Actuarial Exams Are Fun!

It happens a lot.  A couple of months ago, I took one of the higher level actuarial exams.  I only have three left and then I'll be fully credentialed.  And when I take an exam, people always ask me what it's like.  Well, wonder no more.  This exam consumed me for several months and cut down on my fiction productivity.  So, I think this topic deserves a blog entry.  Are you ready to get learned up?

Often, "Actuary" is listed as the number 1 job in America.  It's low stress, high reward, and reasonable hours.  You basically get paid to play with numbers and project the future and predict when people are going to die, and stuff like that.  I enjoy my job ... well, that is except for the initiatory process known as the Actuarial Exams.

The first exam is easy.  If you paid attention in your college math classes, there's a good chance that you'll pass on the first go.  I scored a 10 on my first exam, which is as high as you can get.

Then the exams get progressively harder.  I enjoyed my first four or five exams.  They had a lot of math in them.  But the last exam I took ... whoa Nellie!  It has a little math in it, but also a lot of regulation and insurance history stuff.  It's stuff every actuary needs to know, but IT'S SO BORING and IT'S NOT ALL MATH!  This exam, now known as CAS #6, is my bane.  I've now taken this exam three times and have failed each time!

But guess what ... it's perfectly normal to fail these exams.  If at first you fail (and most do on the first try), you just "study harder" the next year and maybe you'll pass the next time.

But, you see ... I'm used to what I experienced in college.  You go to classes.  You read the material.  You do homework.  You turn in assignments.  You take quizzes.  And in the end, you take a final.  If you get a sufficiently high score, you pass the class and you receive credit.  In general, if you learn more than 70% of the material, you're ensured to pass.

With actuarial exams, it's completely different.  You only get one chance a year to prove that you know the stuff.  With some exams you get two chances a year.  Each time, you pay $500-$600 for the opportunity to take the exam.  You download the material and buy textbooks.  You take the exam, which is graded on a curve.  If you pass, then you get credit.  If not, then you have to wait another year and pay up again.

When I went to college, I loaded up with an average of 18 credit hours.  Think of your total set of readings for a typical semester.  About how many pages was that?  Now multiply this by three, and you'll get a good sense of how much material is on an actuarial exam.  It's amazing how much they cram into a four hour test.

And if you memorize 70% of the material, you may or may not be okay once exam time comes.  If you memorize 100%, you should probably be okay, but after spending hundreds of hours, I'm not sure 100% can be obtained.  You'd have to know every footnote, and this is difficult for most human beings.

The exam creators also love to ask HARD questions.  Their way of thinking ... if someone can answer a hard question, then they really know the material enough to pass.  But if you ask HARD questions, then you can't ask very many of them on a four hour exam.  This last sitting, there were around 30 questions.

The problem with this is twofold ...

#1) You can't cover much of the syllabus.  Let's say 40% tops.  So, if someone memorizes 70% of the syllabus, there's 30% that he doesn't know.  So in a worst-case scenario, the exam questions could cover the 30% he doesn't know and 10% that he does know.  Thus, he only gets 25% of the questions correct.  My numbers are a little exaggerated, but it really does happen that an exam just happens to jive with your mindset, and the next year it doesn't.  These little mismatches are just enough to push one into a FAIL score.  As it was, on the last exam I took, there were scores of problems and questions I was prepared to answer, and they just weren't tested.

#2) HARD questions are indeed fun to answer if there happens to be enough time to answer them, and I love a good puzzle, but I've seen some heavily concocted scenarios that would never happen in real actuarial life ... such as "We know the final answer and we want you to back into this unimportant number over here."  There was one question on this last exam on a subject that I thought I was adequately prepared.  But when I was asked to think backwards, my exam-frenzied mind froze and I was only frustrated that I was unable to instead show how to do the thing "forwards" like real-life actuaries.  I also then realized that this specific exam was not geared to my mindset and that I was screwed.

And finally comes the grading, which is done by professional volunteers.  The process is heavily safeguarded and everything is double-checked and triple-checked.  However, there are some fundamental characteristics of the whole structure that doom several to fail several times, even though they may actually have a good grasp of the material.  (Once I failed an exam when I felt like I should have passed.  The next year, I hardly put in any study time at all -- less than 100 hours, and I passed the exam with flying colors.)

Each candidate has each of their questions graded separately and independently.  Then an overall "qualifying" score is calculated.  Finally, the scores are tallied.  Actuaries whose scores are right on the border line are graded again just to be sure.  Then anyone above the qualifying score passes.

It almost always works out that if you were to graph all of the final candidate scores, it would show a large number of actuaries right around the "qualifying" score.  Most of them end up slightly under that score.  And that's too bad.  If the passing score is 67 out of 100 points, then you'll have one actuary with 66.75 points who fails, and one with 67.25 points who passes.  But if you compare their answers, you won't find much of a difference in the quality of those answers.  So, what did the passing actuary do any differently than the failing actuary?

And this is where luck comes in.  In other words, even if you know enough of the material to function as a competent actuary, you may have a bad day of testing and lose out on your opportunity to demonstrate that knowledge.  Or you may have performed well, but happened to be just a fraction of a point too low to pass after everything is tallied.

The best a struggling actuary can do is to try again the next time.  I've seen several intelligent mathematicians leave the profession because of the difficulty of the exams.  I've seen some who don't really know the material earn a pass because they just know how to do well on exams (through blind memorization and happening to practice the right problems).

So, there you have it.  My description of the exam process.  I really wish there were some other vehicle to learn the material and pass it off, but for now, that's all that's available.  I'll try again next year.  Maybe I'll get up to 80% memorization and that'll be enough.  Maybe I'll try some more of that blind memorization.  We'll see...

Until then, you can enjoy this YouTube video that I believe best captures the essence of what it's like to take a higher-level actuarial exam ...

The Hobbit -- An Unexpected Trilogy

I enjoyed watching The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, but the idea of a trilogy is strange.  I suppose we can always leave it to Hollywood to make so much fuss over such a little book.  First, this was going to be a simple prequel, and then a two-parter?  Heck, might as well go for the triple!

The good: the first installment is full of action.  Almost every word from the first six chapters of The Hobbit is covered.  If you have a favorite scene, don't worry.  Your scene will be in there.  You can watch as Bilbo proves himself to be valuable, both to himself, and to his fellow travelers.  Each of the individual dwarves looks like what I would imagine.  Peter Jackson spares no detail, and you will get what you want and more.

To stretch out the story, Jackson/Walsh/Boyens/del Toro borrowed from other Tolkien books ... in particular the appendix in The Lord of the Rings.  So, every little bit of extra stuff can be backed up by a little Tolkien research.  Well, almost everything ...

The writers did embellish a few little details and took a little poetic license.  For example, Thorin Oakenshield fights the goblin Azog in the movie, though it's never mentioned in the books that the two actually fought.  Further, Azog survives the fight in the movie, where in the books Tolkien leads us to believe he died in the battle.  I guess it only looked like he died.

Some say that all these additions ruin the story, but rather, I feel that it changes it.  In the book, we see almost everything from Bilbo's point of view.  When Gandalf runs off to do his own thing, we have no idea what he's doing or preparing.  Thus the book has a sense of magical innocence.  The group of 14 (not including Gandalf) are simply on an adventure.

The movie goes further and fills in the blanks.  We get to see some of what Gandalf does when he's away, and we see what's going on in the background.  Since everything is explained, most of the innocence and adventure disappears.  It becomes more of a "we really got to do this thing or else evil will take over the world" thing.  But you know what?  After the epic Lord of the Rings trilogy Jackson gave us, they had little choice ... could they really give us the wimpy innocent adventure version?  Instead, they gave us The Hobbit with hair on its chest.  "This is what really happened, and it's not all fun and games."

There are some pretty scary scenes, so I would not recommend this for the younger kids.  Yeah, I know the book is for kids, but it's still a scary book and Jackson doesn't pull any punches.

Also, there are quite a few scenes where all members of our traveling party miraculously survive some disaster ... such as riding a rock down a cavern that breaks up just right so as to deliver our friends to the bottom safely.  I had to laugh a couple of times.

If you haven't watched this movie because of complaints that you've heard, I recommend that you go and watch it anyway.  Enjoy yourself.  Turn off that "this wasn't in the book"-o-meter.  There are plenty of fun scenes, and it comes to a satisfying end.  I look forward to Part 2: Desolation of Smaug.

Review - Catching Fire

I may be in the minority when I admit that I liked Catching Fire better than the book it follows, The Hunger Games.

The first book was fun and all that--kids trying to kill each other--and shooting an arrow at the pig's head, etc.  But a lot of the energy in that book was expended on world building.  This is usually the curse of the first book in any series.

The second book, Catching Fire, picks up where the first left off.  But now that we know pretty much how the world works and who the people are, the action starts off more quickly.  This book has more plot and more twists to keep things interesting.

For one thing, it shows what happens in between successive Hunger Games.  Certain events happen as an aftermath to the ending of Book #1.  President Snow tries to smooth things out and to try to stop a rebellion from rising.

Some may not enjoy several "false starts" where the protagonists consider carrying out one plan and then another, but they don't even come close to fruition.  But I enjoyed these several twists, as that's what life's about.

This book offers a view into the government itself and the tricks they use to try to control the twelve districts.  It shows how even the winning District from book 1 is basically hosed.  For example, much of their extra food rations arrive in a rotten state.  Several of my friends point out that this is a terrible way for a dictator to maintain control, and such tactics would definitely kindle rebellion.  I tend to agree, but it's just a story.  The book's more about how citizens react to some crazy concocted civil situation, and not about whether such a situation could arise in real life.

Since the book is written in first person present, there is a lot of action that happens off the pages.  When the climax occurs, there's this big info dump explaining what just happened.  It's all coolness, but I couldn't help but feel that I missed out on a lot of the action.  But then after reading, it's fun putting everything together in your head ... "Now that's why this thing over here happened that way."  It'll be interesting to see how they handle this in the upcoming movie.

My verdict: Well done, Ms. Collins!  And if you read Book #1, it's definitely worth continuing the series and reading this worthy sequel.

2013 Preview

2013 is a cool year.  For example, it's the first time in 25 years that the year consists of 4 unique (non-repeating) digits.  And 2 + 0 + 1 = 3.  Awesome!  And that whole Mayan thing?  Well, we all know now that the world didn't end.  But was something supposed to happen?  Like the stars switching hemispheres or something else cool?  Man!  Perhaps the Mayans shouldn't have used the Aztec Sun of Stone!

For this upcoming year, I'm going to keep it simple.  My main goal:

Get ... Published ... Somewhere.

I've gone too long without a credit to my name.  My best shot is to get my short stories in good shape, now that I know what to do.  Basically, "Butt In Chair" and fingers to the keyboard.  Write new story.  Send it to be critiqued.  Make revisions.  Submit to magazine.  Rinse and repeat.  Get rejection.  Send it right back out unless I see something that really needs editing.

... and hopefully by December 31, it'll be: "We regretfully inform you ..." Wait!  It doesn't say "regretfully."  This isn't a rejection letter!  What is this strange e-mail doing in my inbox?

Other than this simple plan, I'll plan to attend at least one writer's conference this year, funds permitting.  And I'll work some more on my blog(s).

Good luck to your writing career this year.  What do you hope to accomplish?

Mel's Year In Review: 2012

Wow!  2012 went by so quickly!  Looking back at my goals from a year ago, I see that I just went through a great struggle.  The biggest "disappointment" was in coming to realize how unready my short stories (and even my two novels) are for publication.  My Uncle Orson's Writing Class experience was eye opening.  Now I know what my short stories need, but there's so little time to revise them.

The result ... my submissions dropped like a rock.  And with taking a break for taking an actuarial exam, my writing has also come to a complete stop.

Now with Christmas and all that behind me, I can get back to work.  Let's try this again!  But first, let's see what I did accomplish this past year ...

• Novel Writing -- All of my efforts went into short story writing.  Though, I would really love to work on my Time Sleuths story (which is hilarious), or Space Cadets (which is partly autobiographical).

• Short Stories
• "Depths of Inner Space" -- submitted twice and got two rejections.  After getting several useful critiques, I realize now what this story needs.  After revision, I'll start sending this out again.
• "When Time Flows West" -- submitted once and got a rejection.  It's currently going through an overhaul.
• The Silver Lining: O My Father -- submitted to a contest and never got a response back, which I assume is a rejection.
• "Stanley Saucer: Space Assassin" -- a new story I wrote this year in the vein of Austin Powers.  I thought it was pretty funny, but it was rejected in less than 24 hours.
• "Jesse Flag" -- another new story about a man who learns that his dying father is hiding a rebellious Jesse Flag, the Stars and Bars.  Still in its first draft.
• "Descendant History" -- started and in progress.
• "A Light in the Darkness" -- started and in progress. 

• I attended Orson Scott Card's Writing Class.  I actually tried out for the Boot Camp, but was rejected.  When I wrote this blog entry, I thought that perhaps my smashing story excerpt was too good to be selected, but now that I've gone through the class, I'm not so sure.  Oh, and a hint to those who try out next year, Mr. Card really hates the use of vomiting as a tool of suspense.  At least the stuff I learned was invaluable and will hopefully help me get published in 2013. 

• I did succeed somewhat in increasing my net.  I seem to have gained a few friends online, mainly through my Write 1 Sub 1 dealings.

• I joined up with another online critique service ... Critters.  I now prefer this over the Absolute Write critiquing forum, and will provide a review later on in January.

• My Facebook Fan Page finally got 50 likes.  It's now up to 62.  Feel free to join the numbers!

• I continued posting in this blog and in my other blog, The Econo-Mel.
• Total of 61 posts, averaging one post a week.
• In July, I broke the 1000 views per month barrier.  This was topped again in November and December.  In general, the views are supposed to be proportional to the number of posts, but it seems that I've met some kind of critical mass, seeing how I only did one post in all of December.  Then again, the recent influx could be some day-job recruiters checking me out, because I'm currently looking for other opportunities.  :)
• In September, I hit a total 10,000 views.  Now I'm up to 14,000.
• I reviewed 5 books, 17 movies, 22 TV shows, 7 restaurants, 3 games, and a few other items. 
• My personal favorite posts of the year...
• Did They Really Have to Shut Down Lego Universe? 
• Ray Bradbury: Returned to Dust
• Don't Limit Your Audience?
• Eleven Questions

How did you do in 2012?  Let's all do even better in 2013!

Merry Christmas - 2012

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays

For your viewing pleasure, I present my rendition of "We Three Kings."

Wreck-It Ralph

This movie is better than I expected.  It's as good as a Pixar movie without the Pixar animation.  It's funny, appealing, exciting, well-animated, and a really good story.

Wreck-It Ralph is a bad guy who's tired of his job.  He just wants people to appreciate him.  He decides to go visit other games in search of a medal, but this causes all kinds of problems.

This movie is full of "cookies" or references to several different video games and that whole culture.  For example, in the trailer above, you'll recognize several of the villains.  So, if you keep your eyes open during the movie, be prepared to laugh.

The game "Fix-it Felix, Jr." itself is fictional.  Though, by the end of the movie, I was nearly convinced that it was a real game I had missed in my childhood.  But alas, it is only a spoof of Donkey Kong.  Even though it's not real, you can still play it here.  You can also play the fictional "Sugar Rush" and "Hero's Duty" here.

I watched this in 3-D, and it was pretty good.  There were no 3-D gimmicks, which is okay with me.  But there was plenty of good depth and variety of distances.  To compare, I didn't get much out of the 3-D in "Toy Story 3."  And the 3-D in "Avatar" was amazing.  "Wreck-It Ralph" was somewhere in between.

I highly recommend watching this movie while it's still in theaters.  It's been out a while, so catch it while you can.

Skyfall - Bond At His Best

Skyfall was a thrill ride from beginning to end.  If you're a Bond fan, don't miss this one.  If you're not a fan, this would be a good story to enter the franchise.

The last two movies featuring Daniel Craig as James Bond were both good movies, but a little slow on the action.  In fact I fell asleep during Quantum of Solace.  Those two movies spent more time exploring a different kind of Bond ... one who isn't perfect, but rather often makes mistakes.  He's more human.

Skyfall continues with the edgy not-quite-so-perfect Bond.  Since his character had been well fleshed out in the first two movies, the writers could spend more time immersing us in action.

I watched this in IMAX, something I haven't tried in years, and it was worth it.  The movie has several breathtaking cinematic shots, with wonderful color contrasts, and playing with light on glass and water.

What exactly is "Skyfall"?  You're going to have to go watch the movie and find out for yourself.  I was expecting some cool science-fictiony device that would destroy the world ... but ... well ... it's something a little more subtle.

You can expect the normal James Bond formula--start with an action sequence, then opening credits, then some kind of exposition followed by an explanation, then find a cute girl, then the introduction of the bad guy, ... and well, you know the rest of the formula.

Javier Bardem effectively pulls off a fun and creepy villain.  He's almost as good as Heath Ledger's Joker.

How does this rank with other Bond movies?  I've seen a little over half of them--every one since Pierce Brosnan, a couple of Moores, a couple of Connerys, and the Lazenby one.  My favorite still remains GoldenEye.  I'd put Skyfall second, followed by Lazenby's On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

If you haven't seen Skyfall, I highly recommend seeing it while it's still in theaters.

The Fall of Hyperion - A Worthy Sequel

Dan Simmons' The Fall of Hyperion picks up right where the first book Hyperion leaves off.  Though, the storytelling is a little different. 

In the first book the Consul is the first person narrator, except for when the other characters tell their stories. 

In this second book, we meet a new character: Joseph Severn, an artist living in TC^2, who has the ability to view our Hyperion friends in his dreams.  During the first part of the book, we see things unfolding from Joseph's POV through a clouded lens.  At first this was annoying, but it turns out that Joseph is a very important person.  (If it's any hint, the "real" Joseph Severn was a good friend of the poet John Keats.)

But then starting with Part 2, everything becomes a little clearer with the author switching to normal third person limited.  Events unfold.  We get to see what happens to each of the pilgrims on Hyperion.

I can't say too much without giving away the plot of the first book, but I can say the following.

This second book is almost as good as the first book.  Where I would give the first book 10 stars.  The second gets 9.  There are some parts in the second where the writing seems a little sloppy, while the first is a masterpiece from page 1 till the end.

The second book ties up nearly all loose ends from the first book.  While book #1 ends in a cliffhanger, book #2 gives a satisfying end such that you don't feel like you need to read the last two books (though I probably will eventually).

Book #2 has a lot of "No way!" moments, and is a very exciting read once you get past Part 1.

Book #2 doesn't waste any time reminding you what you should remember on your own from Book #1.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Well--Simmons might do it a little, but it flows so naturally.

After reading Book #1, it's so easy to say, "I don't see how everything fits together."  But book #2 will hit you over the head with the explanation and when you're done reading you'll say, "Wow!  It makes sense.  Why didn't I see that earlier?"

There are still a few small things left unrevealed--gotta keep things open for books 3 and 4.

Dan Simmons really, really seems to like John Keats.  I don't share this great love, and I usually skimmed past all the verse in italics.  Though I gather that the whole Hyperion story seems to be heavily inspired by some specific Keats poems--as if Simmons read them and said, "Wow.  I could make a great story out of that."

And the Consul still never gets a name.  Aaaaagh!  I know ... major spoiler.

But notwithstanding, Simmons is an excellent storyteller and I thoroughly enjoyed reading these two books, and I highly recommend them both.

National Novel Writing Month - 2012

I have begun the 30-day self-inflicted joyous torture that is NaNoWriMo.  That's short for "National Novel Writing Month."  The goal is to write 50,000 (unedited) words.  I've already accomplished this wonderful feat in 2007 and 2010.  Back in 2005 (I think) I tried for the first time and fell flat on my face having only written about 10,000 words.

Right now, I am only at a mere 3,000 words, which puts me behind schedule.  Each writer should average 1667 words a day.  So at the end of Day 4, I would need to be at 6,667 words.

But hey -- I just took an actuarial exam a few days ago, and I always need a while to chillax and play NotDoppler games and unwind.  It's amazing that I got out 3,000 words.  You can see the first 1,000 words (I did say it was unedited - just to warn you of its terribleness) and visit my profile.

This year I'm going to use the 50,000 words to spit out several short stories, which I will then crank out through the big edit/critique machine over the next few months.  My goal is to sell something in 2013.

But first to survive this month ... here is my schedule (2,200 a weekday, 4,250 over the weekend, and some time off for Thanksgiving).

Week #1 = 3,000 words.  --already past--
Week #2 = 15,250 words.
Week #3 = 15,250 words.
Week #4 = 5,500 words.
Week #5 = 11,000 words.

If you haven't done NaNoWriMo yet, I belatedly invite you to join.  We can be behind together!