Judgment Day

yes they were, one I can think of was the post about qualification times where the IFoA said it would take 6.5 years to qualify and pass 12 exams... that was very quickly removed after backlash from about 30 students...

but you found someone else no? perhaps you can add that to the 3 which you currently have in your head

others that have complained on here just off the top of my head...

1. the lady from Tanzania (I think) who was struggling to get a job after finishing her CTs
2. the man who was having difficulty to have time for his religious commitments due to study
3. the guy who found huge differences in marking between the first and second examiners
4. people complaining that their CT9 exam was suspended half way through
5. the guy who couldn't get a refund after having to miss an exam due to sickness of his child...

I can't even be bothered to continue...

Add on the 50% who have dropped out of the profession, or the 82% of women who leave after 7 years... I'm sure they are not happy...

in any case, what do you think about the resignation of Mr Cribb? It's funny how no successor is suggested or that there is no reference to what great endeavor he is going to move on to next...

Is there something else the IFoA is not telling us? Did he really resign in good faith?

Please tell me about the good things that Mr Cribb has done, like double the number of members...

 

There are many great characteristics associated with being an Actuary.

 

Hopefully the IFoAs legal team will also resign. I could write extensive amounts about them but wont..
I think the membership fees will go up if they scrap the IAI deal

 

At least we can agree on something lol

 

Surely only 3 and 4 the IFOA have any culpability for? Which are very legitimate and valid reasons to complain. Again just trying to help....this scattergun approach isn't going to help a judge think you have a claim that isn't spurious. Saying you deserve compensation because a former student couldn't attend their dog's brother's owner's uncle's brother-in-law's wedding because of exam commitments isn't going to get you very far.

My reaction is that all these other obsessive, repeated and at times frankly obscure claims of fault against the institute are detract away form the fact that your own claim that you deserve compensation for setbacks because after not passing in however long the change of syllabus with a 3 year notice period is weak at best. It would be what I was thinking as a judge/ jury member. Focus on relevant points where the institute is genuinely at fault that have affected you directly and maybe you will win people over.

 

They announce he's stepping down within a few days of the Daily Mail story... but no mention of that. They still haven't told members about it! lol

 

You misunderstand. He is pointing out numerous failings of IFoA. Not all of them end up in Court, very few do. This does not exonerate IFoA. It's a very low standard to think they're doing a great job as long as they don't get done in Court, knowing full well the mismatch of resources should a student take them to Court. Finally they've been caught out in Court. Complaints have also landed at regulators such as ICO and ASA. The profession has been brought into disrepute, globally. The problems were always there but nothing got done about it. Denials and "the matter is now closed" every time. How arrogant. For this organisation to be taken seriously there needs to be a bigger clearout than just CEO leaving. Basically decent actuaries need to take back control of their own profession.

 

Yes we can, however the point is that the IFoA executive and management do not share the great characteristics associated with being an Actuary. I dont know any actuary that would behave like the IFoA management. Put short, our profession is managed and run by those that have diametric opposite values.

 

I think I understand perfectly. He has pointed out several things that are not failings of the IFOA. The remaining 2 have not ended up in court, nor should you expect them to. Thats why there is a complaints process and many other processes to deal with this sort of stuff. More and more I just see this as irresponsibly encouraging others to litigate in the hope it will add some sort of credence to your own personal spurious claim.

Imagine if every parent whose child failed exams sued the exam board because they didn't agree with the marking/ their children had too many religious commitments to study/ the syllabus had changed from the last time they sat it/ their child hadn't got a job as a French interpretor after only passing 1/2 of the French tests. Its just not a valid claim. Nor is the cop out of sayng you're disadvantaged as people in another country could have more attempts over the however many years you were trying to pass exams. All UK qualified actuaries had the same standards to adhere to! Just get some perspective on your claims before you make them because they sound ridiculous. You are determined to make a mountain out of every molehill. Who knows why Derek Cribb stopped - 10 years is a long time in any profession and most people in a well paid profession tend to retire early! Taking away wild speculation and ridiculous claims, all that has happened is a minor infirngement on an overseas agreement, which has been dealt with and the person in the incredibly niche set of circumstances it effected is being compensated. This does not affect you who did not try to join the IAI.

 

I'm sorry, I really don't buy that. I don't think the IFoA executive is the root of all evil. The exams set are tough - no-one is denying that.

A court has ruled that they had a discriminatory policy in place. This will be rectified I'm sure. However, other posters have articulated this policy as a "loophole" and I'd agree that's what it is. I don't think for a second the IFoA sought to intentionally discriminate against their own students.

Even if UK students had the option to sit the IFoA exams and IAI exams I'd be flabbergasted if UK employers would have been supportive of students doing so.

I can't understand why you, null and almost_there feel the need to make continually sensationalist posts. Claiming that the IFoA is gender, age discriminating etc is just ridiculous.

To illustrate some of the contradictory arguments you have posited recently:

- complaining about the increase in exams through the new 2019 syllabus while complaining you couldn't sit the IAI exams. Yes, you're really trying to argue both sides of the coin.
- the IFoA is purely interested in making money is another comment argument. But wait, you allege the high drop out rate (and constantly comment on a high female drop out rate which has been stated as wrong). Surely if revenue generation was all they were interested in they'd make the exams easier and just increase the number of members paying full Fellow fee? They'd be making it as easy as possible to pass them.
- you complain about the lack of attention the judgment has attracted. Do you think the IFoA is suppressing the BBC/CNN et al from reporting? Or do you just think that it's because most people just don't view it as such a huge ruling?
- you make comments about the strain the exams have had on your health (which I am really sorry to hear and I genuinely hope you recover from) but then launch attacks against posters when they raise a perfectly valid question.
- you criticise the IFoA for failing to respond to questions but don't answer perfectly valid questions yourselves.

As other posters have mentioned, if you were prepared to debate/respond/even appear to take other poster's opinions in to consideration then perhaps you'd enable people to understand your perspective. At the moment, you alienate them by accusing them of being an IFoA/Acted employee with an agenda, or try to discredit them in another way.

 

I very strongly agree with Proud here.

More reasoned/nuanced arguments would make this place a lot better. It feels like a bit like the Brexit where any debate about anything political ends up as some absolutist arguments about Brexit like "leave means leave", "It's the will of the people", "you didn't know what you were voting for". Nearly every discussion on this forum gets taken away from original poster's point and just becomes the same argument again and again.

The thing is there are things that the IFoA could do better or be more transparent about eg the the MRA with the AAE, marking consistency and third marking. However the nature of some of these posts means that these issues get lost and it prevents more widespread support being built.

I sympathise with anyone if studying for the exams as impacted your health or health issues have impacted studying for exams. I also sympathise if people have lost passes due to the new curriculum change as I feel that they could have made all of the same improvements without combining CTs.

People need to be more considerate of others.

Peace out

 

People should read the Judgment. The word "loophole" is not there and is an attempt to trivialise the very serious findings of the Court. The Judgment notes how IFoA failed to put an end to this discrimination when it was brought to their attention on several occasions, paragraph 154-155.

 

Of course it's a valid claim it's just been proven in Court!

 

IFoA should have been more considerate of British actuaries when making their arrangements with IAI, AAE, curriculum change and everything else.

 

The IFOA should have thought of being considerate before ruining lives and careers.

 

This is exactly the sensationalist comments I was talking about. I really can't understand how the IFoA has ruined someone's life.

Is my life utterly brilliant and fantastic because I'm qualified? Absolutely not - I have problems and issues like everybody else. Would my life be way worse if I wasn't qualified? The exams would be a pain and the studying would interfere with things, yes but my life was never defined the exams. Some people may choose to make the exams their life but that is their choice.

Work is just a small part of our everyday lives - your health and time with family and friends is far more important than any exam/qualification or career ever could be.

Turn on the news - look at the heartbreaking stories of children dying in poverty, of people being unable to feed themselves and heat their homes. We are very fortunate people to have jobs which pay so well (whether qualified or a new grad).

I'm really struggling to try to give you any helpful advice as any time anybody makes a genuine suggestion you seem to shoot them do. All I can say is please do what you think will make you happy.

If that is to litigate against the IFoA over several court cases then, if you can afford it and want to put yourself through the stress of it all, then go and do it. It seems as if there are other posters who will support and help you with this. If here is a useful place for you to vent your anger and frustrations then that's good but I don't think that in itself will give you the happiness/closure you are seeking. Particularly so when people like myself disagree with you.

If you want to qualify as an actuary then go and see out your remaining exams (I know you've already mentioned about feeling wronged by the exam changes but your pre-study might be helpful - certainly posting on here about how awful the changes were may garner some sympathy but it's unlikely to get you that pass grade). Maybe going and sitting your remaining exams will help you to find the closure you want. Or why not just stop the exams altogether if you don't want to sit them? Are you happy in your current job - if so, that's great - if not, then why not change? One of the people at my company qualified last year and is going off to be a pilot so career changes are perfectly possible.

It seems as if you are trying to pursue a vendetta against the IFoA/Acted at the moment and I think that is doomed to fail. Why? Simply put, neither are the monster of the organisations you make them out to be. However, as I've said at the start, do what you think will make you happy.

I've tried to write this as the advice I'd give to a friend if they were in your situation. I hope that something in it is even slightly helpful/useful.

 

You wish...

 

That's the most ridiculous argument ever, trying to make people feel bad about complaining about being discriminated against and ripped off by IFoA because there exists extreme poverty in the world. People aren't paid as well in this profession as they used to be. IFoA are being litigated against because what they're doing is wrong and they fail to address complaints especially about discrimination.

 

What a ridiculous argument. The change should happen at the IFOA. They are the ones who have discriminatory exam arrangements which have proven to be illegal.

No I won’t be sitting examinations which I’ve already passed again.

No i won’t be standing for having to study for 10 years or more when people in other countries can get away with less than 3.

Of course children are dying and the world is almost at an end, why do we pay money in subscription and have to waste our time doing pointless CPD and take 17 examinations if we could spend our time tending to the poor people on the world.

The IFOA is supposed to be a non for profit organization but the CEO is/was on GBP 400k

I note that Mr Cribb has coincidentally stepped down and there is no mention of a successor and no mention of where he will go. That can only mean one thing.

The IFOA was carrying on like a headless chicken before and I’m not sure which direction it will run now.

I thought you were not going to comment on here anymore?

 

No one actually believes you mate

 

The only loop hole was the IAI agreement. A discriminatory one. they got caught by a very clever part qualified actuary, he did more good for the profession than any working party, Student Consultative Forum or written complaint to the CEO. He recognised that the entire system was rotten and took them to task.

Take a step back...Be better than that. I have some faith in fellow actuaries. We should all condemn the wrongdoing in our name.

Face it.. the IFOA lost and rightly so.