Refund of exemption fees following change in syllabus.

Due to the change in syllabus and the mode of testing the exams, the exemptions that I have paid for are now worthless.
How can I get this money back from the Institute???

 

If I say anything it is only repetition. I’d like my exam fees, exemption fees Acted tuition fees plus compensation for wasting my life on these worthless examinations...

 

Amen to that ! The number of curriculum changes that the SOA and IFOA is going through is a joke. How can SOA and IFOA become a globally recognized body like CFA/ACCA if they cannot make up their mind what should be the minimum requirement to become an Associate? I do not see CFA changing their Part I, II and III significantly every few years.

I also do not understand why R and predictive analytics has become part of the core syllabus other than it being a revenue churner in both the SOA and IFOA. I have not met many actuaries who use this in their work. It is something like adding a couple of dentistry modules to your MBBS/MD degree. Wow, really useful stuff. Is Actuarial Science really so threatened by Data Science nowadays that we have to bend the core syllabus? If Data Science can replace Actuarial Science, then so be it and good luck to all those budding data scientists who are now equivalent to Actuaries.

Sweetactuarialprincess, it is highly unlikely that you can get back your exemption fees. They will have 1001 reasons for not refunding you.

 

This is so true. I can think of 1001 reasons they should be shut down.

 

And 1002 reasons why they shouldn't.

I dreamt that come 2021, the IFoA somehow reverted back to the 2018 exam structure (with that new CT6 including Machine Learning, Copulas and R); the new CT6 would be part R and part written while all other CT papers completely revert to their 2018 syllabus. All mapping would follow the current transition structure in reverse (so passing CS2 would give both CT4 and CT6, while a pre-2019 CT6 pass can become useful again for all).

 

The only reason they remain in existence is for their own financial profit. The Kingman Review has confirmed that they’ve done nothing for the last 13 years. I’m not interested in apologies. They have caused me too much stress to the extent that I can’t even sleep or dream. They are just not required. They keep dreaming up ridiculous ways and means to generate money for themselves and are serving society with no benefit. Mr Cribb can call up Thomas Cook when he wants a nice holiday rather than plundering the IFoA vaults which are full of our money.

 

It's funny how these exams now include R to keep up with technological needs, YET the exams are still sat using a pen and paper. Writing changes under stressed situations, leading to illegibility and students losing significant marks because the markers have a hard time reading. This situation could easily be avoided if these exams were simply computer based!

When exactly does any actuary/actuarial student nowadays write for over 3 hours at work that such a practice has not yet been chucked yet?! These exams should test knowledge and application only, not how pretty someone's writing is.

FYI - the IFoA have confirmed in an email correspondence to me earlier that legibility plays a huge part in scoring well on the exam. I quote from their email
"Marking any exam to a high quality requires two things, the marker to have sound knowledge of the marking process and scheme, which has been tested and proven, as well as a clear and legible script to mark. If either of these things are inadequate it could lead tobelow average marking. "

 

I agree. British Universities could simply copy the Spanish or Swiss courses. IFoA not required.

 

But then who would pay for Mr Cribb’s holidays?

 

Liyaquat Khan

 

Totally agree.
It is disgusting to assess people in this way.

 

That cannot possibly be defended as a necessary competence standard. Microsoft word has been invented.

 

It's disgusting that IFoA need to be dragged kicking and screaming to a Court in order to do the right thing. No doubt spending members money in the process without consulting them.

 

HAHAHA that's because even though the default font is usually Calibri or Times New Roman, there's inevitably someone out there who persists in using weird, illegible fonts or (better yet) somehow lacks a keyboard so takes pictures of their (barely legible) handwritten answer and copy/pastes that into Word! Also, it can be rather tedious (albeit possible) to type things like CT5's assurance functions in Word. That would be the defence (however frail) to have legibility as the "necessary competence standard".

Anyway, they already do have some exams that use Word and Excel... maybe they can then roll it out to the SP, SA, CP1 and CB papers, where typing in fancy equations is a relative rarity?

 

I honestly wished actuarial science globally would follow the Spanish/Swiss/European model and do away with a majority of these external exams. The Royal Statistical Society has made a very similar move after much discussions. The issue which Non UK/US/EU Actuaries face (e.g. Asian Actuaries) is that our own countries do not set their own qualifications and and are heavily reliant IFOA (Except for our Indian friends- I know your exams are crazily tough too) . In essence, the IFOA starts becoming and behaving like huge monopolies with massive recurring income. Why would anyone want to kill off this insane amount of recurring income?

What academic people need to do and consider is to set up an alternative international or regional qualification framework to counter IFOA/SOA with the help of Intenational Actuarial Association (IAA). Otherwise, the IFOA will just continue to grow by becoming more creative.

 

Infinity, it could be that your case is more severe than mine but i understand your point. I too experienced a lot of restlessness ever since the IFOA and SOA introduced the new curriculum. The most annoying thing is they were not entirely upfront about the changes. It does seem like the requirements for both bodies have been increasing over the years which begs the question of consistency.

 

The best thing would be for something like the Kingman Review to be run for the IFoA. I don’t think they should be given any more opportunity to continue their administration as it is obviously ineffective

 

The IFoA not only has a monopoly but a concealed interest in many other actuarial organisations. The Indian exams are just regurgitated old IFoA exams. The IAI use the same study material and even pay Acted and the IFoA since they are completely reliant on the their services.

Not completely upfront about the changes!? They have lied and then sought to cover these lies by retrospectively modifying documents without telling anyone. “Professional” qualifications body...

 

In 2005, Sir Derek Morris made the clear recommendation that the IFOA should reduce the time to qualification. The FRC was given the responsibility to ensure that the recommendations were acted upon. What has happened now? The FRC has been been closed down in shame and the IFoA has increased examination requirements. Do they think they will get away with it?

 

The topics of the AAE (European) syllabus are more than adequately covered by CT series and CA1. No need for CA2, CA3, two ST exams or SA. IFoA should have deemed CT series & CA1 as "Associate" and traded this with the Europeans. Also they should make these exams less hard to arrive at some equivalence.

 

Let's get back to this original question. The IFoA clearly will refuse to give anyone a penny. They would however spend (your) money on lawyers to stop students trying to get their money back via the courts. It's well worth students investigating which sections of the Law that can be used. Small claims court is for claims up to £10k but there are some fees to pay depending on size of claim. Employment Tribunal deals with complaints against professional bodies like IFoA (not just employment issues) and it has no fees but is for discrimination complaints, you'd have to show you've been treated less favourably based on a protected characteristic- age, nationality etc. Both the Tribunal and Small claims court can be accessed by unrepresented individuals but do your homework and rest assured you're not the first or the last to do something like this. Also students should tell their employers what's going on and try and get them involved.