CAS Exam Committee presents:. CAS EXAMINATION PROCESS. 2005 CAS Annual Meeting – Session C8 Baltimore. Steve Armstrong, FCAS Daniel Roth, FCAS Manalur Sandilya, FCAS Tom Struppeck, FCAS. CAS Examination Process Update.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
The CAS Does Many Things Well:
Several Areas for Improvement:
The Chauncey Group Engaged to Help CAS With Three Issues:
The Syllabus Committee has developed Learning Objective Documents for CAS Exams 3, 5, 6, 7-US, 7-Canada, 8 and 9 and also the VEE exams
There are simpler and more direct Learning Objectives for the Joint Exams 1, 2, & 4
Weights (by Learning Objective)
What makes a good exam question?
Not easy to achieve all of these.
This satisfies two of the criteria.
This is better than Question 1, but it still isn’t giving the student a chance to show mastery of the material, only recall.
This is better than Question 2.
This would actually be a pretty good question.
This might be a bit too open-ended to be graded easily.
Assignments for grading will be distributed immediately after the exam as to which question(s) you are assigned to grade.
Questions are graded in pairs, just like writing exam questions.
A sample solution and a copy of the exam will be sent to the grading pair for review prior to getting the actual papers.
The actual papers come to the grading pair in the week or two following the examination.
Graders are encouraged to develop a grading key that accounts for the different combinations and permutations of answers that can be provided.
Graders are encouraged to use this grading key for a random set of questions (between 20-40) to ensure consistency in application of the grading key.
The graders should meet after grading this set of random questions to reconcile any differences and change the answer key if necessary.
In the subsequent weeks, individual graders will grade every candidate’s response and log the points in a Grading Program.
Graders are encouraged to reconcile scores along the way so that this work does not monopolize the time spent at the on-site Grading Session.
The on-site Grading Session is now being conducted in Las Vegas and lasts for two days.
The on-site Grading Session allows the following:
Allows those on the committee to meet with one another.
Small allowance of time to reconcile all scores between graders to no more than a ¼ point difference (differs by Part Chair).
Establishment by the committee of an appropriate passing score.
Re-grading of those candidate’s questions that are within a range of the passing score.
Discussion on how to make the exam even better for next year.
After the first day, a group activity occurs at night to allow those on the committee to interact with one another in a less formal manner.
The on-site Grading Session is concluded when the group has established a mutually agreed upon passing score by inspecting all the relevant statistics and grading/re-grading those candidates around the passing score to ensure that their score is correct.
All final scores by candidate, including grading keys and model solutions are left with the Part Chair to create the report to be sent to the Exam Officers.
Minimally Qualified Candidate