IFoA Mathematics

Isn't that an all too familiar story? Then when their hand is forced to make a change the original complainant is not notified or thanked. They might as well remove what they say on their website of actuarial professionals being highly respected and so on until they change their attitude.

 

As already explained. This is also my post and I’ll continue to comment on it. You can use the unwatch thread button to solve your problem or simply refrain from commenting if it is possible for you. It’s enough having acted monitor and edit my posts and have you police me too.

 

This page now no longer exists and by going to https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/prepare-your-exams it no longer mentions qualification times. They've gone from 3-6 years, to 6-7 years, to removing it altogether. That's simply not on - qual time is a key feature of their qualification that people deserve to know about, as well as drop out rates.

 

Also see this, as I believe this information has now changed too:
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/plan-my-study-route/fellowshipassociateship

"The pathway to Fellowship All students will still be able to take their examinations in any order but if they complete the examinations prior to becoming an Associate, they will still be required to complete a further year of PPD before becoming a Fellow."

So now they let you do your exams in any order but there seems to be catch- if you finish all your exams before becoming an associate you have to do another year of PPD? That's not the same as saying Associate needs 2 years PPD and Fellow requires 3. You may already have 3 years PPD by the time you complete all your exams. So they force you to become an Associate for a year despite passing all your Fellowship exams?!?!? That's not an insignificant change and it's the first time I heard it. This is forcing Associate on members through the back door.

This communication is inconsistent, ambiguous, unprofessional and appalling.

 

Think I was right folks, this page has been amended also:
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/personal-and-professional-development-ppd
*Associateship Qualification must be obtained before progression to Fellow. An additional minimum of 12 months of PPD recording is required to obtain the Fellowship Qualification with a minimum of 20 credits recorded.

 

It states that only applies to students who joined after 2nd January 2019 though. Existing students don't have to obtain associateship before fellowship.

 

Yes on the PPD document but the other webpage referred to all students. This further begs the question why can't you be conferred Fellowship if you've passed 15 exams and got 3 years PPD? If say CP3 is your last exam then your Fellowship qualification gets delayed by a year. Not fair!

 

I suppose then that new joiners to the profession should be incentivised to take (and pass) the earlier subjects first. I don't believe it's "unfair" as such, because new joiners will know the rules from the outset.

 

It will increase qualification times, don't you think?

 

It certainly would if they implemented the changes on existing members, I know plenty of people who passed CA2/CA3 in their final or penultimate sitting. CA1 and CTs less so, but I'm sure these people exist too. This would be unfair, and is almost certainly why they're only changing the route to qualification for new members.

I imagine what this will lead to is people attempting CP2 and CP3 earlier on in their qualification route, and not starting SPs and SAs until the earlier exams are passed.

 

This scenario can happen to the new people too !!! People don't necessarily 'choose' for CA2 or CA3 to be their last exam. They're imposing a bottleneck on new members = qual times increase.

 

Yes totally, the data is incomplete for what you are trying to do.

But have you wonder what channel did they go through to obtain such data? This may gave you an idea how to obtain the data you need? I am assuming they have nothing to do with IFOA.

 

Some of the data like my personal information is not readily available. You would need a database extract from the ifoa actuadial directory. So the data must have been compiled in collaboration with the IFOA.

Anyway, the ifoa have removed their misleading statements about the qualification taking 3 years if you pass without any failures which practically no one is able to do. The question is what they are going to do for the people who have been duped by their false and misleading statements

 

So have you seen the tweet from axis capital that 82% of women drop out of the profession in 7 years. Does that independent statistic demonstrate the issue for you?

 

I predict a refusal to apologise, some laughable spin then assert the discussion is closed. Or maybe twiddle thumbs, whistle and look at the ceiling from side to side.

 

https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-ru...ecent&from_date=&to_date=#informally-resolved

It's now official. Following an ASA complaint and investigation: to avoid a formal ruling the IFoA had to amend its website claims on qualification times and global passport as they were misleading... (although it looks like this page is yet to be corrected...)

These misleading claims have been on their website and expressed publicly by members of IFoA's executive team for years. Shameful stuff and a terrible example being set to membership.

As noted in earlier posts, claims of 3-6 years typical qual times were amended to 6-7 but then mysteriously disappeared altogether. They've gone from misleading to concealing. I think this is terrible - people deserve to know what they're getting into. IFoA have all the stats on this and should be transparent.

 

So let the fun begin. I’m sure I will get insulted for sticking up for Almost there. He had done a fantastic job to get the ASA to make this ruling. I have also been duped by the qualification times quoted by the IFoA as have the thousands of people who remIn unqualified or have given up their exams. In fact I complained about the very same statement and the IFoA have dismissed my complaints and made me feel like the only person who has taken an extensive amount of time to complete the exams. They’ve tried to justify their message claiming that I am in some sort of minority but it seems now that the ASA agree the message was false. What will the IFoA do about it? I can confirm that it appears that the IFoA have changed their message to please the IFOA but they have now removed their message about it taking 6/7 years. I note they did the same thing with their Facebook and twitter feeds on the same topic.

 

This is a humiliation for IFoA. I don't see how being slapped down by ASA is consistent with their brand values: https://www.actuaries.org.uk/about-us/our-brand
Integrity. We are: Doing the right thing for the organisation, our members, the profession and the public interest
By being: Honest, Accountable, and Professional.

 

It was disgusting of them to treat you in such a manner. There appears a rotten culture at IFoA towards complaints and disrespect for members who have the integrity and guts to make them. They don't even allocate reference numbers for complaints or log them anywhere. What a funny way for a c.£400k CEO to run the IFoA.

 

So now the ASA have ruled the IFoA qualification times communication was inappropriate, how accountable will the IFoA be? What am I going to get for being duped into studying for 15 years due to their misadvertising? Perhaps some of that CEO bonus could be clawed back?

How honest have they been to dismiss my complaint and then have the very same issue discussed at the ASA and make some sort of informal agreement to settle? They haven’t even had the decency to own up and say that I was right to complain

 

The misleading information has found itself onto many places beyond IFoA website such as University career service pages, even the Government's career page for actuary which still states the incorrect 3-6 years. Perfectly capable and competent actuaries have been made to feel inadequate by their employers and peers for taking longer to qualify than the misleading figure IFoA stated as typical. As Infinity rightly asks what is the redress here for those duped into the profession on the basis of this misleading information which has been going on for years. There are serious legal ramifications here for IFoA and no doubt some shills will appear soon to try and tell us it was all an 'honest mistake' or 'typo', nothing to do with IFOA and somehow blame students for this latest IFoA calamity.