CP3 - Overseas intervention by IFoA

In this month's issue of "The Actuary", Mr Derek Cribb describes how IFoA education team intervened in South East Asia, providing tutorials and a mock exam to help improve CP3 pass rates there.

I am not comfortable with IFoA deploying resources to help people in some countries but not others. People fail this exam everywhere. My understanding is that people in South East Asia could benefit from Acted online tutorials and mock papers like everyone else?

 

I also think it is unfair to other students for example:
-non native English speakers in continental Europe or
- other students bot being offered IOA help (in the same capacity as offered in South East Asia)....

 

I wonder if IFoA would like to share a copy of this mock paper and a video of the tutorials they ran so that everyone can benefit in the same way...

 

http://www.theactuary.com/features/2014/09/career-comparison/

"There is no shortage of actuaries in Asia, but finding those with the right communication skills is difficult. Actuaries there have traditionally worked in back office statutory-focused roles. Combined with the fact that English is most people’s second, third or even fourth language, it is clear why many actuaries in Asia lack this proficiency."

... doesn't that same argument apply to those who qualify in continental Europe? Yet the IFoA have signed mutual recognition agreements with them and don't require them to pass CP3 to be conferred Fellowship in the UK.

 

Exactly.

Why Europeans are not required to pass the exam in communication? I would say that in majority of European countries people do have serious problems communicating in English. This relates to Southern and Eastern Europe especially.

And why would some Asian countries receive special support for this exam? Is that fair to other candidates?

 

That's a question I've put to IFoA many times. Initially all I got was 'solicitor answers' that they've signed this and that agreement which explains why they didn't have to do CA3/CP3 and I had to. This did not address my question, which was really about testing competencies and ensuring all who are conferred the Fellowship qualification have demonstrated the same level of competency.

Around a year later (yes, seriously) an answer emerged from IFoA Director of Education that despite actuaries on the continent not doing any of their exams or any communication exam in the English language that they had demonstrated the skill IFoA were 'really' after, which is communicating actuarial to non-actuarial. I reject this explanation completely. If this was actually the case then we must wonder why this exam is only available in English, for starters. I believe it is preposterous the idea that if someone can communicate a technical topic to a layman in one language that it can be assumed they would be just as good at doing so in English. Furthermore there are specific categories of marks for English competency in CP3. Also the IFoA DoE didn't provide any pass rates of such assessments on the continent, whatever they might be, nor any testing or anything at all to satisfy me why qualified actuaries on the continent don't need to be tested in CP3 but I did. This answer was still relied on even after I put it to them the Swiss don't even have a written communication test and only some oral test in a Swiss national language, that I understand is easy to pass- clearly this does not map whatsoever to CA3/CP3.

 

It's not fair at all and may even fall foul of UK discrimination laws - perhaps a matter for the Equality Commission to investigate.

 

The mutual recognition simply is not fair.....I don't understand why people could just work 1 year and get the qualification....
Why not at least test their ability to communicate in the English language ?

 

Yes, CP3 is testing actuarial to non-actuarial communication skills but the whole exam is in English with marks awarded for spelling, punctuation, grammar and other areas, which are not possible to do well if one is struggling with English. A student has to have English language skills close to a native speaker in order to pass CP3. Hence, I can conclude that CP3 is also a test of the English language. Moreover, a lot more advance language test than TOEFL.

 

I believe the Director of Education's response on this matter is wholly unsatisfactory and lacks credibility. I suspect those with an European MRA would struggle even more than native English speakers in the UK with CP3 for the reasons you propose, just as they struggle more to pass SA exam on the rare occasions they choose that route instead of the clearly easier year's supervised work experience- because the competencies have not been tested to qualify in their home countries. If IFoA truly believe what they say that communicating actuarial to non-actuarial in a non-English language means they can do it just as well in English then they should explain to members in China why they aren't allowing CP3 to be in Chinese, for example.

 

There used to be a CA3 in Chinese a few years ago....wonder what has happened there. And also why in Chinese and not all other languages?

 

Exactly Vicki. Many years ago I asked this question of IFoA also and they insisted CA3 must be in English only. They seemed slightly embarrassed it had been held in Chinese also and wanted to move away from that.

I have a recording of the inaugural Chinese actuarial network UK launch meeting which took place around 2013, which used to be on the IFoA website. The Director of Education at the time Mr Trevor Watkins was asked whether they would consider a return to the Chinese CA3. Astonishingly, Mr Watkins told them if there was enough interest and enough people to mark it they would consider it! This to me shows straight away the competencies of CA3 in the English language are not a serious competency for Fellowship.

Another thing that I find totally wrong is how when it suits them, such as when trying to push for the Chartered Actuary thing, the IFoA repeatedly say how they have a public interest duty. Surely in their case the public interest duty applies to the UK public (and I'd love to know who they believe they're accountable for it). How exactly can it be considered in the UK public interest for them to (i) confer Fellowship onto Europeans to practie in the UK who have not done anything like CA3/CP3, while insist UK actuaries must pass it (ii) deploy resources in Asia to boost pass rates in CP3 there while failing to do so in the UK? All such policies achieve is to increase the supply of actuaries outside the UK and not within it. Surely that is not in the UK public interest especially nowadays with so many jobs being outsourced from the UK - just look at how that's hammered the IT industry for example. Along with my post in the careers section on the fall in UK actuarial salaries, I conclude that IFoA don't care at all about what's happening to the careers of UK actuaries as long as they can sell their qualification abroad and keep their agency going with nice payrises for them. The day actuaries in Asia or elsewhere decide IFoA exams or CP3 are too hard or unnecessary and instead pursue qualification with a different exam body will cause a serious problem for the IFoA and I suspect deploying these resources in South East Asia is just as much to do with that as anything else to keep people on board.

 

IFoA argue this is not a test of anyone's English, so maybe students should write to Clifford Friend and ask for it to be provided in other languages and see what the response is.

 

At the Chinese Actuarial Network 2012 launch meeting, attended by Derek Cribb CEO and Trevor Watkins IFoA Director of Education, an audience member asked the following question:

Q. For the CA3 exam in the past, we used to have Chinese version, but now after it changed into the course based new style we lost the chinese version. Do you say in the future you might re-open the chinese version of this ca3 exam?

Answer by Trevor Watkins:
Very good question. The profession took the view that we were moving worldwide and that English was going to be the spoken language more and that students should be equally comfortable taking the exams in English and in Chinese. I think if that is not going to be the case in the future and there is a great demand to have particular exams, especially communications- I do a lot of coaching on communications, especially true it is difficult to come up with the right phrase in a language that is not your first language, and if there is a growing demand to reproduce exams in a particular language then we will certainly look at it very seriously. Can't make promises, but if especially if there are members here on the top table or you guys [audience] who would be willing to help us to translate it and put it in place, we will never say no to willing volunteers. The only promise I will make is that you won't be allowed to work on your own exam paper before you sit it [audience laughter].

 

IFoA say because they've been tested on some kind of actuarial communication in a non-English language they don't need to.

I find this utterly preposterous. Not least because language is fundamental to communication and this exam is only available in English & specific categories for overall language, jargon, spelling & grammar. Not just because there is no exemption to CP3/CA3 identified by IFoA from any exam at any other actuarial association (except for IAI). Not just because IFoA have failed to show any understanding of the pass rates or details of whatever communication is tested at foreign associations yet claim they have established equivalence as a result of rigorous mapping. Not just that IFoA have been shown that the Swiss Association (whom IFoA have claimed they're equivalent to) have no written test in any language only an oral exam... even if we ignore all that there is a deep stupidity frankly in the idea that because someone may have passed a communication exam of any kind in a non-English language that they would also pass it in English and qualifies them to such an extent that testing them on English language communication is not required - that shows a fundamental, breathtaking misunderstanding of languages.

Therefore I say people can go to IFoA and demand CA3/CP3 in your preferred language as they have claimed they're not testing English in it. Therefore to those with poorer CA3/CP3 pass rates in South East Asia, they should just demand it in their own language. IFoA would save lot of money in simply translating the exam paper rather than sending tutors over there to help them through CA3/CP3 when English is their 3rd or 4th language, which clearly causes considerable problems for those trying to pass CA3/CP3.

 

I would go further and say that at the very least the spelling, grammar, overall language categories do directly measure English language competence and should therefore be declared void by IFoA and grades re-assessed now they're saying they're not testing English in this exam. What a mess.

This reminds me of many years ago when CA3 was an exam in person, only online for overseas members. At the end of the CA3 presentation people were asked 1-2 questions by the examiners. They were quite tricky. People were very nervous about answering them and were even coached on it. Everyone understood this to be part of the assessment. It turns out those doing the online version weren't asked any such questions. This was put to IFoA how could it have been fair. Their response was that there were no marks for answering those questions and they were only asked to make the experience 'more realistic'. Funny then how the examiners were jotting down people's answers. lol.

 

Maybe they had a nice holiday?

 

yeah, funny how this can't be done online nowadays

 

Just in case anyone missed it

 

I live in the UK and would like to have extra help with CP3 just like the overseas students in Asia.

 

In the first instance I suggest members should write to the IFoA Director of Education Clifford.Friend@actuaries.org.uk and/or Derek Cribb CEO derek.cribb@actuaries.org.uk to ask for the precise reasons this support is offered to members in South East Asia but not those in the UK or Europe. I predict they will refer to lower pass rates but it should then be asked of them to confirm why they believe that is the case, specifically whether it is to do with English language competence, perhaps with English not being their first, or even second language? If they deny it's anything to do with English language competence then members should press them for an alternative explanation. Additionally I suggest members should enquire exactly what the nature of the tuition provided was and whether materials can be made available to other members. Remember Mr Cribb boasted how after this intervention the pass rates there exceeded the pass rate achieved in the UK, which he claimed to be 70%. Actually given the dramatic improvement in pass rates we must wonder why Acted haven't already sought this material...

As a side note, as the overall pass rate for CP3 was 870 from 1,391 passed i.e. 62.5%, which is less than the 70% quoted by Derek Cribb for the UK, then it's clear the non-UK pass rate is lower than 62.5% and if that has nothing to do with English language competence then I'd be very interested to hear the IFoA's explanation for it.