or else entirely impractical (e.g. cancelling the sitting entirely, forcing all candidates to sit for new exams with new questions, etc.). Complete fairness isn’t always possible, and I support the solution that the CAS arrived at.

Going forward, it’s difficult to separate a discussion of next steps from a broader discussion about computer-based testing in general. That broader discussion hinges on confidential information that I don’t have access to and so I can only cover the situation at a high level.

Working from the bottom up, the relationship with Pearson should be reevaluated. What was the root cause of the technical issue? Was it a one-off or was it indicative of a lack of competence or maintenance? How likely is it to recur? What recourse might the CAS have and what contingencies are in place for a potential recurrence? These questions should be covered in depth with Pearson, and this experience should inform the format selection, vendor selection, negotiation, and contracting process when the Pearson contract is up for renewal.

Working from the top down, there’s a fundamental question of how the CAS ought to proceed with respect to computer-based testing. When I was involved in the initial discussions around computer-based testing in 2014, I was opposed to it, as I felt that our pencil-and-paper process worked well enough. But a lot has changed in the last ten years. My position would have held up well in Spring 2018 and Spring 2024, when computer-based testing ran into problems, but not so much in 2020 and 2021, when pencil-and-paper testing wouldn’t have worked at all.

There are a lot of complex tradeoffs around both format choice and vendor choice (both Pearson and Prometric have had their problems) and I’m no longer working with complete information. I’d like to be able to suggest a particular course of action here, but it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to form a view, let alone articulate one, without having access to the same information (costs, contract terms, competitive analyses, performance measures, etc.) that CAS leadership and staff currently have at their disposal.

Jason K. Machtinger

The incident with Pearson VUE on May 1 was a terrible situation that placed candidates in a very stressful position.  While not all candidates were affected equally (with some candidates unable to write any of the exam, while others were able to at least partially submit some answers), it is obvious that anybody writing on May 1 was put under a tremendous amount of pressure.

In a situation such as this, it is important to recognize that there is no single solution that will be fully satisfying to every affected candidate.  In an effort to come to a solution that was as fair as possible to all candidates, the CAS began communicating with the membership on May 2.  On May 3, CAS President Frank Chang outlined the proposed approach, including options to rewrite during an extended exam window where appropriate or a refund.  Many factors would have gone into designing this approach, including consideration of how the CAS would be able to quickly administer a second seating.  This necessitated a longer exam window and introduced a delay in the grading process.  Also, the candidates most affected would have been those who were unable to schedule a second seating, resulting in a refund.  In addition, the delay in grading has meant that many candidates for the Fall sitting are not sure which exam they will be writing, making it difficult to start studying.  The CAS has also extended the Fall exam window to recover a portion of the lost time.

There were continued updated communications and a FAQ which continued to be updated up to May 17.   Pearson VUE also provided an update on May 20.  (Link to the full chain of communications can be found here:  CAS May 1 issues

In my view, the CAS’ solution was as fair as possible.  While the CAS’ solution was not perfect for every single candidate, the potential to have both the May 1 and the second sitting graded where possible was a good solution for most.  I would have preferred a better outcome for those that had to request a refund – however, a longer exam window would have delayed grading even more, with a further push for a later Fall exam also.

For future sittings, I would like the CAS to receive evidence before each exam window of a successful realistic simulation of exam day environment to ensure that software is performing as expected (including the provision of exams to multiple examining bodies at the same time, as was the case on May 1).  Additionally, a well-documented contingency plan (both for short-term triage for a sitting plus a roadmap to a pivot to another solution provider should Pearson VUE encounter another incident) should be created (if one does not exist already).

Simone Renee Walker

On May 1, 2024, an event happened that was devastating to our current and future members of the CAS who are studying for their ACAS and FCAS designations. These members sacrificed hundreds of hours of time away from work, family, and other obligations to prepare for their actuarial exam in pursuit of this great profession. As someone who recently completed my last few actuarial exams in the Pearson VUE CBT environment, if put in that situation, I cannot say that any reaction from the CAS would make me feel whole after such an event.

However, from my observations, the CAS did their best to react in the following ways: Identification of the Problem; Implementation of a Fix; Communication with Test Takers; Provision of Options; Review and Improvement.

• Identification of the Problem: Pearson VUE released a statement about a software defect.
• Implementation of a Fix: A fix was deployed within hours, yet still impacted test takers.
• Communication with Test Takers: Communication began immediately with test takers and official statements were released to the entire CAS community about the Pearson VUE software defect; Frequently Asked Questions related to the event were shared by the Candidate Advocate Working Group with the CAS; and updates have been provided as they continue to become available.
• Provision of Options: Test takers were given (3) main options on how to proceed.
• Review and Improvement: Pearson VUE has continued to monitor since the fix.

Actuarial exams should follow current times in content and format of delivery, with the utmost thought and compassion for the candidate experience. The CAS can take further steps to mitigate these risks in the future by adopting a proactive and comprehensive approach to risk management. Here are three strategies that can be effective:

1. Management of Pearson VUE: It is important to have clear agreements about service levels and responsibilities. Verifying Pearson VUE conducts regular system audits and updates can help identify potential issues before they cause disruptions. Also, verification of stress testing can help identify how the system performs under heavy loads or during peak times.
2. Contingency Planning: Having a contingency plan in place can help ensure that there are alternative options available in the event of a disruption. This could include alternative testing dates or locations beyond the testing window or having additional exam graders on standby.
3. Enhanced Knowledge Database: Other non-May 1st candidates also raised concerns about those affected by the May 1st event potentially having a benefit of seeing questions on the test prior to their optional exam retake. This strengthens the need for the current strategic plan of building a question bank for each exam, so the test taker is not receiving the same exact exam questions as their peers during the same sitting. This may be the most challenging to implement, as we are aware of the time and effort CAS exam writer volunteers put into this process, upholding the integrity and rigor of exams in an ever-changing environment. There should be increased focus on ways to incentivize and train more CAS members to volunteer in support of the exam process.

Charles Zhu

While the CAS responded as best as possible under the circumstances, it did not adequately resolve the issues fairly for all candidates. In the future, the CAS must prevent these events and respond promptly, fairly, and transparently if they occur again. If elected as a Board Member, I want the CAS to mitigate and prevent these types of events in the future by: (1) exploring alternative solution providers for future computer-based testing (CBT) exams, (2) implementing contractual obligations with significant financial penalties for solution providers, (3) performing thorough quality assurance tests with solution providers to address software system issues, (4) creating a robust crisis response plan for effective communication during these events, and (5) surveying exam-takers and implementing contingency plans as necessary.

The CAS was not adequately prepared to respond to the May 1 exam’s unfortunate outcome. Based on my conversations with impacted candidates, the slow response reduced the trust and credibility of the CAS and its leaders. My discussions also revealed a perception of a need for more transparency, and the subsequent delayed responses made candidates feel de-prioritized and undervalued.

To improve crisis management, the CAS should implement a robust response process for future incidents and potentially consider publishing this process to be more transparent to all members and candidates. This response process should include contingency plans for similar exam failures, such as automatic and immediate extension of the exam sitting window for rescheduling and offering immediate Pen and Paper in-person examination options. Before the CAS adopts any contingency plan, I recommend surveying and consulting exam-taking candidates.

In addition, I recommend that the CAS conduct a due diligence exercise to identify whether changing to another exam vendor, such as Prometric, is the best option for the CAS going forward. As a recent Fellow, I experienced technical challenges with Pearson VUE’s CBT exams, and the user experience with the Pearson VUE Spreadsheet was suboptimal. If elected as a Board Member, I am a strong advocate for moving toward a more user-friendly software to significantly enhance the candidate experience. If the CAS continues with Pearson VUE, the vendor should be responsible for additional contractual and financial obligations if these events occur again. The CAS should also work with Pearson VUE to identify and resolve additional software defects.

Barry Franklin

The CAS has always taken exam administration very seriously, and while issues such as those experienced on May 1 are clearly unacceptable, I remain confident in the CAS’s commitment to the integrity and fairness of the exam process. In addition to the risk and technology assessments mentioned above, I would encourage the CAS VP-Admissions to undertake a table-top exercise with key stakeholders to identify plausible exam disruption scenarios and develop a response plan for each.

Raju Bohra

The CAS examination and credentialization requirements are the bedrock of our profession and the core responsibility of the CAS leadership and Board. The transformation of CAS exam content and platform started in 2020 properly modernized our process to effectively manage an increasing number of candidate and new relevant course subjects. As our profession grows, we must continue to strike an optimal balance of utilizing VEE credits and preliminary testing from related actuarial and industry organizations.

However, our core Associateship and Fellowship examinations must continue to be CAS led and administered. This will continue to reflect our principal professional skill of applying and connecting deep technical expertise to the current and future business problems of the P&C industry and related social issues. For example, learning and testing of skills such predictive modeling needs to be grounded in P&C applications and problem solving and the ability to connect that analysis to a broader business context.

To do so, it is critical the CAS promote and grow volunteership in Syllabus and Examination Committees and Working Groups. While we all value and benefit from our credentials, the work of these committees is often understaffed and underestimated. These committees play a vital role in shaping the content and structure of the exams. As a CAS board member, I would promote and work to expand committee membership by engaging senior actuaries to encourage existing and new fellows in their firms to volunteer and contribute.

David Foley

Maintaining our robust examination and credentialing process must be a top priority of the Board, Executive Council, CAS staff and the volunteer members of the examination committee. We are the best profession in the world due to the outstanding reputation built by the Fellows and Associates that preceded us in the insurance industry and the management of risk.

The CAS maintains the integrity of the exam process through the Principles of CAS for Basic Education and the Code of Professional Ethics for Candidates. Staying true to these two documents should maintain the integrity of the exam process.

We protect the value of the CAS credentials through a well thought out designed curriculum. The CAS has recently made a positive addition to the ACAS credential by requiring the Property & Casualty Predictive Analytics Exam and Project.  

The CAS Institute, or iCAS, is an excellent vehicle to assist with keeping the examinations relevant. Certificate offerings in an innovative area may be offered by iCAS. This will accelerate new innovative concepts/topics into the basic education requirement with tested examination material.

Richard Gibson

It is not overly clear what is meant by the integrity of the exam process. If the concern is around the issue of overly simplifying the exam questions, I would not do that. I would recommend that we continue to hold ourselves to a high standard. On the other hand, I do think that giving clear guidance as to the material a candidate is expected to master is important.

Additionally, evolution of the syllabus to keep up with emerging developments in the field is critical. Inclusion of both technical and leadership topics will serve to support the strong domain knowledge that CAS members bring to P&C insurance.

As a final note on this, I would point out that the value of the CAS credential is enhanced daily by practicing actuaries through our professionalism, standards of practice, our ability to communicate our findings, our leadership skills, and our personal commitment to continuing education.

Yi Jing

Currently CAS has several policies in place to maintain the integrity of the exam process and protect the value of the CAS credentials including the code of professional ethics for candidates, CAS exam discipline policy as well as the rules of procedures for disciplinary actions involving candidates. At this point, I cannot think of any additional steps CAS should take beyond all above.

Anand Khare

The integrity of the exam process hinges on ensuring that the exams are run well, aren’t cost-prohibitive, are as fair as possible, and cover relevant material. Considerations here include the format and vendor for the exam, and the quality of the support provided by the CAS and its staff. I discuss some of these topics in my answer to the first question above, and I discuss the relevance of the exam material below.

The free-market value of anything, including actuarial services and CAS credentials, is a function of supply and demand. Credentialism is pervasive in modern society and credentials often lose value over time due to oversupply. Some professions have protected themselves from oversupply by implementing artificial restrictions on supply (for example, medical doctors in the United States). Our profession hasn’t done that, and the supply of CAS-credentialed actuaries continues to increase. CAS credentials have maintained their value because demand for CAS-credentialed actuaries has been strong enough to keep pace with supply. This is a good position for the CAS to be in. My view is that demand creation, rather than supply destruction, should continue to be the way forward for protecting the value of CAS credentials.

I would increase demand for CAS-credentialed actuaries by moving us “up the value chain” – that is, distinguishing an actuarial education from an actuarial career, and providing support for CAS-credentialed actuaries who work in parts of the insurance ecosystem apart from traditional actuarial roles. I discuss this in my initial “meet the candidates” responses.

Our syllabus is also in need of some degree of a refresh. Current syllabus materials do a good job of summarizing traditional actuarial methods, but these methods don’t necessarily work well in practice. For example, traditional actuarial rate indications don’t consider selection effects, and traditional actuarial trend selection procedures don’t model inflation in a reasonable way. Rating plan sophistication, which is paramount, doesn’t factor into traditional rate and trend procedures at all.

These shortcomings have real-world impacts. At the end of 2024, some insurance companies will report adverse development in Commercial Auto that can be tied back to shortcomings in estimating the impact of rate change. Some of those same companies will report adverse development in Excess Casualty that can be tied back to shortcomings in modeling inflation. We can help to maintain the value of our credentials by updating the syllabus in a way that prepares our members to effectively handle these and similar situations.

Jason K. Machtinger

I strongly believe that the CAS is, and should continue to be, the gold standard for educating non-life actuaries.  It is critical that CAS education evolves to ensure that our members are developing the skills needed to serve our public in the most modern way possible.

The various CAS committees and working groups (Syllabus committee, Exam committees and working groups, etc) must work actively and closely with industry peers to ensure that syllabus materials reflect what our employers expect actuaries to be able to do in a changing insurance environment:

• Adding value in the actual day-to-day work
• Having the tools needed to innovate and develop new solutions to reflect the evolving economic situations around the world (financial, demographic, environmental, cyber-related, etc.).  The new PCPA (predictive analytics) requirement for ACAS is a great example of the CAS’ adaptation to new skills.

Of course, maintaining the integrity of the exam process also requires ensuring that exams can be delivered appropriately including tighter controls around solutions such as Pearson VUE (discussed in my response to the first question).  Further to the general integrity of exam delivery through Pearson VUE, the CAS should deepen its vetting through pre-testing in actual exam circumstances to identify potential candidate issues (such as having an exam page being split into one screen per question part which necessitates a slow process of scrolling back and forth to various parts of the same question, consuming valuable exam time).

Protecting the value of the CAS credential involves more than just the exam process.  The value of our credentials is dependent on several pillars (each discussed below):

• Continuing education to maintain skills
• University presence to ensure a healthy pipeline of new members
• International involvement to stay relevant on the global stage

Our continuing education (CE) requirements should undergo constant scrutiny to ensure that our longer-tenured members are staying on top of the changing needs of our public.  This could involve stricter requirements on structured time with occasional refresher seminars to maintain compliance.  The recent push for delivery of regular Webinars has definitely made it easier to access high-quality educational content.

Maintaining a strong presence on university campuses is crucial to developing our membership pipeline.  Student consciousness of actuarial accreditation has historically been heavily SOA-focused.  The CAS has made many inroads in this arena (University Engagement Advisory Working Group, University Engagement Volunteer Task Force, University Liaison Program, ASNA sponsorship, etc.) and it is essential that this momentum continues going forward.  The recently-developed CAS Student Central Summer Program is an excellent example of the CAS reacting to a real-life education problem (i.e. cancellation of internships during 2020 lockdowns) with a meaningful solution to keep student engagement high.

Consciousness of the CAS credentials within North America at the employer level is clearly very high.  As our world becomes more interconnected (including the fact that many insurers are global), it is crucial that CAS members remain involved in the international actuarial community.  The CAS has a strong set of committees to drive international engagement through universities, seminars, the IAA (driven strategically by the International Leadership Team).  The CAS must continue engagement of these committees and maintain a recruitment path of volunteers to keep this moving forward.

Simone Renee Walker

The ACAS and FCAS credentials are highly coveted and recognized for the rigor and relevance of exams one must pass to earn these credentials. As the CAS aims to increase awareness of the profession and attract high potential professionals into our community across the lines of ethnicity, race, gender, nationality, background, and thought, candidates must see the long-term value of the CAS credentials. They need to believe in the five to ten-year process of taking exams and trust in the integrity of the exam process and that earning the credentials will be recognized and respected.

The CAS should take the following steps to maintain the integrity of the exam process and protect the value of the CAS credentials:

• Managing reputation risk – Unfortunately, one adverse event could bring the credential into question. We must uphold exam integrity by prioritizing the following:
  • Vendor Management - to ensure exams are administered with the candidate’s experience at the forefront.
  • Exam Volunteer Training - to ensure accuracy in the writing of exams.
• Rigor of Exams: The CAS must continue to design exams with the goal of ensuring that candidates have a deep understanding of the actuarial field and the ability to apply their knowledge in practice. Actuaries play a crucial role in risk management and strategic decision making in various industries and their input as volunteers in the exam process is critical to the continued relevance and rigor of the exams. We must uphold the rigor of exams by prioritizing the following:
  • Incentivizing volunteers to want to participate in the exam-writing and grading process.
• Monitoring the Competitive Landscape: While the CAS needs to monitor competitor actions, employee needs, as well as consumer/candidate behavior and respond appropriately, we still need to ensure that the credential being offered meets the smell test and find the right balance to satisfy wants and needs while remaining relevant.
• CAS Members’ Transparency: The sharing of innovation, analysis, and impact our members bring to their organizations should continue to be available to members across the many conferences, working groups, committees, articles, webinars, and other work products the CAS offers. The belief that actuaries are recognized and respected in various industries is evidenced by:
  • Employers requiring the CAS credentials.
  • Actuarial salary surveys showing a strong outlook, available due to the transparency of members.

Charles Zhu

To maintain the integrity of the exam process and protect the value of CAS credentials, I am a proponent of refocusing the examination process to: (1) test knowledge that is applicable and relevant to an actuary’s day-to-day responsibilities, (2) reduce the amount of computation required in the Pearson VUE Spreadsheet, (3) limit the number of questions on obscure topics that are covered in limited capacities by the source materials, and (4) provide candidates with more robust learning tools, including extensive sample questions and access to historical exam questions.

There is a perception that the CAS is making exams harder without adding meaningful value. This perception will have long-term implications on the organization and negatively affect candidate experiences. The added rigor of the examination process has manifested in additional testing of obscure topics across multiple sections across the entire exam. While testing obscure concepts is an excellent way to ensure candidates understand the entire syllabus, this is becoming increasingly difficult, especially in an environment where candidates cannot access historical exam questions or more robust sample questions. As an organization, we can only expect our future members to fully understand the concepts if we provide adequate practice materials to apply their knowledge in a learning environment.

Additionally, there is a perception that the CAS is lengthening exams unnecessarily, increasing the difficulty. The CAS exams should focus on testing candidates’ understanding of actuarial concepts, not their proficiency with the Pearson VUE Spreadsheet software. I was in the first cohort of actuaries taking the CBT exams and experienced the differences between the Pen and Pencil exams and the CBT exams. I initially thought CBT exams would give me a better chance of finishing the entire exam. However, the limitations of the Pearson VUE Spreadsheet made it harder to complete the exam. Introducing more computationally intensive exam questions with limited software capabilities guarantees a poor candidate experience.  

Barry Franklin

The CAS has made numerous enhancements to the exam process over the years and as demonstrated in the Admissions Transformation Plan, will continue to evaluate new technologies, content and capabilities going forward. I have no specific recommendations in this regard but trust the VP-Admissions and Executive Council to consider additional changes that improve the candidate experience while maintaining the integrity of the process. While I understand the desire to see actual questions and answers from past exams, the CAS needs to curate and maintain a library of questions and answers from which future exams can be constructed. I would support the publication of representative questions and answers for key knowledge areas, which should be sufficient for candidate preparation purposes.

Raju Bohra

The CAS should continue to evaluate and improve the examination process including platform and content. As mentioned above, we should consider extending the use of VEE and preliminary testing so we can focus on foundational and advanced P&C exam subject matter as well as new topics such as predictive analytics and artificial intelligence. While acknowledging the demonstrated risk of computer-based testing (CBT) firms such as Person VUE, CBT platforms are essential to efficient exam administration.

While not providing past exams and model answers was useful during the transition to the current exam process, the CAS, led by the Syllabus and Exam Working Groups, may want to consider some level of disclosure going forward. The “Post Exam Summaries” first released in 2023 were helpful and could be expanded without compromising the ability to develop quality exams in the future. This would provide candidates with valuable feedback and insights into their performance, helping them to better prepare for future exams.

David Foley

The examination and credentialing process has undergone meaningful change since 2020. The changes are outlined in the CAS Admission Transformation Plan plus the recently enacted P&C Predictive Analytics exam and project. We should continue to increase the number of integrative questions on the Fellowship examinations. This will move the examinations to be a more practical application of concepts versus rote memory. Integrative questions require the candidate to use multiple concepts to solve more real life like problems.

As new innovative techniques are developed in ratemaking, reserving and the management of risk, these techniques could potentially be developed into certificate programs offered by iCAS and then eventually be brought into the examination track if considered appropriate. Hopefully, in the future, we could do this quicker than our experience with Predictive Analytics.

The CAS stopped releasing the exam questions and answers effective with the Fall 2020 examinations. I am in favor of continuing this policy as I believe that it enhances our examination process.

A few of the advantages of not releasing the questions are significant, such as, the following:

1. Allows the Exam Committee to increase the question bank which can improve exam security.
2. Improved consistent examination difficulty from one sitting to the next.
3. Reduces the probability of ambiguous or faulty questions.
4. Enables the increased use of Integrative questions. Given the difficulty of developing these types of questions, it is an advantage to be able to reuse them.

The Candidates have expressed their preference for each exam to be released. This is understandable as it provides them with an added study aid. However, the CAS has committed to ensuring there will be practice questions for any new articles added to the syllabus and there already is a wealth of practice questions available. Also, the CAS publishes Post Exam Summaries which highlight the areas of difficulty the candidates had on the specific exam.

When I taught high school mathematics, the Advanced Placement tests for AB and BC Calculus were available after the examination. As an educator, I grouped the questions from each exam by concept and found the difference in the questions from year to year were minimal if you understood the concept. Adding one more year of questions to my students’ study material did not increase their understanding of the concepts. The focus should be on learning the concepts and applying them versus memorizing questions and answers.

I have also heard that releasing the exam questions helps the candidates to write “more” effective challenges. Within the computer-based exam, there is an opportunity to write a challenge to a specific question in real time. Also, the candidates have enough recall that they remember any defective question and can write an effective challenge. 

Richard Gibson

Rather than offering specific changes, I would suggest that having a clear set of criteria against which we consider the desirability or acceptability of potential changes is important. Those that come to mind are:

• Is it good for the profession?
• Does it improve travel time for the candidate?
• Does it improve the ability to attract people to our profession?
• Does it improve our ability to compete with other professions that provide competing services?
• Does it broaden opportunities for practicing actuaries?

There may be numerous others, and I would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with other board members to help manage change at the CAS.

Yi Jing

Moving from paper exam to CBT as well as having an exam taking window was a big improvement to examination process. One change CAS could consider is the frequency of fellowship required exams.

As a fellow, I understand how useful having access to the past exam questions and answers can be for exam takers. I don’t think CAS needs to release the past exam questions in a complete form but can release a selected number of questions and answers to those questions based on how well candidates did on each question.

Anand Khare

Please refer back to my answers to the first two questions, as they’re also relevant to this one. I don’t have any major changes or innovations to suggest beyond the few items I’ve already touched on. The volunteers and staff who work on the exams are intelligent and conscientious people and there are no remaining low-hanging fruit that I’m aware of. That said, the CAS should certainly be open to considering any and all suggestions from the membership and from candidates. If the author of this question (or others) had any particular changes or innovations in mind, I’d be interested in hearing about them.

Release of past exam questions and answers is again a question of supply and demand. Questions can only be released if they won’t be used on future exams (that is, if there’s an excess supply of them). We can create more releasable questions by either increasing question supply or decreasing question demand. Supply can be increased only through increased volunteer effort, and demand can be decreased only by reducing the integrity of the exams (by reducing the depth of the question bank) or by reducing convenience to candidates (by switching back to single-day paper testing, which doesn’t require a question bank). So, like everything else, this becomes a question of tradeoffs. I’d be interested in hearing which path our members and our candidates would prefer.

Jason K. Machtinger

The CAS has been and continues to be the premier educational body for non-life actuaries. Requirements for membership have continued to evolve (PCPA, VEE, etc) to meet changing needs. That being said, it has long been recognized that travel time to Fellowship is a hurdle both for candidates and employers. 

One way to shorten travel time may be to expand the recognition of accredited university programs to accelerate the credit for some preliminary exams, beyond the VEE program (potentially up to Exam 5).  Internationally there are other actuarial societies that have gone down this route (most recently the Canadian Institute of Actuaries) to offer pathways to accreditation with this type of recognition.  It is not a small effort to certify and monitor the university programs but it could pay many dividends:

• Candidates committing less of their time after completion of a degree
• Reallocation of employee time to adding value to their employer sooner
• Increased competitiveness of the CAS program to current university students

Not all candidates come from a university-sponsored actuarial program so the preliminary exams would still need to be maintained, but such a program would shorten travel time for a significant proportion of candidates.  I also believe that in a world where we face increased competition for accreditation from other actuarial societies, an adaptation like this will keep the CAS at the forefront when students are considering their potential paths forward.

With respect to the release of past exam questions and answers – this can be helpful to candidates, but it must be done carefully and mindfully.  In a world where the Syllabus is ever-changing, many past questions become less relevant.  The types of questions being asked are also changing over time, requiring a different level of response than in the past; it is beneficial for candidates to see sample solutions that demonstrate the level of detail that graders will be looking for under the new grading taxonomies.  Also, as the CAS has moved to offering most exams multiple times during the year, the Exam committees must be mindful of having enough questions in their “bank” to be able to design meaningful exams without constantly repeating the same questions.  To summarize:  yes, I think it would be helpful for candidates to see past exam questions and answers (or a subset thereof) but it must be done very mindfully.

Simone Renee Walker

The CAS recently launched a new predictive analytics requirement for the ACAS credential beginning in 2025 as a response to the increasing use of predictive analytics by key stakeholders in various organizations. This requirement consists of a 2-hour exam and an independent project where candidates will gain a hands-on approach to applying knowledge gained through the 2-hour exam. The CAS should continue to:

• Respond to the needs of organizations where actuaries are employed.
• Diversify types of assessment, ensuring the credentialing process caters to different learning styles, abilities, and needed skillsets that are difficult to develop solely in an exam setting.
• Additionally, the consideration of offering exams in multiple languages would be an inclusive way to cater to the needs of test takers.
• Become increasingly nimble with the advancing of technology without sacrificing rigor, relevance, and the candidate’s experience.
  • Moving to a Computer Based Testing environment was a huge step in allowing more flexibility for test takers and graders.
  • With a two-week exam window, there is a built-in contingency for (most) unforeseen occurrences.
  • More test-taking locations are available in most cases,
  • The electronic transport of the completed exam is a better experience for graders.

A challenge to now having a flexible 2-week exam window is limiting test takers from speaking with other test takers about the content of the exam. The development of a question bank is necessary to alleviate this challenge and aid in building other contingency plans for events such as what happened on May 1st. While I empathize with candidates wanting to have past exam questions and answers to enhance studying, the CAS should not release past exam questions and answers because the benefits of a establishing a question bank far outweighs the benefit of having this data. There may be other ways to accomplish gaining access to rigorous practice exams via exam seminars.

Charles Zhu

Overall, the CAS needs to do more to improve the candidate experience related to the credentialing process. With all the changes, the CAS must implement additional quality assurance to ensure candidates have an optimal test-day experience or implement changes in phases while gathering candidate testing experience feedback. Some of the improvements that I would like to see include: (1) implementing faster exam grading processes, (2) establishing a dedicated task force to accelerate the creation of an exam question bank, (3) offering more frequent exam sittings with extended windows, (4) enhancing quality assurance efforts to test the exam materials and the testing experience thoroughly, (5) releasing prior exam questions or creating a more robust set of sample questions, and (6) hiring a dedicated CAS Staff Actuary to focus on exam innovation and transformation. Over the past few years, the CAS has aimed to improve candidate experience through the Admissions Transformation Plan (ATP). Notable improvements include offering a seven-day window per exam instead of a one-day window for each exam, creating new content that helps actuaries become more proficient in data analytics, and introducing a 15-minute break to help candidates recharge in the middle of their exams.

However, it is important to note that some enhancements have had unexpected adverse effects. For instance, the transition from existing syllabi to content outlines was intended to improve candidates' ease of understanding. However, the result was much shorter content outlines that did not comprehensively outline the expected knowledge, leaving many candidates uncertain about what would be tested. If elected as a Board Member, I would advocate for the CAS to effectively communicate the benefits of implemented changes, ensure results align with the intended purpose, and gather candidate and member feedback to assess the successful implementation of these changes.

From an improvement perspective, I am a proponent of the CAS releasing prior exams or creating a robust sample question bank for each exam. The best way for candidates to gain a deeper appreciation and understanding of exam content is to apply their knowledge to solve actual problems. As a candidate, I depended heavily on past exams and examiners' reports to pass my exams, and taking away these resources from the candidates significantly hindered their ability to gain a deeper understanding of the content.

Additionally, prioritizing the creation of an actual exam question bank would enable the CAS to offer more frequent sittings with longer windows, hopefully reducing travel time to become a fully credentialed actuary.