Judgment Day

Indeed they are silent on the matter after 2 weeks. This is completely unacceptable.

Now the cat is out of the bag that Associateship is good enough for the European syllabus then they should also do the right thing and withdraw their Fellowship qualification from that arrangement.

On the IAI, looks like IFoA thought they could get away with it should the matter ever go to Court. Not so! They've been caught out big time! Null is right, where are the public statements confirming their cancellation of those arrangements & apologies?

 

Was this part of the judgment? I don't think the court opined on this. Is this published somewhere? Or is it your own opinion?

 

dmck - read paragraph 96 onwards.

 

Paragraph 96 amongst others: The audit showed that the respondents exams required for admission as an associate and a fellow both complied with all the requirements of the aae syllabus

The IFOA knows too well what is going on. That’s why the chartered actuary qualification is being introduced.

 

I think paragraph 100 shows how pathetic the IFoA's defence was: "The Respondent cautioned the Tribunal with regard to findings of fact based on these documents. It said that the Tribunal did not have enough evidence before it to make findings regarding the standards of actuarial examinations in Europe. "

IFoA are the gatekeepers of this evidence! The evidence can be found in AAE minutes, documents (qualified actuaries can log into AAE website to read them back to 2016 for themselves) and various other materials that IFoA failed to disclose. It's about time they just admitted the truth.

 

Seems to me to make perfect sense - an examination body would know more about its own qualifications than an employment tribunal panel of judges. Indeed, para 163 seems to suggest that the respondent and his witnesses didn't know enough to comment on the Swiss university system due to lack of evidence.

Last part of 163, "The tribunal simply did not have adequate evidence about other European countries' examination processes to decide whether they were less exacting than the Respondent's examinations for Associate or Fellowship qualification. This claim failed."

 

An qualifications body which gives the fellowship to people that shouldn’t even get the associateship. They’re really clued up! A qualifications body whose oversight body is going to be shut down in shame. A qualifications body that has already been warned in 2005 and given polite recommendations which it hasn’t followed. A qualifications body that rants on about Professionalism, integrity, diversity and inclusion and then gets done for race discrimination.

What do you think the fate of this qualifications body will be?

 

This is a new claim from you I think. What's your basis for this? Previously you alleged that the IFoA was guilty of giving FIA status to people who were only AIA equivalent. What new information has come to light to make you change your opinion?

 

Wait and see... the battle has been won but the war has just begun... I’m sure you’ve enjoyed judgment day so far. You’ll soon be able to read all about it

 

Why don't you read the Judgment paragraphs 96 onwards...? The fact IFoA trade Fellowship with European quals when Associateship was good enough undermines Fellowship. If you're an actuary I don't see why this doesn't concern you.

 

Also pay attention to paragraph 151. The IFOA have discriminated with regards to curriculum 2019. I’m wondering when they will comment on this and when they will put the thousands of British students who have not managed to pass exams within the transition period in a position where they have not been disadvantaged.

 

I wish you well and hope that, at some point, you are able to find the closure you so desperately seek

 

Of course I will find closure.

 

I think you’ll find that the evidence is there. The IFoA haven’t disclosed it. This is fraud

 

Do you think it's right that Fellowship or Associateship is given to those qualified in a European country such as Greece or Slovenia where their system doesn't meet the topics of the AAE syllabus? It's already been noted how Greece didn't have an economics exam, for example.

 

I’m not arguing whether there’s an advantage or not, I’m arguing the extent of that advantage isn’t equivalent to the results of a model which had whether you passed or not as a Bernoulli style random event. It’s specific to people’s ability. So if you fail in April, there’s a good chance you’ll fail in May also. There’s a chance you won’t but odds on you will fail again

 

Again, I’m not ignoring the advantage but I’ve no time for exaggerations of the extent of that advantage and all the emotional trauma of a life being ruined by exams. If it’s ruining your life, go do something else. Plenty of people have perfectly happy lives without doing actuarial exams

 

I’m objecting to my fees going on payouts that are not proportionate to the detriment. The detriment of watching Indian students have an advantage that has not been afforded to anybody else in the profession was mild at best. Lives have not been ruined over this.

 

Go to work! How does anybody make a career for themselves without being a fellow of the IFoA? There’s loads of people doing actuarial work without the professional qualification and getting paid well for doing it. Think outside the box

 

So people who object to IFoA violating laws and regulations should quit so they can continue with that conduct? What a funny thing to suggest. Their conduct reflects badly on actuarial professionals regardless of whether they are currently a member. You object to the cost of this - if there was no misconduct by IFoA and a proper internal complaints process to deal with discrimination complaints from members then such matters wouldn't go to Court. Your complaint should really be directed towards those who run IFoA in this manner rather than the victims of their policies. Go an ask them how much that failed defence cost them and how much money they've made from their arrangements over the years.

 

Being denied the opportunity to sit in May means zero chance of passing in May. What part of that do you not understand? The public would expect actuaries to understand things like this.