What Is the CAS Candidate Liaison Committee?

Last Thursday I attended my first meeting of the Casualty Actuarial Society’s Candidate Liaison Committee. The committee consists of about 20 people who meet four times every year, three times by phone and once in person. This last meeting was the annual face-to-face meet-up in Chicago, IL.

The Candidate Liaison Committee (henceforth the “CLC”) has two purposes: to educate candidates on the path to membership in the CAS, and to represent the views and concerns of candidates to the CAS. I was immediately impressed at how focused and determined the committee members are with respect to both of these purposes. I am one of a significant number of brand new members, however the committee also boasts members with over 15 years of participation on the committee. Considering that many of the members also serve on other CAS committees (and that all of this volunteer work is in addition to their actuarial careers), the level of commitment is admirable.

The CLC is unique among the many, many CAS committees, because it is the only committee that includes people who are not members of the CAS, such as me. Although many of the CLC’s Candidate Representatives are Associates, the designation is not mandatory for this position. The rest of the committee is made up of CAS members and CAS staff. If you’re interested in getting a head start on participating in the CAS, you should definitely consider applying to be a Candidate Representative when positions become available.

As exam-takers know, the main way the CLC communicates with its target audience is through the newsletter Future Fellows. CLC members typically write all of the articles you’ll find in an issue, always with an eye toward what those taking exams need to know about the CAS and the actuarial field in general. Having seen the list of article ideas, I can tell you that Future Fellows will never run out of material; there are many more great ideas than there are pages to hold them. Thus the CLC tries to prioritize articles to provide candidates with the most relevant information possible.

Probably the biggest revelation I experienced at this first meeting was learning how the exam-related committees interrelate. Three committees are involved in the overall exam process: the Education Policy Committee, the Syllabus Committee, and the Exam Committee. The Education Policy Committee is tasked with determining what is required to become an Associate or Fellow of the CAS. For instance this committee would determine which exams are “Associate-level” exams and which are “Fellowship” exams. The Syllabus Committee designs the syllabus for each exam. For instance this committee would select the papers to be included on a particular exam. Finally the Exam Committee is responsible for creating and grading the exams. For instance this committee writes all of the exam questions.

Although each committee has a distinct role, they overlap and connect throughout the exam process. The Education Policy Committee may state what CAS members need to know, but the Syllabus Committee decides exactly which paper or papers will be used to cover that material. At the final step, the Exam Committee decides for a particular exam what questions to ask from that paper, if any.

Although all three committees are part of the exam process, communication between them is not always direct. Each committee has members who serve as liaisons to the other committees. The liaisons attend the meetings of both committees and report back to their committee on what the other committee is doing. To the side of this process is the CLC, with liaisons of its own to all three exam-related committees.

The indirect nature of the communication between these committees is part of the reason why it sometimes seems as if the questions on exams don’t line up with the syllabus, or conflict with the stated intentions of the CAS. Additionally certain things, including exam length, are set by the Board of Directors and are beyond the control of any of the committees. Thankfully the committees are not ignorant of these issues and are taking steps to address them, which leads me to what I found most interesting at our meeting: the addressing of the feedback provided from the exam surveys.

Believe it or not, a lot of people at the CAS are paying serious attention to candidate feedback. I personally read every word of probably close to a thousand responses, partly because many of the comments were highly amusing; all members of the Candidate Liaison, Education Policy, Syllabus, and Exam Committees receive and review the feedback as well. At the CLC meeting, we spent some time discussing the surveys and used the comments to inform our article choices for Future Fellows. The feedback is truly valuable, so thank you to everyone who responded to the survey. I wish I could share some of the more entertaining comments here, however the CAS is very serious about the confidentiality of these responses. It’s certainly important for candidates to be as candid and constructive as possible in their comments.

I was very pleased to discover that many of the concerns I’ve had regarding the exam process and the CAS in general, including many that I had included in my application for the Candidate Representative position, are already being addressed. For instance the CAS website, which (although far superior to the Society of Actuary’s) I’ve always found difficult to navigate, is being overhauled as we speak. One of the key improvements coming soon is a page for each exam that contains all of the information related to that exam, such as the syllabus, past exams, and web notes, all in one place.

Another significant improvement I was relieved to hear about is the ongoing effort to convert more upper exams to the “textbook” format of Exam 5. A textbook for Exam 6 (the regulation and accounting exam) is currently in the works; it is expected to come out next year. There is debate over whether a similar format should be used for Exams 7 through 9, but that question is still being considered. Just keep in mind that it takes time to write a good textbook; changes unfortunately can’t be made overnight.

Going forward the most significant changes to the exams will be the continued move toward textbooks and higher Bloom’s Taxonomy levels. Other changes under consideration include offering Exam 5 twice a year and introducing some type of computer-based format for upper exams, however the CAS has not yet decided whether or not to pursue these options (and if they did, it would be several years before such a significant change could be implemented).

As for what candidates can take away from all this, you should keep in mind that Future Fellows articles are meant to be a resource for you. If you have questions about the exam process, there’s a good chance you can find an answer in the archives, which can be browsed by date or by topic. If you saw the recent survey, you already know that the CLC is considering turning Future Fellows into an online-only publication, which I hope will encourage people to take greater advantage of the archived articles.

If you have a suggestion for the CLC, including articles you’d like to see in Future Fellows, you can submit your comment here. You can also (as always) let me know your thoughts in the comments here. I know first-hand that your feedback is valuable and appreciated, so thanks to everyone who participates.