Are exams relevant?

I am sure I am not the only one who thinks this but more that half of the subjects are simply not relevant to my job?

I'd say maybe at a push 40% if that much.

Any other views.

 

i think they are more of a way of ensuring demand outstrips supply of actuaries, which keeps the market rates high...

 

If actuaries want to call themselves professionals then their qualification needs to be well rounded. I’m sure most doctors are forced to study plenty of stuff they don’t use on a day to day basis – but I feel all the more confident in their qualification as they have demonstrated their intellectual ability by doing so.

I’m sure different subsets of actuaries out there use different subsets of the exam material as part of their role – I don’t think there is anything which is wholly irrelevant to the profession in the syllabus.

 

OK that may be but from where I am ie in Trinidad it seems pretty pointless.
Trinidad is data poor by nature. Numeracy rates hover somewhere between 35-50%. That is people with passes in GCSE level maths.
Anyone with a birthdate before 1935 who says they don't know the month let alone day is believable.
There is no secondary bond market, The Stock market is what five years old.

Surely there must be some alternative qualification other than the hold over colonial legistlation that says you have to be a Fellow of the institute. The problem is local standards don't go down very well down here.

But I still think the vast majority of this stuff is irrelevant we don't even have joint life annuity products!

 

So you’re arguing there should be some second tier, lower level qualification for regions with poorer educational standards or were applications are limited. Perhaps we should be able to qualify after a three year course from any college? –that would destroy the profession overnight. As from alternatives to the institute/faculty qualification – if you’re looking for some watered down qualification to avoid ‘colonial legislation’ maybe a career change would be easier. The exams are hard for everyone, everyone will study things that aren’t of use to them at one stage. “We don’t even have joint life annuity products” – well I work in general insurance so there is plenty of stuff I’m forced to study that’s not used in my current role.

 

I'd say the key point here is that at present (although I believe this is up for debate) the Faculty and Institute's primary aim is set a syllabus for actuaries practising in the UK (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong about this)

It's not their goal to make the syllabus suitable for every area of the world which also sits the exams. It's not really their fault that Trinidad (country not the user) doesn't let you sit any other form of actuarial exam - but I doubt any of the other major actuarial syllabuses (USA, Australia...) would be anymore relevant. So not sure what you're suggesting the Institute should do Trinidad (user not the country)?

I guess that leads us on to whether Trinidad (country not the user) should set up their own syllabus. Might be questions on whether you could get a job in a different country???

Diverging from the point I do actually think that the UK syllabus could do with some improvements to make it more relevant to my job (in GI). The GRIT consultation paper has a lot of good points on this in my opinion.....

 

Makes sense.