DSc, FIA, MPhil, MBChB: What is the right order

I was having a discussion with my mum about this, this morning. She asked me where the Fellowship of the Institute/Faculty of Actuaries falls in the pecking order. Doctorate, Masters etc? Vote and please comment.

 

Pretty hard to say. Firstly I think that it is a hell of a lot harder to attain fellowship to a professional body such as an Actuarial institute than a University. Firstly because of the separation of education and examination, see the board of examiners at the IoA don't care how many people pass or fail, they are there to protect their academic standard/FIA designation, University lecturers are writing the exams, marking and teaching. They have an interest in having their students pass and get good grades, so the exams tend to be easier (sometimes not even representative of the course content), and they are a lot more lenient with marking. Secondly because university is taxpayer funded they don't want people failing courses because having them repeat would be denying another person a place in the course, so again they have an interest in pushing through as many students as possible. I would definitely put the FIA ahead of any masters and bachelors degree but i can’t really make any further comment.

 

Is an FIA better than a PhD?

Of course you can't compare FIA directly to a PhD or MPhil, as they are very different in nature, but you can compare them in terms of workload.

It takes 3-4 years of work for a bright graduate to get a PhD, or about 2 years for a MPhil I believe.

The FIA typically takes 5-6 years work (if you start without exemptions), but how long would it take if you were just studying full time, and could take the exams whenever you were ready (but still had to wait a while to resit if you failed, say)? I think 2-3 years, which would make it equivalent, in terms of workload, to more than a DPhil, but less than a PhD.

However, if you also take into account that the FIA actually comes with 3 years + of relevant work experience, as well as all the examined knowledge, I think it has to be at least alongside a PhD.

And in terms of relevance and value in the world of work, I'm sure an FIA beats at least 90% of PhDs.

(A friend of mine did a PhD on the use of commas. I think i'd rather have an FIA).

 

You have made a very compelling case. I agree FIA ≥ PhD. And your argument is the one I will use if anyone asks. I think most people in the poll agree with this assessment so far.

BTW your friend's PhD in the use of commas has my entire office in stitches.

 

At my graduation there was someone who did a PHD on the emotional and psychological benefits of childeren having an imaginary friend

 

The very easy ones:

FIA/FFA ≥ MSc > BSc

FIA/FFA usually includes a BSc, so FIA>BSc
I have done an MSc, and it is definitely easier and less work than FIA (I would so much much much less work).

Still easy
FIA&FFA > CA& CFA
CA&CFA is fairly voluminous, but easy as pie. No contest
I cannot comment on MPhil, it is fairly rare in SA

PhD - the normal route would be B-degree&M-degree and then PhD, so I see this as a whole:
FIA+BSc < BSc+MSc+PhD for difficult science fields
FIA+BSc = BSc+MSc+PhD for other fields

Some fields is easier than others. Consider plants, you just have to research a plant to the nth degree that no-one else has ever studied (same for social "science", economic "science" and languages etc.)
Mathematics/Statistics/physics/chemistry etc is much much much much harder to get a PhD

MBBS/MBChB (medicine), Dentistry - cannot comment


A Higher Doctorate like a DSc or DLitt (the mountain peak) - trumps PhD - so trumps FIA

This of course does not mean the value is greater or lesser, this is my assessment of the difficulty to achieve the said qualifications.

 

Am I the only one who notices that quite a number of the people in reinsurance circles have doctorates despite being fellows as well? Maybe the research skills on doctorates are important there. With the institute now awarding fellowship based on research as well it really is difficult to get a clear answer. May also depend on the fellowship you take (apparently some are easier than others).

 

It may well depend on the country in which you undertake your doctorate. In the US for example a PhD usually consists or 3 years of taking classes and examinations (can be less than two years if you take summer school) and then a six month dissertation. Other than the dissertation, I would say the FIA examinations are far harder to get through. The dissertation is really not that difficult.

The European styles Phd's - based mainly on research, tend to produce people with a "deepish" knowledge of a very narrow field. They make a very small advance on what others before them have done in that field. Often the advance has little relevance. It is difficult to compare this style of PhD with the actuarial exams.

Many PhD students have tried their hand at the actuarial exams and have not been successful.

Also some PhD's have applied from exemptions from one or more actuarial exams based on their PhD. Even the relevant PhD's areas of study have resulted in major re-writes of the original thesis/dissertation and that was for exemption from only one examination!

In my opinion, overall, the FIA qualification is far superior to a PhD designation. I base my comments as an FIA and a professor currently teaching at a university.

 

TRUE
I recollect one Physics PhD (Cantab) who gave up on the exams after probably realising that getting an FIA was like rewinding time and starting his Physics PhD again. He passed CT3 and failed another. He explained to me the respect he had for the actuarial qualification.

Without putting in the necessary work you get zilch with a PhD and zilch with an FIA. period.

To all those who feel that FIA < PhD you are probably failing to understand what is being asked. We are trying to ascertain whether the work done to achieve (for example) an FIA >, = or < PhD Maths. We are not trying to measure whether for instance FIA people on average (in the crudest terms) have a higher IQ than Maths PhD people. Indeed PhD Maths people are likely to have a higher IQ than FIA people.

Remember that PhD admission processes select exceptionally gifted people -that we can agree. The fact that someone is doing Maths PhD often means they won a studentship of some sort because of an excellent academic record. But the cleverness often ends there because once they start doing their research onwards its all "deepish" knowledge of a very narrow field in most cases . Who is there to say that that deepish knowledge is harder to acquire than the sheer enormity of an FIA.

 

Always forget to mention this. The UK gvt was considering the actuarial qualification to be inferior to a masters till April this year. It wanted all non-EU actuaries to have a masters to fit into their tiering system for highly skilled workers.