Actuarial sheep

OK thanks, if this info is correct then those qualifying elsewhere and using the MRA will get Fellowship without needing to invest time and money in passing R. In terms of gold standard, haven't people learned even from their actuary exams that something is only worth what you can trade it for...

 

How so? I don't find that rational.

 

Unbelievable. How neutral. if you can tell me why the ceo and other IFoA executive staff of have said that no one would be disadvantaged and then there are 10,000 students who actually are, it would be appreciated. There is no point to try to justify it. There are simply more exams and exams which I have to repeat despite having already having proved my competency.

The IFoA has clearly said no more exams, study hours, exam hours or time to qualification.

Which ever way you try to argue it. It is not true.

There is a solution. Make more equitable transition arrangements.

Own up to making a mistake. Don’t lie to students, stakeholder, members and the general public. It is amazing how many people on here will still try to argue this, many without knowing the full facts.

 

I don't just place value on money and what's tradable. Also like to be challenged and have a sense of achievement. If I know I've passed a set of exams that are considered hard then I take some self-satisfaction from it. Didn't realise that was irrationale.

 

Please provide the facts. How many drop out? How many fly through?

The only official guidance from the IFoA says you can do the exams in three years.

A further post on Twitter and Facebook misstated the facts and was shunned by students. It was subsequently removed as it was errorneous.

The IFoA have tired to make out that students qualify quickly. But removing the mutual recognition and university courses etc the statistics are surely not pleasant.

The truth should be told to students before they embark on such a commitment which will affect them as well as their future partners, family and friends

 

Exactly Infinity. It's a terrible example being set to members. I think Mr Cribb has already had enough time to reflect on that statement and come up with a solution. Maybe he should ask his own members for suggestions.

 

interested to know how not passing the exams has impacted your job, if you have one. How has your employer reacted to it? Will you be kicked out of you don't qualify?

 

Apologies if you thought I was mocking your exam progress - the intention of the message was to try and point out the extent you expect the IFOA to go to for transition arrangements is completely unreasonable and unpractical. And I'll be the first to admit my posts have been getting more and more antagonising to you/ almost_there but in my opinion your are spamming and ruining a perfectly good forum that can be a great benefit to a great many people. And as I said in another thread - its not what your posting that I have an issue with, I'd be happy for you to have a thread on it and argue your point til the cows come home - its the sheer number of threads that are being taken over by it, swamping topics that are of interest or of help to other people.

I notice there was no comeback on the point about the hazard perception test, or a lot of the other valid arguments people are making against you. At some point, you will have to take a reality check.

 

Obviously can't answer for the IFoA, but I suspect it's simply a mistake or clumsy wording. Whether not fully aware, or ill-advised I don't know. But now we know the rules and so can move on. No point clinging onto an interpretation of a statement that they aren't going to stick to.

 

I don't know - just wondering how different employers valued the qualification. I understand, for example, that the head of the actuarial pensions department of a big-4 company isn't qualified.
For some, quality of work and experience is more valuable. But obviously it can impact regulated roles.
No need to share if you don't want to.

 

Apology accepted from you. Some offensive post from a random person on here is no big deal. But making me do extra exams for nothing is.

The reason why I have posted on so many threads is

A) someone has asked a question specifically relating to this change in the exam system. As you have seen I’m not the only person to complain. I had to explain to an Acted tutor on here that CT8 is indeed 2 exams.

B) Acted Admin keep shutting down the thread

C) I have yet to see a convincing argument based on something other than opinion

So please don’t blame me. There are also only a couple of people who stand firmly with the IFoA on these issues. Some of the profiles are dubious.

I note that no one says anything about many of my points as there is no answer. The IFoA have either cocked up or are intentionally lying to students.

There was no point to double CT3 and CT8 and there is no point to join ct1 and CT5 and CT4 and CT6. Especially not when your ceo has promised current students will be disadvantaged and in an exam system which takes many people more than a decade to complete. Why is a one to one mapping not feasible? Why do the exams need to be joined together retrospectively? If a few students were disadvantaged ok. But it is 10,000. And on top of that they have lied

The only reason why people didn’t kick off in the consultation and infact they did was that the IFoA quelled student and other stakeholders fears by promising no increase in exams.

You can see how caniving they are in the council minutes. They know the chartered actuary proposal is not popular but they say they will just repackage it and they again in a few years if the proposal fails.

If you look on reddit, one person(which is not me) has summed it up nicely.

“Why can’t these cxxts leave things alone for one year”.

Not my words to be clear

I have taken a reality check. I’m not going to be bullied by you or the profession. I am taking action and this seems to be the only place where (when my posts are not edited without my knowledge or deleted) that there is some platform for me to express my view.

I’ve been blocked on Facebook and Twitter and the IFoA and actuary magazine don’t want to listen either.

What is your point about hazard perception? Perhaps I have overlooked it? I’m happy to answer any questions you may have

 

If you don’t pass you get fired or demoted. Even if you’re not one of the 100 people who actually have this regulated role.

A lot of older people have progressed without qualification. But now it is near impossible.

You obviously work in an insurance company so why are you asking this question?

 

There we go. Finally. Mistake. Thanks.

It’s not an interpretation. It’s a direct contradiction.

And it’s not just some simple mistake. It is all over the place. Multiple documents. Even after pointing it out, contradictions still exist today to confuse people.

Now that we know the rules. So we didn’t have 4 sittings transition period did we? The rules are still unclear and the 4 sittings are up. Study hours for the new system were only just published recently and still don’t make sense to me.

I would love to send you all the proof I have but I can’t be bothered. You can google and find it quite easily. The IFoA have lied in consultations on this point. Increasing exams is against the recommendations of the Morris review. The FRC is being accused of being corrupt. So I think they have made an unintentional mistake but the cover up is very sinister and intentional.

 

lol. There's no apology that I've seen of any kind.

 

"We will also be starting to roll out the new curriculum ahead of examinations in 2019, ensuring that, as we do so, no students are left
in limbo or put at a disadvantage." - Derek Cribb, Annual Report 2016/17

"It is intended that students who are currently studying, and will continue to study under the new curriculum, should not see an increase in study or examination hours either. This does, however, rely on students having completed their exams in line with the transfer rules set out in this document." - Curriculum 2019 doc page 3

 

I've always been happy calling it a mistake. Keep using that rather than a lie and we'll get on just fine . I agree that it should have been clarified, apologised or whatever. But given how long ago, I'm not going to waste my time dwelling on that.

I don't get that bit. Transition rules were published in autumn 2016 I think when we had 4 sittings. Whatever changes/tweaks they have made since, I don't think the transition rules have changed.

 

"The transition from one work experience scheme to another is not intended to extend the time to qualify." - IFoA website.

It certainly does if someone previously WBS exempt and met the 3 years experience requirement already cannot for whatever reason record PPD. By Sept 2020 all pre-PPD work experience will count for nothing.

 

Who's responsible for that mistake?

 

???
So it implies you may face more if you don't get the two subjects that feed into one.

 

can see both sides of that one. Can easily argue why someone who started yonks ago should be subject to the more recent rules and not hang on to the rules when they started. Evidencing up-to-date experience would be preferable. However, I doubt the number of people who are caught by this (I know you are one) is that big and so I'd probably just let them off for simplicity. However, to the however, PPD doesn't look that onerous.