So i've been doing exams for a rather long time and its starting to get to me, having failed ST7 twice already ( )I am wondering what the implications would be of qualifying as an Associate rather than a Fellow. I still have 1 CT and the CAs to do What do you think? what are your experiences? Thanks
I have wondered the same. A few things I've noticed though: - People never have associate in their e-mail signatures, but may have fellow. - Job advertisments don't ask for associates, but they will ask for part-qualified, nearly qualified etc. I'm not sure if the IFoA needs to do more in this area, or it's market demand lead.
I think that when you qualify as an associate you are considered to be a qualified member.not a part-qualified one...please correct me if I am wrong..
Whatever the Institute of Actuaries says, ''the market thinks it's all or nothing.'' Even if an advert says part qualified, they will expect you to eventually qualify.
Where did you get that quote from? It's a bit simplistic. I think it does depend on the area you work in. If you work for an actuarial company, or any area with a statutory role (requiring one of the practice exams) then chances are you'll need to be a Fellow. I work mainly with CFAs and other people in the financial industry. Few of them seem to know or care about the difference. I'm having to make the same decision at the moment and find it very frustrating that there is so little information about the Associate qualification and its standing. Any discussion seems to be dominated by Fellows who are worried about dilution of their qualification. I see why people who work hard for the last three exams are so dismissive of those who don’t, but dismissing the first 12 exams as “nothing” is hardly helpful to the discussion. I would like to see the Associate qualification made more prominent, and more discussion over where the qualification stands. It is not the same as Fellow, and I wouldn't pretend it is, but I also think it's far from being "nothing".
I completely agree. The profession should do more to enhance the apparent merit of an Associate qualification. I am an associate and although I very much intend to qualify at some stage I get the feeling that unless you are fully qualified your about as qualified as someone who only has a few exams (on paper anyway). I started this career when I was 24 and had to do all the exams from scratch but when I received the certificate in actuarial techniques upon finishing the CT's the impression from the other qualifieds/students in the office was that it was pretty worthless. Again, when I finished the CA's (which were no easy task as I'm sure most of you will agree) I was met with the same reaction. I don't blame people for responding this was as there is not enough effort being made to market the various degrees of qualification. I also think the salary scale should be more segmented than "student".
I understand why Fellows think like that because the last three exams can be up to half the work. For example you can be an Associate in 3 years but it can still take you up to even the same amount of time to qualify as Fellow i.e. a further 2 to 3 years. Thus while it takes a lot of effort to be an Associate it's justifiable for a Fellow to feel that an Associate is half his or her worth. To the outside world an Associate can formally call themselves an "actuary" but there will always be an actuary (a Fellow) more actuary than them.
I'd think it's nearly all or nothing - either you can fill a statutory role or not. Of course AIA is better than absolutely nothing at all. Same for MSc, MBA, CFA, phd... but at the end of the day, I think I'd judge you by the quality of work produced rather than by the various qualifications. (Andrew Smith comes to mind as a non-FIA who is doing well for himself in the actuarial world.) If you're don't want to or can't finish the rest of exams, Associateship provides a convenient exit point - you have something to show for it. IFoA seems to think there is a market for actuarial technicians and are creating a new qualification for it. They do cut down versions of the CT's and presumably fill a supporting role permanently, so maybe there is a market for people in each of the various steps of the ladder and who have no intention of climbing higher. Part of the decision is consideration of how the added value of the AIA (in income, personal satisfaction, etc) compares with ongoing cost (subscriptions, CPD)
Certainly in General Insurance there are many non-statutory actuarial roles and S2 says that the actuarial function need not be carried out by actuaries. Nevertheless many employers seem to consider fellowship to be the benchmark, probably through a combination of genuine practical considerations and entrenched views on the subject. Incidentally, I think Andrew Smith may be an exceptional example in many respects, not just the fact that he never finished the exams or that he was publicly critical of them. I suspect for this reason he may not be the most useful role model on this particular subject.
Did you ever qualify? Now it seems there is no point to become a fellow with this chartered actuary qualification... you could just done the CT and CAs and called it a day. Would be interested to know if you think you have wasted your life on the ST attempts and other exams you have taken?
Lack of CA3/CP3 means you don't get Associate or Fellowship. Someone could get Associate and call themselves 'qualified' yet an individual with all the exams except for CA3/CP3 could not. Furthermore the 'qualified' Associate would be allowed to sign-off someone's 3 years work experience for Fellowship while they themselves only needed 1 year signed off. None one of this makes sense. Very badly thought out.
