Great post jdx.
I've quoted the above just to help underline the point I hope. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy isn't it, to tell ourselves we're poor communicators then set up an exam with a persistent 50%+ fail rate to 'prove' the point.
Reminds me a bit of politicians who say there's poverty and boast about how they will 'combat' it. Then their solution is to create some kind of elaborate expensive poverty commission or suchlike, employing lots of useless people on inflated ill-deserved salaries, who spend most of their working lives sitting on committees, busily working to 'combat poverty'. The top jobs in it oay fat cat salaries with the bonus of very little public accountability.These jobs are reserved for the cronies of politicians such as party donors or some other type of political party brown-noser, who eventually will use this as a springboard for honours by the queen or a seat in the Lords.
The quango fails to work as there's still poverty in society, so they throw even more money towards those complaining employees of the quango who claim they can't combat poverty properly until they get more resources. Funnily enough the poverty persists and politicians continue to rob taxpayers to fund this failed quango. But it makes them feel good, it's a convenient way to reward their cronies and/or a pleasant career after failing as a politician themselves. However, the poverty persists.
Hmm, a bit of a tangent there but I can't help feel that if CA3 pass rates did get up to 80-90% then justifying its continued existence would be harder. Additionally, it takes way more than a CA3 exam to address whatever communication issues actuaries have. Just like with the quango example, the IFoA have set this up as a tick box exercise to show they're doing something, when in reality we know that it's a farce.
Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2014