Actuarial sheep

The PPD system cuts off people's work experience from Sept 2017 essentially. Not exactly dim and distant past. The work doesn't change that much over time anyway to warrant completely disregarding someone's work experience.

 

......for the love of God....

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/personal-and-professional-development-ppd

Page 6 starting bottom left. You need a manager / supervisor/ employer if you are a contractor who you work with who can verify you did what you say you did in the event you get picked at random for the yearly audit. They do not have to sign anything off. They do not need to be qualified. It doesn't need to be the same person for different entries of PPD.

I've often wondered why I keep coming back to flog a dead horse but your blind refusal to even entertain a fact because it contradicts your blinkered world view has done it I think. Please don't spam other threads on the new syllabus as it might be nice for other students to actually be able to talk about relevant things. Bye.

 

Tarbuck, page 9 of the PPD guide the final submission must be signed by Associate or Fellow.

I don't see any good reason why IFoA need to be constantly notified who your work supervisor is. I don't believe it has anything to do with work experience requirement, it is totally unnecessary information for them.

 

I've no idea why people put up with this. What has it got to do with seeking the qualification? Only when all the exams are passed do they really need work experience verified in order to confer the qualification. The constant monitoring via WBS/PPD I am uncomfortable with. PPD is now essentially an extension of CPD for students as you get fined for not doing it.

 

I'm currently an NTU student, and have to take CT3 and CT4 this sitting as I didn't get exemptions for these two. But since I only take the module for CT6 in NTU next semester, there is the possibility that this combination of CT4 pass and CT6 exemption won't clear the CS2 paper. I'm just hoping that they do allow carry over of historical CT1/4/5/6 passes where only one half of the pair was obtained so that you could find the exemption for the other half by 2023.

 

The current situation is that they won’t honor their promise that current students will not be impacted. I have no idea what they do for people at university.

What is NTU? Sorry for my ignorance... I assume it’s a university?

Could you please explain? If they honor your exam pass then why not mine? The situation is worse than I thought...

Thanks for responding. More people like you should write on here. There are 10,000 other people also affected but as you can see from all the fake posters and IFoA employees, they make you feel like you’re the only one who will be disadvantaged.

 

Is 60 days of study on top of a full time job not enough? They are basically collecting information from you and you don’t even know it. They’ll probably sell it to the highest bidder so they can increase their bonus and salary increase even more - I can just imagine Mr Cribb’s eyes lighting up upon reading this statement

 

as long as your uni course is accredited then it looks like you have until 2023. If not, only this year.
you might want to check it applies to partial exemptions on accredited courses.

 

oh my god!!! We disagree with you and you claim this.

yes many people could end up with half an exemption. I expect most of them are working hard to reduce that chance and mot wasting their time on here.

 

Many people? You’re an actuary, does the question “how many” come to mind? Let me explain to you - Over 10,000 students have one of these CT exams left. This is a fact which the IFoA have provided me in writing. 60% of them will fail this sitting. This you can see from the pass rates of the exams.

So after working hard, 6,000 students will end up having to study the same material all over again with double the amount of exams. It will take more time to qualify for 6,000 people

Therefore “many” are going to end up disadvantaged. In fact nearly half of current students are being disadvantaged by the ill conceived changes to the exam system

Who is we? The four of you that disagree with me on here? You say “we” are you affiliated with the others in anyway?

There have been as many people complaining as defending the IFoA in this small sample. The problem is that people don’t even have time to complain as they have to study.

 

Great so university students have a further 4 years until 2023 to qualify with no disadvantage. The rest of us have already lost our chance and have to take double the amount of exams. How is that fair?

 

Yes they are and it is unclear how this information is being processed.

 

Non-members will find their CT1 rendered worthless too, which is why IFoA won't allow them to sit CT1 in Sept. https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/non-members

 

ok so i found your post on the hazard perception test.

This is so not comparable in so many ways

Are you comparing this test which can be done by anyone without even any qualification with the actuarial exams? Are you going to have to undertake 6 months of study each year and give up your free time, family, religious beliefs each time you fail the hazard perception test. It's got some Videos and some multiple choice questions... are you really comparing this with the actuarial exams?

Also, in the extreme case that you can't pass the driving test, you can just get a taxi. With the actuarial exams, my entire career is ruined, I can't just get a taxi, I have to start all over again and will have a Stigma attached to me for being unable to pass exams.

The truth of the matter is that I would have been perfectly capable to pass if the IFoA did not Keep increasing the number of exams and make so many Errors themselves. I've done as much work as a Swiss or Spanish actuary, yet I'm not qualified.

It's funny that a test which essentially stops you from killing people is less onerous than the actuarial exams which are not even required according to the IFoA's own Chartered Actuary proposal. The IFoA state in their own publication that the Fellowship is not really required anymore and an associate is good enough for most Jobs. Why make people do the Fellowship in the first place then? Why then also increase the requirements for associateship by making people do 11 exams if the exams were too onerous and the Intention and recommendation from the government in the morris review was that the time to qualiifcation should be reduced?

Your comments on my time to qualification are not appreciated. I realise you have already apologised previously, I assume that also covers this post and is accepted.

As I Keep telling you it is not just me (the idiot that can't pass 8 CTs in 16 years) that is affected. Firstly what you say is rubbish. I haven't taken the CT exams for 16 years. I took them initially, didn't pass and moved on as they were so boring I couldn't face the notes. I have obviously progressed in my career without having achieved the pass to demonstrate that I can perform the chain ladder technique. There are 10,000 other students who do not have some combination of CT1, 3, 4,5,6 or 8. You should also not Forget the 50% of people who have dropped out of the Profession after getting nowhere. They don't come on here because they are stuck in the library and have been forced into Submission.

There was a legitimate reason for introducing the hazard perception test and in fact it was just a modernisation of the theory test.

There is NO legitimate reason for retrospectively joining exams CT4 and CT6 and rendering my CT6 exam completely worthless and making me study the chain ladder technique again.

There is no legitimate reason to have 2 exams for CT8.

It is not fair that students at University can complete their (easier) exams until 2023 while the rest of us don't even have that Chance anymore.

Mr Cribb has clearly said that current students will not be disadvantaged by the Transition Arrangements and as I hope we can all agree, there is an increase in exams.

Some Posters who have no previous history have suddenly come on here to Claim that the increase is not so bad, but the Point I am trying to make is that there is an increase, this is a contradiction of the CEO pledge and the other pledges which have been covered up by the IFoA. The IFoA have lied and made a sinister attempt to cover up their mistake.

 

Any necessary updates to syllabus, new actuarial topics could be incorporated into the existing structure. There is no need for the creation of double exams, an extra exam paper, people's existing exam passes rendered worthless and so on. I wonder if these changes are revenue neutral?

 

so to all the haters that said the IFoA gave enough notice - 4 sittings and 2 years supposedly (which is complete tosh since there were and still are so many errors and changes being made that proper notice has still not been give) - what about these people? How much notice did they get? I've got the number of people who have CT1 only, can't be bothered to find it, but I think it is over 7,000. These people will all have to pass CT5 otherwise they have to do CT1 again. Judging from the undated publication which almost there has kindly provided, it seems that the publication was made at some point in 2018. This would imply they had 2 sittings to pass CT5 or have to take CT1 again.

Looking at the link below, a further annoucment was made in June 2018 to advise people that they should have already passed CT5!

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/student-News

This would give them one sitting notice to pass CT1

How would you even know that the exams require multiple attempts if the IFoA's only Information on qualification times is that you can be done in 3 years!? The other advice published on twitter and Facebook recently was promptly removed after negative Feedback from students who criticised the document for being riddled with errors

Being lied to by the Profession before you embark on a life changing exam process is a great start to your career.

 

Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Double the exams, double the money.

 

please quantify - we are actuaries after all - how many drop out and fly through?

 

Here you go Annuitydue.... below are two versions of the same document. What you have quoted is from some updated document which was updated god knows when as the IFoA don't believe in using audit trail although it is the subject of CA2. You can't criticise Almost there... he has probably printed the document in good faith and relied upon it and now you go quoting some doctored version which has been doctored by the IFoA without notifying anyone to suit their cause... I'm not saying it's your fault either, but I hope you can appreciate now that the IFoA is not as squeaky clean as you would like to think...

You will also notice that both documents state that the exams can be sat in any order...

 

and while i'm looking at all the rubbish which the IFoA have sent me, here is proof of other contradictory material... a few of you have been banging on about how the individual components of CS and CM exams are actually joined together and you can benefit from diversification etc... this is what the second version (note it is not the first, but the second) says on the individual components...

 

That is true. But it assumes that you are doing only the courses in NTU without sitting for the iFoA papers at the same time. So I don't really know what happens in my case regarding the merging CT papers.