Good english

I see there are some points for a "good English". Does the examiner take into account that the student is not an English mother tongue?

Thanks
Erica

 

No. The examiner only sees your ARN (unless you put your name into the submission, which isn't recommended). They do know whether you're an overseas candidate or a UK resident, but that doesn't really tell them anything. This does put non-native English speakers at a very slight disadvantage, I'm afraid, but I'd be very surprised if those marks turned out to be the difference between a pass and a fail. If you do the rest of the paper well, this shouldn't be an issue. After all, you are writing a communication-based paper, so you are expected to be able to communicate in English.

 

This profession claims to be a "gold standard" of actuarial qualifications and has cited its training of 'communication skills' as a standout , or distinguishing feature compared to other qualification providers, yet to join or qualify as Fellow they don't stipulate any minimum requirements of competency in the English language. Why not?

 

Considering that the Spanish students do not have to do a CA3 equivalent, this is likely to be direct discrimination under S.13 of the Equality Act 2010 on the protected grounds of race (nationality).
If they fail you on it,.............

sue them in the employment tribunal for treating you less favourably under S.13(1), S.53(1)(a)(b)(c) S.53(2)(a)(b) and ask to have the racist rule overturned under S.146 of the EqA 2010.

BTW, by informing people what to do in regards to the disgusting racist treatment meted out by the IFOA, I am doing a protected act under S.27 of the act and potentially also a protected disclosure.

 

What do you mean by Spanish students not being required to sit CA3? I thought that everybody has to.....

 

Please see Mike Stefan's post here:
https://www.acted.co.uk/forums/index.php?threads/working-in-spain.227/

 

This is correct. They do a course at uni and then get the exemption by the MRA. That is it. They do not have to demonstrate passing a CA3 equivalent. Put short, it is either direct or indirect discrimination due to nationality.
However ask your self the more important question..... What would happen if they required the EU nationals to take CA3.. do you think that they would have a better or worse pass rate than us in the UK?? How would this impact on the MRA that they have signed up to???

 

Ah ok. It is not just the "Spanish students". We are talking about MRA for all EU nationals - the entire European Union. I don't know any other European Actuarial Society that requires a "communication exam".

In terms of being qualified via a uni degree this also applies not only to Spanish but for example Belgian etc. actuaries.

 

Also, don't believe that any of the EU societies have something similar to CA2 - model documentation.

 

Indeed, the discrepancy is quite astonishing in terms of qualifying requirements. CA3 is just the "tip of the iceberg".

 

Also MRA's with non-European associations.

 

In terms of non-European associations, I believe that some systems are more in line with the UK requirements, for example:
- SOA has a communication module in order to qualify as FSA (but not required for ASA).

I assume that Canadians and Australians must have something similar as well.

 

Many other SOA exams have been mapped to IFoA and exemptions granted - not this one.
No exemption is granted of CA3 by any other examination or module, except for CA3 at the Indian Institute or getting exempt of CA3 via an accredited University scheme.

 

Sure....the exemption rules are a bit funny at the moment. For example the SOA gives exemption for ST9 + ERM course from IoA but the IoA does not give exemption for American ERM exam + ERM module.

Similarly for CA3, CA2 etc.

It seems to me that other professional bodies are more "accepting" of the conversion rules.

The MRA via Group Consultatif for the European societies via which you can get an FIA* is a joke imho.