Judgment Day

Discussion in 'General study / exams' started by Infinity, Feb 21, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dmck

    dmck Member

    Discriminated against for not being able to take exams 4 times a year? I struggled with 2 exam sittings per year never mind 4.

    Seems like some folk are clutching at straws here... but if you are genuinely happy that you can now sit 4 exam sittings per year (speculating here as I don't know what will actually change, if anything, due to this judgment which has been partially published on an apparently very selective basis) then good luck to you.

    In my experience, the IFoA is categorically not a racist organisation and I am a British student. It seems disingenuous in the extreme to suggest this on the basis of what appears to be an historic agreement. One wonders if the oversight is merely due to the fact that hardly any IFoA members based in the UK have ever requested to sit the IAI exams (when employers etc expect them to sit the UK ones). Admittedly, I may be proven wrong if there is suddenly a whole host of UK students joining the IAI to sit their exams.

    That said, their pass rates seem to fluctuate wildly compared to the IFoA and, in my opinion, the IFoA is much more recognised by UK employers.
     
  2. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    The Court has found IFoA of race discrimination and responsible for British students not being able to join IAI and get more opportunities. Getting 4 instead of 2 opportunities is clearly advantageous and thousands of Indian actuaries are doing it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2019
  3. dmck

    dmck Member

    I'm maybe missing something - so is the issue that the IAI have 4 exam sittings per year v IFoA only having 2? Or are you suggesting that students could sit IFoA exams then immediately sit the IAI exams in the same sitting?

    Perhaps things will be a little clearer once the judgment is issued in full.
     
  4. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    IAI have two exam sittings a year, a month or so after IFoA's. Indian actuaries can join both organisations thus sit exams twice with IFoA and twice with IAI. The exemption arrangements mean any passes in IAI can be transferred to IFoA. British actuaries can't do this as IAI wouldn't let us join as we're British. The Court found IFoA was responsible for that.
     
  5. Oh, good. For a second there, I was worried no one would carry on Infinity's legacy.
     
  6. Null

    Null Member

    Don’t worry infinity is back...it’s funny how I’ve been thrown off here so many times. You’ve now all seen the main part of the judgment. I’m waiting for the IFOA to publish it in their magazine and make an official comment.

    So it’s been proven in court. What do people have to say? How do you feel to be associated with an organisation that is involved in such unethical behaviour?

    How can you possibly defend them now?

    It’s even on Wikipedia now, it’s gospel
     
  7. Null

    Null Member

    I don’t think I need to do too much now. The first domino has fallen...
     
  8. Null

    Null Member

    It is published. The IFoA will no doubt fail to alert members. There was nothing in the newsletter I got today. I’m looking forward to the next actuary magazine, where a biased and watered down article will be produced.

    The fact of the matter is that the IFoA have discriminated and instructed to discriminate. The discrimination is also ongoing.
     
  9. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Quite. Their conduct is inexcusable. The matter should never have gone to Court. The IFoA should & could have taken steps to stop this years ago but clearly they didn't want to, despite several complaints of their own members not being allowed to join IAI because they're British. The Court has made inference from their failure to put and end to the discrimination that was taking place. The IFoA attempted to pass the blame onto IAI, made out it was nothing to do with them. They even tried to argue the Court didn't have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Plus they never admitted that 2 exam sittings was less favourable than 4. They even tried to blame the claimant for not flying out to America to do their exams or for not doing a postgrad 15 years ago: it is not for the claimant or anybody else to have to inconvenience themselves to accommodate their discriminatory practices. That is an absolutely disgraceful, arrogant and low IQ defence that should never have been funded by their members.

    The IFoA Council has a lot to answer for in all this. They are our supposed elected representatives, who should be holding the Executive to account. The Councillors are actuaries. They are themselves employed by firms who undoubtedly say they oppose discrimination in all its forms. The Councillors must have been regularly informed to some level about this case. The actuaries code requires them to speak up against unethical and unlawful conduct. Despite IFoA being done for racial discrimination, I've seen no criticism expressed or resignation from any of them yet. None of them attended the Court hearing either, from what I understand. This is completely unacceptable as well. Who can now take IFoA seriously when they claim to be for equality and diversity etc ? Any business as usual or further money wasted on lawyers on this matter will bring themselves to further disrepute. Members should not stand for this. It can't be fixed with a PR exercise or more phoney pro-diversity exercises.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2019
  10. Ace123

    Ace123 Member

    If the courts found in favourite of the claimant- what did he/she get in return for compensation as it says the IFoA were successfully sued?

    Are you going to leave the organisation? like how could you continue to be part of an organisation that discriminates you being British?
     
  11. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Why should the claimant leave IFoA? IFoA should heed the Judgment and put an end to its discriminatory practices. The people who should get out of IFoA are those running it in this discriminatory fashion. By get out I mean thrown out.
     
  12. Ace123

    Ace123 Member

    Well Null said the following "How do you feel to be associated with an organisation that is involved in such unethical behaviour?"
    Surely if you feel this strongly you would leave the organisation - especially if its your view nothing will happen?
     
  13. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Why should he inconvenience himself as a result of IFoA discrimination? IFoA should not be unlawfully discriminating. Why aren't you criticising them? It's rather perverse that you're criticising the victim of racial discrimination and not the perpetrators.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2019
  14. Ace123

    Ace123 Member

    Show me where I criticised anyone - I merely asked a question, in fact I asked 2 and neither have been answered - what compensation did the claimant get? and if they strongly believe that nothing will be done then why stay in the organisation.

    The IFoA haven't been found to discriminate against non British members in the judgment that you posted. I'm a non British member.
     
    NorthernFusion likes this.
  15. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Great that makes it alright then.
     
  16. Ace123

    Ace123 Member

    Why did the court specifically say British students? why not say all students?
     
    NorthernFusion likes this.
  17. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Have you even read the Judgment summary? The Court considers the claim put before it.
     
  18. dmck

    dmck Member

    Wow! This is a forum where all of our experiences and thoughts count for something. Let's try to keep things professional, I doubt you would adopt that tone with someone in a face to face discussion. I may disagree with your perspective but debate and different perspectives are what makes life interesting.

    People join the IFoA to presumbaly qualify as an Actuary. It would appear as if a key facet of the argument is that candidates could do 4 exams rather than 2 if they sat both IFoA/IAI exams and because UK students couldn't join the IAI it was discriminatory.

    Let's think about how widespread this discrimination is. So who would be affected by this - thousands of students? I doubt it, I'd be flabbergasted if more than a handful of people would be interested/prepared in taking 4 exam sittings per year. I wonder if UK based employers would even allow it. It really doesn't strike me as a "smoking gun" that it's apparently been lauded as here.

    From reading the case, the claimant was unable to sit exams during 2018 as they were preparing for litigation. If the claimant's motivation is to qualify as a Fellow then I really hope that they have achieved this aim. If the claimant's intention was to have an adverse ruling made against the IFoA then it would appear that they have succeeded. I hope they feel that the time, effort and financial spend were worth it and hope the judgment brings them the closure they were seeking.

    From the judgment, it seems as if there will be some changes needed at the IAI/IFoA level. For any students who genuinely feel they have been the victims of discrimination under the arrangement then I hope the judgment brings closure.
     
  19. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    ... because IFoA were found to have instructed, induced, caused and or aided IAI to refuse British nationals.

    British students are thousands & were denied this opportunity. Your logic is circular.
     
  20. dmck

    dmck Member

    How is that logic circular? Are you really suggesting that thousands of students would want to sit 4 exam sittings per year, with 2 sittings a month after another?

    How would this work study wise? Try to sit the same subjects under IFoA and IAI? Or target different ones and cover lots more?

    Asking as I'm genuinely interested to hear how this could work in practice.
     
  21. Ace123

    Ace123 Member

    How many British students have wanted to go down the route your suggesting? Pay extra subscription fees, pay extra to sit more exams, dare I say maybe even travel to sit the exams - there are very few. You seem to know all the facts to this case - yet have made no comment on the compensation handed down to the claimant - after all they successfully sued the Institute is what was said above?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2019
    NorthernFusion likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page