Actuarial sheep

please ask your university and let me know... i think there were separate agreements made with the universities regarding curriculum 2019. You are likely to be safe, but you never know... if not, then get the indian qualification. The Indian's have introduced C2019 slightly later so I'm not sure when you graduate, but you have a little bit more time... If you are not British and from Singapore, this shouldn't be a problem. You can then change it to a British one if required... IFoA design....

 

Yeah, it doesn't seem fair to more senior people like Infinity, but if said university students miss an exemption (with the old syllabus) between 2019-2023 then they must resit with iFoA under the new syllabus, meaning that if they don't get the CT4 exemption in their studies then they must sit CS2 regardless of how their CT6 module(s) may have fared.

 

Yes it could also happen to university students but you have until 2023 or whenever. For the rest of us, our time is up. Exams are in a few weeks. That’s the last chance. I can’t even take exams this time since the IFoA has changed the exam timetable and I have already planned other things as have my working colleagues.

I’m sure the universities will redesign their courses so that the exemption will cover both parts of CS or CM in the future. Universities have more power and the IFoA will not be able to tell them that they are isolated irregularities

 

I agree this look unfair at first glance. I expect it's more complicated than it looks though. One thing is that it's only if their course has already started. Expect they have to appease the universities - remember the Morris review you keep citing.
Also as Calm points out, if they don't get both subjects they don't have the four (i know you think it's three) sittings that we've had. The poster who said they are taking CT3 only has this one. If they fail I assume they've no other option - so the same as us. I expect the date is to allow for existing 4 year courses or something - but seems a year too long.

 

If anyone should be leaving it should be those running it who are making such a mess of things.

 

Hey look - I agree that they have put out messages that haven't been great. But it looks like you and others have complained, and seen the flaws in some of their publications, and they have updated the documents to be clearer and explain what they mean.

I haven't a clue what they've said personally to you, but I'd have expected a "thank you, sorry that isn't what we meant, we'll update the documents" type reply. Once things have been clarified we move on.

I'm also not a big fan of all of what they've done with the new structure - I like some bits and dislike others. But it's starting in a couple of months and so we have to go with it.

There are always winners and losers in syllabus changes. There was back in 2000 and again in 2005 (so my manager tells me - I'm not quite that old).
Like Tarbuck, I hope this thread can be used to let off the steam and the rest of the site can be left alone now.

 

In order for people to 'move on' then they should be compensated in some way and I haven't seen any IFoA proposals on that, not even an apology from the highly remunerated CEO (near £400k) who made the materially inaccurate statement in the the annual report.