Change in Exam dates - Again...

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/exam-bookings/exam-dates

Is anyone impacted by the change in exam dates to the CT exams. What a joke. I have already agreed with my wife, my employer and doctors due to some upcoming medical treatment, plans for after the exams, but the IFoA for the millionth time running are changing the exam dates. This must affect thousands of students. While many of you will say, ok, I'll just take the exam later many will have booked holidays or also made plans for after the exams.

This sitting is particularly important as it is the last sitting before the new curriculum. If you don't pass certain CT exams, exams that you may have taken will be rendered worthless in the worst case, or you will have to study a completely new exam rather than a simpler retake.

The changes are summarised below:

September 2018 exam session
Please note that following a further review of the September 2018 timetable, the following change has been made:

• The CT7 exam has been moved and will now take place on Friday 28 September

The CT1 and CT5 exam dates have been swapped:

• CT1 will now take place on Friday 28 September
• CT5 will now take place on Monday 17 September

The CT3 exam will now take place on Thursday 20 September

I am taking action against the IFoA, please contact me privately if you wish to join.

 

I don't understand why so many just put up with it. Can the IFoA not come up with a way to partially credit a CT exam pass in their new double exam? I suggest students affected write to Mr Clifford Friend the Director of Education to offer an explanation. I see there are Council elections coming up and I'm yet to see a single candidate take up this matter (no wonder the voter turnout is as low as 12% usually) and perhaps students should make them aware and promote whatever candidates that are going to do something about this. The trouble is the Council is Fellows voted for by Fellows who have long forgotten and in some cases don't care about this.

 

The only way to get justice is by suing them.
Did you know that every British student potentially has an indirect race discrimination claim against the IFOA. This is the UK students onl get 2 sittings and the Indian nationals get 4. Those that the IFOA have instructed, caused, induced and or aided in the matter also get it in the neck.
Get in touch with me if you want to know more.

 

Interesting claim - as far as I know the IFoA only have two exam sittings for all students - seems very fair. Are there secret sittings for those living in India too? If you are referring to IAI exams - then why can't UK students join the IAI and sit their exams. If that's not allowed then isn't that a claim against the IAI not the IFoA?

 

They've tried. They've been rejected due to being British. If IFoA have instructed them to behave in that way it would be a claim against IFoA. Yes I can't see how a British Court could have jurisdiction against IAI.

 

The IFOA. because they let the IAI students sit our exam, and there appears to be some agreement that prevents us from sitting the IAI exams.. Get in touch with me on private mail... I will explain

 

I have no problem with people speaking out and taking action - and wish them good luck. But I do have a problem with those who want to suggest action needs to be taken at the end of nearly every post. We get the picture!! We can swap ideas and see what people think - every view can be respected. And then what an individual chooses to do is up to them.

 

With respect, I don’t think you get the picture. Otherwise you would do something about it. There is hard evidence that the chief executive has issued a false and misleading statement in the annual report. Why is no one doing anything about it? Complaints are being swept under the carpet on a daily basis. Vulnerable students are made to feel that they are alone with issues that affect many others. Part of the Actuarial code is to speak up rather than sit there and do nothing.

 

I feel like more people would do something if they felt something was wrong. It seems to be a very small core group that keep posting and agreeing with each other. A small core group that all seem to be stuck on one of the later exams. I think everybody else finds the concept of an institute wide corruption stopping people from passing exams and qualifying, including their governing bodies, other people that have qualified etc a bit ridiculous.

 

I’m not stuck on the later exams. I’ve got SA, ST and CA1. You’ve obviously not read my posts.

A small core group that keep agreeing with each other... that’s a rather good way to describe the IFoA.

They never admit they’re wrong and they have their little old boys club including members from Acted and the FRC who will back up anything the IFoA says.

I don’t think my grievances are frivolous. How can they change exam dates at the last minute, publish lies in annual reports, go against government recommendations in the Morris review, add years to my qualification time. The failings of the FRC / ICAEW due to the unprofessional behavior, specifically related to lack of investing complaints are starting to appear in the press. The unhealthy relationship between the ICAEW and the FRC has been blamed for the lack of early intervention which could have prevented failure of some rather large companies. People have lost money, jobs and livelihoods so i would perhaps start reading some other publications other than the Actuary magazine and find out what is taking place in the real world. Please don’t try to make me out to be some vexatious complainant. Ask the IFoA how many students are going to be impacted by curriculum 2019 or how many complaints they receive on a daily basis.

Look at the rubbish they’ve published on Facebook and Twitter today. The incompetence is astounding. I haven’t pointed out the inaccuracies, someone else has kindly done it for me, so I’m not the only one. People are unhappy.

 

Shall we discuss something specific and relevant, in an objective and constructive way? Infinity mentioned stuff on FB so I went and had a look:
https://www.facebook.com/Actuarial/...78259466480/10155409891296481/?type=3&theater

It got me thinking about two main areas:

The comments made on FB in response to the post interested me. I initially got the impression that the IFoA were trying to highlight what a challenge it is to become an actuary because the numbers look big to me. Not quite sure of the merits of that aim - could argue it would be better to publicise how achievable it is - but that's not what interested me. If we assume the numbers are all correct then I presume they are based on a fairly large dataset. People seem to be questioning them (despite being published using words like "around" and "normally") due to their own experiences or the experiences of a few people they know. I know someone who took 16 years to qualify - but that doesn't make me question the fact that the average (and the normal) is a lot lower than this. Similarly, no doubt some have used more than 1500 hours to get there, but I bet there are loads who have used less. Many people won't use 400 hours to get through CA1, despite being huge.
Even if the IFoA have underestimated the numbers as some of the comments imply - then it doesn't really matter if the overall objective was to show what a challenge it was - as that comes across anyway. Whether it had stated 6.5 years or 8 years probably doesn't matter to most.

My other thoughts concerned the numbers themselves. The numbers are obviously trying to refer to reaching Associateship - part of their agenda of promoting this as the primary qualification, for which i think they will continue to struggle with. I thought they always used to quote 5-6 years for reaching Fellowship, and so 6.5 years for Associateship sounds too long to me - unless it's some 75% percentile or something rather than an average. Actuaries are always going to question things like this.
I don't know what this statement means "only half of our students qualify each year - on average". Any ideas?

 

Yes very diplomatic. The IFoA have a track record of lying to students. With curriculum 2019, the chartered actuary proposal, changing things around all the time. The problem is that what the IFoA have published is riddled with inconsistencies and errors. They have confused associateship with fellowship and it is not clear what they’re talking about. This confuses students who intend to join the profession. The manner in which they publish “rubbish” like this needs to be considered carefully. What would happen if an actuary came up with a slide like the one the IFoA has put for its god knows how many followers on Facebook? We would be dragged in front of a disciplinary committee and hung out to dry.

This aim of the publication is due to the bitter complaints they have received about transparency. This is their get out of jail card when someone pulls them over on not publishing anything other than the statement that exams can be finished in 3 years which is the official guidance on their website.

They do not inform others about the significantly easier routes to qualification such as doing an Actuarial degree, taking exams in another country if possible and then asking for mutual recognition or some masters course which gives you exemptions from the toughest exams.

Of course the study hours are a rough estimate but even the most junior of actuaries could work out that the average actuary doesn’t pass all his exams first time and the numbers are massively understated. On the Facebook post, one student suggests multiplying by 3. Another student on here just commented that he spent 300 hours on CT5 which is slightly more than the official 125 to 150.

Concentrate on the facts. The statement is misleading and false and it is not the first time the IFoA has issued such a poorly constructed statement.

Read the 2005 Morris Review and the criticisms made by the government specifically regarding the time to qualification. This is why the IFoA has been working with universities to reduce the time to qualification.

I think you’re missing the point. The IFoA have made another error and these errors impact peoples lives.

 

Jamie Brown - no advert requires special interpretation or thought to make sense of it. There's no good reason why IFoA cannot follow TCF principles in terms of its own products. It's not too much to ask given their members have to work within a TCF framework.

 

Tarbuck,

Have a look at what the American Actuarial body did to one of its members. (pasted below).This is what the professional bodies are capable of. As professionals, we should not look at the IFOA with rose tinted glasses. The GMC helped to destroy the career of Dr Michalak. The case went to the House of Lords. Some of us here have written to the ICAEW about certain individuals that they regulate. The ICAEW are just as bad. They misrepresent the complaint and then fail to up hold it. I have made complaints to the IFOA many times and they have responded with half truths mis-truths or untruths.



http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=319693
Earlier this month, I sued the American Academy of Actuaries. I never dreamed during my thirty-year actuarial career that I would have to do this. But, I had no choice after the Academy destroyed my practice and reputation by leaking embarrassing and misleading confidential information from an ongoing investigation by the Academy’s Actuarial Board for Counseling and Discipline (ABCD). A copy of the lawsuit, which I filed in federal court in D.C., can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE...ew?usp=sharing

What happened to me could happen to any of you unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of an ABCD complaint, regardless of its merit. Although actuaries have long expected that the Academy/ABCD would handle disciplinary proceedings fairly and with strict confidentiality—something guaranteed by Academy Bylaws and recognized by Academy leadership as essential—that expectation may be little more than a pipe dream, subject to the whims, motives, machinations, and recklessness of Academy/ABCD leaders and staff.

I had a successful practice representing municipalities in Illinois on pension matters. I have never been disciplined by the Academy or any actuarial organization. I have, however, been on the receiving end of a series of outrageous ABCD complaints by competing actuaries who I believe launched a campaign to steal my clients and destroy my practice by filing spurious charges with the ABCD.

Without going into the details, which were supposed to be confidential, none of these complaints has resulted in disciplinary action against me. No client has complained about me. No one has accused me of criminal, fraudulent, dishonest, or immoral conduct. No one claims material harm from my alleged actions.

Nevertheless, as a result of a process filled with irregularities, animosity, double-standards, and contrived allegations, the ABCD issued a confidential recommendation that I be expelled from the Academy—something the Academy has done only 11 times in its history, in cases of serious crimes or fraud.

Anyone familiar with the ABCD knows that an ABCD recommendation is not discipline; it is a recommendation to be considered by disciplinary committees of the actuarial organizations of which the subject actuary is a member—in my case the Academy. Those organizations—not the ABCD—decide what, if any, private or public discipline is appropriate.

My opportunity to present my case to the Academy Disciplinary Committee to disregard the ABCD’s outrageous recommendation was dashed when the Academy/ABCD leaked the ABCD’s confidential recommendation of expulsion. In essence, the Academy/ABCD decided to convict me before my trial even began, i.e., “guilty” until proven otherwise. An influential website published the leak and the impact has been devastating. It spread widely through the actuarial and business community in which I practice, leading clients, under substantial public pressure, to terminate my services despite their complete satisfaction with my work.

As a result, I sued the Academy, not only to hold it accountable for the substantial harm it has caused me by its disgraceful conduct, but also to warn fellow members of the actuarial community of the serious threat to their professional reputation if they become entangled in an ABCD matter, and the Academy/ABCD decides to do to them what they did to me.