Exemption City

no use

Hi Folks

There is no use saying things about lecturers in uni's as some of these people contribute much more to the profession than just teaching young minds. I'm one of the group who has worked hard for each exam sitting at the institute..but I think whatever the route one takes for qualification, his/her worth will be visible in the field..i.e. at workplace. I think if someone's good he'll qualify quicker (in 3 years) while working...IoA gives FIA to someone with exemptions in 3 years as well. Moreover, if someone is good at his work..he'll progress whatever route he takes..i know someone..took 8 years to qualify but once he qualified he took just 2.5 years to become head of the department with 5 actuaries reporting to him..2 of those had exemptions..

Ok you have to put less effort but in the end..success comes to those who deserve it!!

Cheers

jon

PS: Nobody said life was fair

 

There is a very simple answer to this. University student should simply sit the Insitute exams rather than have their own internal exams.

Then we would see if the superior education of a university results in a higher pass rate...

Why don't they do this? Because 70% would fail their course and no one would pay £10K to go there ary more!!!

 

what about Sir Derek's proposal's..

 

Hi5, do you really believe that one person re-taking those exams that he has exemptions in, presumably some time after the event, would present an 'acid test'? You have studied some statistics haven't you?

 

When I did an actuarial diploma at Kent uni - the (exemption) pass rate for ct8 (then 109) was less than 35% and for ct5 (then 105) less than 45%.

The sitting after I failed to get the 105 exemption I took the institute exam and passed first time - I also did exactly the same with subject 102? (Financial maths). I found both Institute exams easier than the paper I had failed at uni.

So what's your point please?

 

Ok, the challenge is open to anyone body.

I very very very very very much doubt that even one single person with the exemptions will come forward, irrespective of any factor.


The acid test now stands.

Unless someone can accepts the (now) quite fair test.

 

You have your points.

But we are discussing here is the right to have three initials after the name, and thats it-nothing more, nothing less.

What we are proposing is that everyone who wants the FIA/FFA initials should go through the same scheme of exams.

There should be no short cut to paying/bribing your way through exams.

In the work place, it anyone's game--> and we have no problems to accept this fact.

 

As a Kent actuarial graduate I've had this argument pretty regular during since I started work as an actuarial so I guess I feel I should stick up for the exemption route.

Why is this important? Surely passing the fellowship and qualifying as an actuary shows you have the ability to think in the way required to carry out the jobs asked of you. How you get there doesn't seem all that relevant to me.

We used the ActEd notes and our exams were set by qualified actuaries who have little incentive to dilute the value of their own professional qualification. The suggestion we knew what was going to be in the exam simply wasn't true of my experience

I agree this is quite worrying! Suspect it's a small number of cases though.

In reality, the courses we took to try for exemptions were massively harder than any of the straight maths courses. I was getting 70's in the maths courses and couldn't scrape the 60 needed to get exemption in a good number of the actuarial courses.

Out of our class of 18 I believe 3 picked up a full set of 8 exemptions from the early subjects. For some classes the exemption success rates made the Institute look positively generous in it's pass rates!!

I accept my experience might not be the same as that at all institutions but please don't make sweeping assumptions about all exemption courses. It's about as convincing as the qualified actuaries and their 'the exams were much harder in my day' claims.......

 

But the question is if it was that hard then why did you do it in the first place?

 

I also doubt that even one single person will come forward. Maybe I don't doubt it as much as you but then, you do seem very sure of yourself.

The reason I doubt it is I cannot think of anyone in their right mind who would want to spend valuable time studying a course they are already exempted in, and sit the exam (with the possibility of failing it and being embarrassed) just to prove you wrong. The idea is ridiculous.

The reason, which I am not sure you have appreciated yet, that your 'acid test' is not at all that - is that one person voluntarily taking the institute exam can in no way be statistically relevant in proving the relevant difficulty of the two qualifiying routes.

 

my point is i know several people who failed the institute exams (300 series) for about 4-5 years, picking up one or zero passes in that time.

They then went to City, did the MSc and after 1 year had all the 300 series exemptions.

One guy actually said to me "I am buying FIA as I'm sick of the exams".

 

And I know several people who spent a year completing an actuarial diploma and failed to get more than three CT exemptions - but since passed Institute exams.

No one disputes that taking a year out of work and focusing solely on exams will lead to improved results. I would say the people you know were ineffective at developing a good work/life/study balance. This does not make them less capable of understanding actuarial materials and ideas - they just have problems applying themselves to study and work simultaneously.

Also when you have forked out over 10 k of your own money and given up a years salary, one does tend to be slightly more disciplined & motivated in applying themselves to studying! I can honestly say I studied a lot harder on my diploma than I do now since my employer started paying for my exams and acted notes, etc ( but I still study a lot).

There's always one isn't there? Perhaps he has the wrong idea - he will have to work to get his exemption, otherwise he may well find out that you can't buy an FIA.

After mounting a robust defence, I would say perhaps exemptions should be limited to maybe ct's, ca's & one ST. But only because I feel students benefit from work experience as well as doing exams at the same time - not because I think one type of exam is any easier than another.

 

I still dont understand why we cant all sit the same exam. Instute exams are twice yearly, this surely should fit in with the university's schedule.

at least then we would have true equality and there would not be this resentment from people who passed them "the hard way" - this would benefit the university courses in gaining broader recognition from employers.

 

Hear Hear.

On a secondary note, people seem to be loosing track of the fact we were talking about the London City course which offers exceptions from a good chunk of the CT’s. all the ST’s and all the CA’s – for 60 study days – and would be funded by employers predominantly, this isn’t people parting with 10k+ of their own hard earned cash. Still a back door.

 

Atlast we agree.

Well, I might have been a bit overconfident.

Well, what I (now) propose are trials conducted under supervision by the Institute.

The Institute should be involved in the selecting process and then make those students (who gained expemptions) sit in the Institute exams.

The quality of the uni couses could thus be fairly evaluated.

And once the results come out (which I believe will prove that the uni courses are sub-standard) the Institute should then cancel / renew their exemption agreements with them as appropriate.

Well, if not even one single person is confident enough to take the Institute exams (after being compensated for the time and exam fee) then I think that there is a big problem with the uni quality of education.

 

As suggested by Gareth why do not the exemption students prepare the courses in the University, and get awarded the degree of MSc by the university based on the preformance in University exams;

but gain exemptions only and only on the basis of their preformance in the Institute exams.

Fair and Square.

indeed he will have to work to get the exemption, but he will only have to do half the work that normal Institute/Faculty students do.

Well, if they are giving that many they might as well give 2 more exemptions to complete the Fellowship. What left after that, anyway?

 

actually the person i referred to has completed the MSc and is now an FIA. He told me that if i get stuck on the exams this is the way to do it - as he had sat all the 300 series multiple time, lectures were extremely easy and the exams were no problem (he could never work out what the Institute were actually asking in the 300 series and usually misinterpreted questions, but the university exams were more straightforward and lectures prepared him for the type of questions asked).

 

I'm a graduate from the City Uni BSc Actuarial Science course, and felt I had to put in my observations here.

While it may seem unfair to those who did exams from scratch that some of us are entering the profession with say all the CTs under our belt, this does not necessarily mean that there is no merit at all in the exemptions we get at uni.

As far as I know, at City, the exams are first marked by internal examiners and then marked again by an external examiner from the institute. The external examiner then decides on the appropriate pass mark required for an exemption to be gained - i.e. it's not just enough to gain the 40% required to pass the exam and move on into the next year, you must also get above the "exemption" mark - normally around 65% - to get the exemption.

Also, at City, I was actually encouraged by my tutor NOT to take the MSc, otherwise I would be overqualified with insufficient experience. However I don't see anything wrong with someone who's worked for a while wanting to focus fully on studying for a year to get those exams, as like avanbuiten said, this would improve results.

I think that after working for awhile and seeing everyone else around you qualify (and get better pay!), there is more of an incentive to pass exams. This is why I think sometimes people may not get all the exemptions from a BSc course at uni, but once they come out to work, begin to pass institute exams. Certainly when I was at uni, at times it felt like I was learning and doing the exams for the sake of getting a good degree and so had to sometimes force myself to study, whereas now that I'm at work, I actually WANT to study to get these passes.

The course was definitely hard - I remember slaving away til 11pm at night every day after lectures to understand everything. Apart from the exams, we also had multiple courseworks, and group projects to work on, for practically all of the CT subjects, so it's not a case of just spending 3 years studying all the core readings. With that in mind, I have alot of respect for those who actually attempt the CTs while working at the same time - as there's a lot of technical content. I also have alot of respect for those who do the one year diploma to get all the CTs - as they do what we learnt in 3 years in the period of 1 year, and then take the 8 CTs in one sitting.

As for why we can't all sit the same exams - I think it's simply a matter of timing. Institute exams are in April and Sept. In Sept, most uni courses haven't even started, as the uni year starts beginning of October. Also bear in mind that unis work with "terms". At City, we had mainly 2 terms (Oct - Dec and Jan - April). We did exams in January and May (May being the main sitting), with resits in August. If we were to sit the Institute exams, that would mean we only had one go at the exams - in April - each year, and there would be less time to prepare.

 

In our profession the real value is of the professional qualifiactaion and not the academic qualification.

That is why every uni student wants the exemptions at the end, although they keep on bragging about the greatness of their course.

I ask these people that if the course is so great then why do they DOWNGRADE themselves and accept exemptions from the institute?

 

I agree. I view the academic qualification as a means to obtain the professional qualification.

I don't think us uni students are bragging about the greatness of our course - we're just saying that it's not as easy as everyone makes it out to be.

I don't think of it as downgrading - I think of it as upgrading. Like I said, the course is a stepping stone towards getting an FIA. If I've known since I was 18 that I wanted to be an actuary, why should I waste 3 years studying a course I'm not interested in when I could spend that 3 years doing an actuarial course which gives me, at the end of that, some exemptions from the professional qualification I'm ultimately working towards?

 

when i studied maths exams were once a year in April, I don't see why actuarial degrees can't do the same.