Curriculum 2019 - Transition Arrangments

Dear Students,

Are you aware about the transition arrangements for the CT exams to the new Curriculum?

Despite the various claims in the Curriculum 2019 document and elsewhere on the Website, that the new Curriculum will not result in students suffering from more exams, more exam hours, more study hours and increased time to qualify, this is a prime example of where students will be inconvenienced.

There is no point taking CT1 exam unless you also pass or have passed CT5. From 2019, if you only pass CT1 and not CT5 or vice versa, then all your hard work in passing one of these exams will be go to waste as you require both of these exams or you will have to take the new exam CM1 which consists of a 3 hour written paper and a 1.5 hour computer based exam.

This also applies for CT4 and CT6, you need to have both by 2019 or these exams are rendered absolutely worthless.

The Institute should have sent all affected students an email earlier this year, but I find that this is a little too late.

In this email, they have failed to mention that for CT8, if you don't pass this in the next three sittings, you will also suffer from having to take 2 exams rather than 1.

In my case, as I have CT4, CT5 and CT8 left. So I am going from having to take 3 exams with 9 hours of exam time, to 6 exams with 13.5 of exam time, countless more study hours and a significantly increased time to qualification if I don't qualify in the next three sittings.

After discussions with the Institute, they have advised that the last time they changed the Curriculum and had a transition period of 2 years and there were students who suffered then. So why not learn from this experience rather than repeat it?

I also do not appreciate that a couple of weeks later, to receive further notification that due to changes in the work based skills and PPD requirements, I will go from having no deadline, to a deadline of 3 sittings to a Deadline of 2 sittings to qualify.

The Institute previously published a document listing names and dates of exams unitl 2020 to facilitate planning a route through the exam. This has simply been shredded and removed from the website with no explanation. Does anyone have a copy of this?

The Curriculum 2019 document has also been sneakily changed to reflect the comments being made in complaints and in this forum with no notification or advice issued to students.

Are other students not upset about this?

 

Not nice if you are impacted but unfortunately that's always likely to happen with a transition. There were 4 sittings to go when they first announced it - shame if you missed that.
Bottom line is if the IFoA think the requirements (skills & knowledge) to be an Actuary are different to what they used to be, then at some point they have to cut off the old exams and use the new ones. So if you don't manage to get the three exams you need in the next 3 sittings, then perhaps take the glass half full stance and see that you will learn, and be tested on, more relevant objectives.
Also if you do struggle with CT5, say, then you'll be able to use your CT1 skills to boost your mark in the new combined exam. There's always a flip side.
But good luck!

 

Dear Net Premium,

I did not miss the communication when it was first announced.

And this is exactly my point. According to the initial publication, I and no one should be "impacted".

I read the communication and it was full of contradictory statements. On one hand it clearly stated there would be:

A) no increase in exams
B) no increase in exam hours
C) no increase in study time
D) no increase in time to qualification

Then upon reading the details carefully it was also stated that I would have to pass CT4 and CT5 otherwise I would be encumbered with extra exams. I complained to the Institute and they gave me a similar tough luck response such as yourself hid behind unnecessary explanations about why the curriculum needed to be changed which is not what I am question. They acknowledged their communication was not clear since they had to write explanatory personal emails to all students who had passed only one of CT4 and CT6 and one of CT1 and CT5 and vice versa. This was only done in January 2017 and hence all students would have already started studying by then which is why I say the notification is only 3 sittings rather than 4.

They also started amending the Curriculum 2019 documentation without informing students a revision had been made after receiving no doubt many complaints. I believe they changed the document by highlighting the CT4/CT6 and CT1/CT5 transition arrangements in bold.

I then also noticed I would have to sit 2 exams for CT8 if I did not pass in the next three sittings. The Institute did not mention this in their personal email to me so I complained again. At this point the institute again modified the Curriculum 2019 document to remove the contradictions which I have highlighted and have now stated that "the average" student will not be impacted and that "new students" will not be subjected to increased study hours, exams, time to qualification etc. But they haven't made any additional notification to CT8 students which I am sure they will shortly!

The icing on the cake arrived a couple of weeks ago, the new PPD scheme was announced which then brought forward the deadline again giving me 2 sittings to qualify or suffer from additional workload.

I don't see how you think I should accept this.

Also, the new syallabus will unfortunately not help me at all in my job. I am an experienced professional and started the exams later than most of you. So for me it is an administrative burden as I have learned very little. And no I can't benefit from CT1 as I don't even remember what this exam was about as I did it so long ago.

On top of this, in 2014, ironically at the same time that they started thinking about the new curriculum, the institute published this "plan your route" through the exams document which clearly listed that the exams would be available from 2015 to 2020. I have used this document to plan my exams until 2020 as due to other comittments I can only take 1 exam per sitting. The Institute tells me that although they published a document for planning, It was only "illustrative" and I should not have used it for "detailed" planning whatever that is supposed to mean. They also claimed that there were sufficient "caveats" in the document to say that it was not a reliable document! AFTER I made my complaint about this contradiction, a further caveat was added to the document to mention the curriculum 2019. And after I have complained further the document has just been deleted from the website. However they haven't done a good job of covering their tracks as there is still mention in the title of exam planning till 2020 and if you can find it, the Swedish Actuarial Council still has the document up....

I took CT6 several times and paid the Institute and Acted several thousand pounds for sitting this exam. This exam will just be rendered worthless in the new curriculum even though the Institute has clearly stated that every exam will transfer into the new Curriculum. However it is not just the money invested it is the time I have wasted and I do not take this lightly.

I am not questioning the need to create a new Curriculum at all and you seem to misunderstand my point here. What I have taken offense to is the sudden imposition of the deadline, the unfair transition arrangements, the unprofessional and contradictory communication and this constant revision of documentation with no audit trail or notification to students.

So Net Premium, through no fault of your own as the Institure as not advised of any revisions, perhaps you've missed that there have been several alterations to the Curriculum 2019 document and perhaps you should read it again. Did you download a copy of the original? Even this Acted forum has a time stamp for modifications.

Thanks for the good luck but there is no flip side. Especially when the coin is biased...

 

In addition the IFoA are refusing to explain the following: why people previously exempt from WBS will be caught by PPD from September 2018. This is adding further burdens to people and fulfilling PPD may not even be possible for some students e.g. contractors, those on maternity leave, those not working full time and so on. This seems to contradict their claim they want to be a more 'diverse' profession, given how they disregard the different work circumstances of members of this profession. Not everyone is in a 52-week a year 9-5 job. The IFoA are completely out of touch with the working lives of many actuaries in the UK.

For those people: if they already sat and failed CA3, which included a presentation question, they could have failed CA3 due to marks in the presentation. Yet for Sept 17 & Apr 18 the CP3 exam does not include a presentation question but the IFoA are refusing to uplift those historic presentation marks to 100%. From Sept 18 these people will get caught by PPD and have to do a presentation signed off by a qualified actuary.

This shows a complete inconsistency in what is required to qualify as an actuary.

How can it make sense that people

• had to get a presentation assessed prior to Sept 17, and
• not have to do a presentation at all between Sept 17 & 18, then
• need a presentation signed off without assessment by a qualified actuary from Sept 18?

I must conclude that getting a presentation assessed was never an essential requirement for working as a qualified actuary in the United Kingdom. For further proof of this - those who apply for Fellowship via the MRA never had to do it. Also people who passed the old 201 exam never had to do it. So, why did they make all of us do it? Why did we have to endure an exam, 50% of it based on a presentation, an exam with 33% pass rate, when it is clearly unnecessary?

Finally, as they no longer require a presentation assessed but merely witnessed by a qualified actuary, then why are they failing to say that for those people who sat CA3 and failed it, that their presentation in it will satisfy PPD?

We have not been provided with a transparent explanation as to why they have had to alter this exam.

 

Have they changed the PPD page again? Now it seems even if you pass CP3 in Sept 17 or Apr 18 you still need a Fellow to sign you off as qualified (how antiquated!) even if you're not in WBS or PPD ?!?!

 

In what way?

 

from IoA website: "There is a final sign off process requiring a signature from a qualified Fellow in your employer, once you have passed all the exams necessary to qualify.

Accredited employers

Information for accredited employers will be released shortly and will be communicated to you direct as well as on these pages."

The PPD will have a huge impact in my opinion:

- the contractors will need to get into a perm role where qualified Fellows can sign them off,
- international students (50% of students) will need to make sure that they work under a qualified Fellow's supervision ( I am assuming this must be IoA FIA, so can't work under FSA or other EU actuaries etc. ),
- finally, we do not know yet who the accredited employer might be so some students might have to change their workplace and place of residence in the UK or internationally.....
- women on maternity leave won't be able to qualify until they come back into the work place.

Isn't it a big list of changes that we might be dealing with?

 

Exactly Vicki, while they preach 'diversity' these plans are the complete opposite. If you're good enough to pass the exams & have invested incredible time and money in proving that, then why on earth would anyone need to find a "Fellow" to sign you off?

 

That would be tremendously difficult for contractors to achieve since 1. There's not enough perm jobs to go round 2. There's tremendous prejudice and bigotry in the permanent actuarial job market towards contractors. 3. Many contractors take up jobs far away from home so taking a perm job a long way away from home would be simply not be feasible 4. Permanent employers would be even more suspicious of taking on contractors as perm workers as they might think the contractors only want that so that they can be signed off to get the qualification.... the list goes on.

 

Based on the information published on the website:
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studyi...l-and-personal-development-ppd-september-2017

It looks that students who were previously exempted from WBS (thus have 0 hours recorded) will not be able to qualify until they have recorded 2 - 3 years of PPD.

It simply means that if you joined the IoA before 2004 and thus have 13 years of experience, you will not be able to qualify after passing your last exam until 2-3 years of PPD credits are submitted and signed off by an IoA Fellow from an accredited employer.

Am I even interpreting these new rules correctly?

 

When I called they said there would be no 2-3 years catchup needed for those exempt from WBS only that we'd have to start doing PPD. However it's not good enough getting told things on the phone; they need to spell out exactly what the requirements are and be made aware of the implications of these decisions.

It does mean however that having 13+ years experience of working in actuarial counts for nothing to the IFoA alongside all our exam passes, as PPD is something you do in the present time, no credit for past experience. Clearly WBS or PPD are more easily done when people are starting out as actuarial trainees when they're in perm jobs and mentored by a Fellow. To suddenly apply these requirements for those of us who are older and very unlikely to be working within that kind of structured system makes no sense at all and must be opposed!

 

doesn't it depend on when you pass your last exam. If it's next year then you only need one year and so if you start now you'll have it.

 

There is surely a contradiction here between the two pages on their website:

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studyi...rofessional-development-ppd-scheme-affect-you
What if I qualify on the CP3 exam?
If you wish to qualify following the release of the September 2017 and April 2018 exam results and have passed the new CP3 Communication exam; you will be required to complete a declaration, which will be submitted alongside your WBS documentation that explains that you have given a presentation either in the workplace, externally as part of your work requirements, or on a work related training course. This must be submitted before 1 September 2018.
This declaration should also be signed by a Fellow. This will form part of the final sign off process. All other qualifiers from the September 2018 exam session onwards will have to complete the presentation requirements as part of PPD.

and the transition rules here say nothing about Fellow sign-off:

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studyi...l-and-personal-development-ppd-september-2017
If you joined the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) before September 2017 and will qualify as a Fellow before September 2020, the following PPD transition rules will apply to you:
Transition rules April 2017 – April 2018 exam sessions:
If you wish to qualify after passing your final exams in any of these three exam sessions, you will be required to complete the current WBS requirements (Associate 12 months; Fellow 36 months). No PPD recording will be required and you must do this before 1 September 2018.
Once you’ve submitted your WBS before the deadline, the standard procedure to transfer to the status of Associate or Fellow will apply.

 

I will be sending a list of questions to the IoA Education Services as I am very concerned how the changes might impact me personally in the next months-years.

 

They are refusing to clarify the situation for me. A professional body of quality would consider the ramifications of a decision on its members before making it.

 

Did you get an answer from the Institute? I am in the same situation as you. I am also impacted by the CT transition arrangements and will have to take 6 exams instead of 3 if I don't pass in the next 3 sittings...

 

Yes, I did. My questions were quite specific for my situation. It is best for you to send your questions directly to actuarial services or call them.

 

Almost_there, any luck?

 

Those who joined before June 2004 must have 3 years work experience to become a Fellow but there is a serious communication failure here from their website and publications as apparently they need all this work experienced signed off by a Fellow too. Buried somewhere on their website is Form 'A' and Form 'B'.

The archaic requirement to have one's work experience signed off by a Fellow, in order for the IFoA to accept it, is a complete joke.

It seems they don't accept people's CV's, despite it being a criminal offence to lie on one's CV (Fraud Act 2006). It also seems that supplying a CV with supporting evidence such as actual job contract with actuarial job title on it and date won't do. What's important is getting the old boy to sign it for you.

 

After almost a year they have clarified my situation with regards to the CT exams. They have still not explained to me what the change in PPD requirements entails for me and they have closed the exam entry for CP3 early so I wouldn't have even been able to qualify by the deadline they have imposed on me.

 

Yes, the PPD is an unfortunate change as it requires 36 months of documenting your experience without accounting for any of the past experience - there is no logic to this requirement under the new system. If someone has already more than 3 years of work experience by the time the new system becomes fully operational then they should not be required to document experience in the new system without having a possibility to account for past experience. It is not my fault that the system needs changing but the negative impact with financial repercussions hit my finances and take more time to qualify.