I’ve known a couple of very normal cool actuaries (2) and then there are the other ones… * same shirt guy (wore same shirt every day for 6 months), also dubbed “Twitchy” * pick nose in meetings guy * bowl cut hair No Country for Old Men meets the Ramones silent guy (scary) * Powerpoint disaster guy (always late for meeting, presents 4pt font slide deck filled with confusing 3-dimensional charts nobody can understand, talks in mumble-speak) * no communication drool girl …etc.
monger187 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IheartMath Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > monger187, > > > > not when each individual exam requires the same > > amount of studying and quantity of formulas, > > facts, relationships, and nuances to > remember… > > and there are more actuarial exams… > > > True, if each exam is of equal difficulty, then > obviously more = harder. Disagree. If each exam is the same difficulty, with a fixed body of a required knowledge over the span of the certification, than less = harder. But I suppose this depends on your definition of ‘difficulty.’ What if all the CFA curriculum was tested in one exam. Same body of knowledge, but levels 1, 2, and 3 down into one exam. That exam would be much harder than it is as 3 split up exams now. What if the CFA curriculum stayed the same and you had 5 levels. Yes, you would probably spend more time studying overall, but each test would cover less material, enabling you to be more prepared and look at said material in further depth.
purealpha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > * no communication drool girl Pics or she doesn’t exist
Mr. Pink, Like I said, if each exam is of equal difficulty you certainly can say that more exams is harder: passing Levels 1, 2, and 3 is obviously harder than passing just Level 1. Fewer exams covering same total material would be more difficult.
Ha, dood she was a trip. A huge sedentary creature, only heard her talk once, boring logical communication of the emotionless facts involving no facial movements…then back to her desk for six months of silence.
Actuarial exams are much more specific, CFA is a broad designation. Which one is more difficult isn’t really the point, it is what you want to do with it. I’m still pissed you need to go to law school to take the bar:).
purealpha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’ve known a couple of very normal cool actuaries > (2) and then there are the other ones… > > * same shirt guy (wore same shirt every day for 6 > months), also dubbed “Twitchy” > * pick nose in meetings guy > * bowl cut hair No Country for Old Men meets the > Ramones silent guy (scary) > * Powerpoint disaster guy (always late for > meeting, presents 4pt font slide deck filled with > confusing 3-dimensional charts nobody can > understand, talks in mumble-speak) > * no communication drool girl > > …etc. lol
Mr. Pink Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > monger187 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > IheartMath Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > monger187, > > > > > > not when each individual exam requires the > same > > > amount of studying and quantity of formulas, > > > facts, relationships, and nuances to > > remember… > > > and there are more actuarial exams… > > > > > > True, if each exam is of equal difficulty, then > > obviously more = harder. > > Disagree. If each exam is the same difficulty, > with a fixed body of a required knowledge over the > span of the certification, than less = harder. > But I suppose this depends on your definition of > ‘difficulty.’ > > What if all the CFA curriculum was tested in one > exam. Same body of knowledge, but levels 1, 2, > and 3 down into one exam. That exam would be much > harder than it is as 3 split up exams now. > > What if the CFA curriculum stayed the same and you > had 5 levels. Yes, you would probably spend more > time studying overall, but each test would cover > less material, enabling you to be more prepared > and look at said material in further depth. It is not the same fixed body of required knowledge. Not even close. When I took the actuarial exams, there were even more then 10 exams. A four hour actuarial exam (I took several of these) had a lot more material to study then the 6 hour CFA exam. It really doesn’t matter but the actuarial exams are harder. It is a fact. It doesn’t mean that actuaries are smarter than CFA Charterholders. There is so much more to the learning curve in someone’s career outside professional designations.
iheartiheartmath Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > purealpha Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > * no communication drool girl > > Pics or she doesn’t exist Well, he’s back.
Good to see you back supersunny!! We missed you. Good to see your spelling has also improved! Look forward to some more quality flame action like this: http://www.analystforum.com/phorums/read.php?11,642972,643080
Hommie I been here since da get go yo.
eureka Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actuarial exams are much more specific, CFA is a > broad designation. Which one is more difficult > isn’t really the point, it is what you want to do > with it. > > I’m still pissed you need to go to law school to > take the bar:). I’ve heard this quote before and could not disagree more. There is a huge amount of broad information in the actuarial exams. The range of topics consists of prob and stats, Finance, Economics, Quant Models, Insurance, Annuities, Pensions and more. The CFA designation was much more specific. This is also why I thought the CFA was easier to study for since 90% of material was relevent to what I was doing.
purealpha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hommie I been here since da get go yo. Not you. IheartIheartMath has got to be JTLD
cfa_actuary Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > eureka Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Actuarial exams are much more specific, CFA is > a > > broad designation. Which one is more difficult > > isn’t really the point, it is what you want to > do > > with it. > > > > I’m still pissed you need to go to law school > to > > take the bar:). > > > I’ve heard this quote before and could not > disagree more. There is a huge amount of broad > information in the actuarial exams. The range of > topics consists of prob and stats, Finance, > Economics, Quant Models, Insurance, Annuities, > Pensions and more. The CFA designation was much > more specific. This is also why I thought the CFA > was easier to study for since 90% of material was > relevent to what I was doing. Not talking about the material, I am talking about what you are supposed to do as a profession with the designation.
See chrismaths I am a CFA candidate today - from a school kid to a mature student… So hope you don’t have problem with this … and as far as spelling are concerned ok I am not a native still learning … is no wrong with it right or anything to be embarrased ? Get a life !!
dlpicket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > purealpha Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Hommie I been here since da get go yo. > > Not you. > > IheartIheartMath has got to be JTLD Holy crap you’re right, I totally missed the imposter IheartMath. Sneaky…nice.
iheartiheartmath Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > purealpha Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > * no communication drool girl > > Pics or she doesn’t exist omg i know you!!!
cfa_actuary Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is not the same fixed body of required > knowledge. Not even close. When I took the > actuarial exams, there were even more then 10 > exams. A four hour actuarial exam (I took several > of these) had a lot more material to study then > the 6 hour CFA exam. agreed
monger187 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr. Pink, > Like I said, if each exam is of equal difficulty > you certainly can say that more exams is harder: > passing Levels 1, 2, and 3 is obviously harder > than passing just Level 1. Fewer exams covering > same total material would be more difficult. Just for fun lets get into this moot point further, I feel you’re using a very liberal definition of ‘difficulty.’ Your definition is baking in the amount of studying required by the exam, which I disagree is included in a standard definition of difficulty. Say students in finance 101 show up for the first day of class and teacher makes them take an intro 3-hour exam to test their knowledge. Students score an average of 75%. The final exam that tests the course curriculum for this class is also 3 hours. The average student score is 95%. Which exam is more difficult?
cfa_actuary Wrote: > I’ve heard this quote before and could not > disagree more. There is a huge amount of broad > information in the actuarial exams. The range of > topics consists of prob and stats, Finance, > Economics, Quant Models, Insurance, Annuities, > Pensions and more. The CFA designation was much > more specific. This is also why I thought the CFA > was easier to study for since 90% of material was > relevent to what I was doing. i think the CFA is a mile wide, and an inch deep… the actuarial exams are a mile wide and a mile deep… but that is because there are more exams that cover more material…