Actuarial sheep

[almost_there]

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.

OK so you think it's quite alright for people who have worked in the profession since before June 2004 to be put in the same situation work experience-wise as someone just out of college.

 

[Infinity]

???

Annuity due. This is exactly the problem. The bit you have highlighted in red was added recently. I have evidence of how they are chopping and changing documents without telling anyone. There was and perhaps is still no version number or date on the curriculum 2019 document.

The first notification of c2019 was with 4 sittings notice. But then it was clear except only in the small print that there was an increase in exam requirements. They then made some amendments but it was still not clear. At around 3 sittings they emailed probably well over 10,000 students personalized emails to warn them of potential increases in exam requirements and that passed exams would be rendered worthless.

I had to even explain to an Acted tutor at this point that CT8 was going to double.

They have then continually changed the message and it was only at about 2 sittings clear that it wasn’t just a mistake but they were really changing their message from “current students would not be disadvantaged or put in limbo” to we don’t care about current students and you will lose your exams and have to pay us extra money. Even now you can find references which are incorrect.

Poor almost there has been caught in the trap. The original guidance did not say this.

This is unprofessional and unethical.

 

[Infinity]

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.

I have asked the IFoA 43 times to explain to me the difference between the old and new requirements. They can’t. It is not simple and they keep changing it too. The original publication said that you’d have to do three years of ppd even if you had several years of work experience. So if you were nearly qualified and pass next sitting you’d have to wait 3 years to actually qualify.

Why did South Africans join the Scottish institute or faculty or what ever it was previously? Because there was no work experience requirement for them.

 

[almost_there]

This is unprofessional and unethical.

Absolutely and there is no spin that can be applied to sanitise it.

 

[Infinity]

OK so you think it's quite alright for people who have worked in the profession since before June 2004 to be put in the same situation work experience-wise as someone just out of college.

Yes because having worked 16 years I’ve got the same experience as them. Of course it is fair = IFoA logic

 

[almost_there]

I have asked the IFoA 43 times to explain to me the difference between the old and new requirements. They can’t.

It is deeply unprofessional. They can't bring themselves to admit a major failing and think they can just tinker here or there, or spin this or that, to make it right. It is all so poorly thought through.

 

[almost_there]

However, to the however, PPD doesn't look that onerous.

Well I'd say it's impossible to complete before it was invented. That's rather onerous.

 

[annuitydue]

Because there was no work experience requirement for them.

precisely - which was wrong wasn't it? ie shouldn't have been allowed. As I said, I can see it from both sides.

 

[almost_there]

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

yes it does, as Infinity spotted a long time ago

 

[Tarbuck]

The Requirements for WBS/ PPD are unchanged. You need 3 contemporary years of WBS not just any 3 years. I asked them specifically as I did about a year and a half of full WBS and stopped when it was announced it was going to be replaced by PPD back in 2016. I now have to do 3 years of PPD despite having 8 years job experience because I didn't keep 3 years of recent WBS. So your WBS from year dot to 2016 would be useless for WBS or PPD if you qualify in 2020. Something you can cross off your grievance list.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and sue the IFOA for making me do 1.5 years of pointless WBS.

 

[almost_there]

It's not unchanged Tarbuck you can get fined for not doing PPD. What a stupid system WBS/PPD is if your 8 years work experience is not sufficient as it is.

 

[Tarbuck]

Its not sufficient and it never was. That's why there has always been a CPD requirement after qualification no matter how many prior years experience you have when you qualify. And there has always been a fine if you don't submit CPD.

 

[almost_there]

8 years work experience not sufficient- why do you think that? The pre-WBS system "experience requirement" was 3 years and did not need anywhere near the burdensome paperwork for WBS/PPD. Your bosses probably qualified under that regime.

 

[Tarbuck]

I think eight years of contemporary experience is sufficient and 3 years of contemporary experience is sufficient. The point is most respected professions have a CPD or continued learning requirement while qualified that they can be disqualified for if they don't follow it. Seems to me if people thought 5 years of historic experience was enough to be in a profession then CPD wouldn't be needed. Yet we have it...so do accountants...solicitors...architects....and so on. WBS was one of the things you signed up for when you joined and you are supposed to do it annually. The only failing here is that the institute wasn't enforcing it before.

 

[Infinity]

I think eight years of contemporary experience is sufficient and 3 years of contemporary experience is sufficient. The point is most respected professions have a CPD or continued learning requirement while qualified that they can be disqualified for if they don't follow it. Seems to me if people thought 5 years of historic experience was enough to be in a profession then CPD wouldn't be needed. Yet we have it...so do accountants...solicitors...architects....and so on. WBS was one of the things you signed up for when you joined and you are supposed to do it annually. The only failing here is that the institute wasn't enforcing it before.

solicitors, accountants, architects, doctors you name it... None of them have a qualification System like ours. Solicitors have a couple of years and can then get on with their Job without having the burden of 60 days per year of uncessary study. They have time to do CPD or PPD. We don't as we already have to study so much for ridiculous exams. Please go and read the Morris Review and let me know what the UK governement Suggestion was on the IFoA's education System. If work experience was adequete before or not even adequte for certain non British nationalities? Why is it required now?

As Almost there says, your bosses never did it. Why do we have to do it?

 

[almost_there]

Tarbuck, with respect I think you're mixing up CPD with WBS/PPD. Indeed students have to do category 5 CPD in addition to WBS/PPD. My objection to the WBS/PPD is the manner in which periods of perfectly acceptable actuarial work experience is disregarded by IFoA because of when it was, whether it occurred before PPD or whether one logged it as WBS at the time etc. Also not everyone who works in actuarial e.g. contractors can get all their work signed off by a qualified actuary and I fail to see why such people can end up not qualifying even if they've passed all these exams. When these points are put to IFoA they are essentially ignored.

 

[almost_there]

solicitors, accountants, architects, doctors you name it... None of them have a qualification System like ours. Solicitors have a couple of years and can then get on with their Job without having the burden of 60 days per year of uncessary study.

Indeed and this would explain the lack of empathy by IFoA of what they put people through as its mostly solicitors who seem to run the show from what I've seen.

 

[Tarbuck]

I doubt my bosses studied GLMs so why should we have to? Oh yea, they're now widely used in GI Pricing. Changes are made all the time, either due to changes in the industry, regulation or public opinion. Normally for the better although there are always exceptions. My company is now starting to use Non-Linear modelling - do I not learn it and insist to new starters that they should ignore it despite the fact it can prove to have better results, or do I try to learn about it and use it? Like...some sort of PPD scheme or something?

I'm afraid the industry changes all the time and if anything the new exams haven't gone far enough to cover emerging fields in the exams. It is a very wide ranging field, with a much broader area of learning needed than accounting or architecture. All of this I feel should be clear to anyone who went into being an actuary with any research. I was certainly never told it was going to be easy.

And as it seems you're still talking about work experience Infiinity I'll say it again - your bosses are doing it! Every year in CPD. Much more onerous requirements than PPD.

 

[almost_there]

Don't forget IFoA have signed MRAs with continental, north american and other foreign actuarial associations. Do they have to complete something as burdensome as WBS/PPD to prove their work experience? I doubt it. I think it is desperately unfair the WBS system expected people to log their work experience year upon year until they passed their final exam, all being a total waste of time if that last exam is never passed. If the purpose of this is to demonstrate work experience alongside exams fine, but I don't see why people upon passing their final exam couldn't just submit their CV and any further details required by IFoA to show they worked in genuine actuarial jobs for 3+ years.

 

[Tarbuck]

Tarbuck, with respect I think you're mixing up CPD with WBS/PPD. Indeed students have to do category 5 CPD in addition to WBS/PPD. My objection to the WBS/PPD is the manner in which periods of perfectly acceptable actuarial work experience is disregarded by IFoA because of when it was, whether it occurred before PPD or whether one logged it as WBS at the time etc. Also not everyone who works in actuarial e.g. contractors can get all their work signed off by a qualified actuary and I fail to see why such people can end up not qualifying even if they've passed all these exams. When these points are put to IFoA they are essentially ignored.

So many posts on PPD that show you haven't looked at it at all! PPD doesn't need to be signed off by a qualified actuary anywhere. WBS questions nor learning logs did not need to be signed off by a qualified actuary however the final submission to IFOA with the combined 3 years had to be signed off by a qualified actuary (with the IFOA advising you to contact them for guidance if you had no qualified actuary who worked with for those 3 years).

And I'm not getting them confused at all - me whole point is that the WBS/PPD requirement is for the same reason as CPD - to show you have current work experience, not that you have some experience at some point in the dim and distant past. They are different names and different levels of requirements, but both to show RECENT work experience.

 

[almost_there]

So many posts on PPD that show you haven't looked at it at all! PPD doesn't need to be signed off by a qualified actuary anywhere.

Incorrect, not what I was told.

I don't see why CV is not acceptable. If people forwarded fake CVs in order to be conferred a qualification then wouldn't this amount to fraud?