Judgment Day

Matter of opinion this but creaming it in running what is effectively a protection racket for actuaries I find to be worse than letting indian students sit exams 4 times a year and british twice. If you put the work in and be smart at the exams you'll qualify and after that it doesn't matter. There's the period of time in between where there is discrimination I agree, but it's insignificant compared to paying protection money to an unaccountable professional organisation for the entirety of your career just so they will let you practice.

 

Yes but that's how YOU feel. You cannot sue because you're not feeling well.

 

The cake said "support gay marriage" and the evangelical Christians running the bakery refused to make it. I think the case was thrown out actually but that's neither here nor there. It's just an example. If somebody was discriminated against because of Difference X, everyone with Difference X cannot then sue saying I hypothetically would have been discriminated against too in similar circumstances even though those circumstances never existed

 

Everyone who ever failed an actuarial exam should claim because they may not have failed the indian exam if they were allowed to sit it, even though they never tried to register for it...... The whole profession could sue leaving the IFoA snookered

 

You might have a case Geraldine because you actually tried to sit the Indian exams. Did they say why you weren't allowed? Hopefully you have the email. Get a few bob for yourself. Maybe fit a snooker room out the back garden?

 

Everyone who doesn't agree with them are working for either Acted or the IFOA. In other words, both of you are going to get sued for your illegal discrimination against them. They're onto you!

 

I find your arguments that extra sittings wouldn't be beneficial to be unconvincing. There are various ways these could be utilised. Some ways may be beneficial for some and not for others and vice versa. This does not even mean using all 4 sittings. For example you could choose your sittings carefully to give longer to study CP1 due to the extensive amount of material. One particular exam period may be difficult due to work pressures and so another one month later may be useful. Perhaps taking the same exam twice in a short space of time might not be advantageous to you but it may be particularly useful to those with only one exam left. They may be more motivated than you.

 

Yes, it is painfully obvious Geraldine and should be even more so for actuaries. If one's life depended upon hitting the bullseye who wouldn't choose 4 instead of two darts? The IFoA argument in Court was completely destroyed and is deeply humiliating for them. Some posters clearly can't deal with this and should declare their interests.

What posters are forgetting is that in the 2-year transition period this meant British students only got 4 opportunities to clear the CTs instead of 8. Thousands will have lost a CT exam. IFoA didn't even suspend their greedy discriminatory understanding with IAI even during this period, while putting out the spin that they'd been extremely fair in having a 2-year transition period.

 

The proven discriminatory policy in my view does not only discriminate on nationality but also on sex. At present a British woman who was expecting a baby in September would be restricted to just the April exam sitting. If she could also join IAI she could sit exams in April and May.

 

I actually would have thought it more beneficial e.g. if you got a stinker of a paper where a topic was examined heavily you weren't strong on, or if you didn't sleep well the night before the first exam, or you panicked, or you interpreted a question wrong. In these circumstances you want to sit the exam again very quickly before you forget everything killing off brain cells drinking beer down the local snooker hall

 

A bit of a stretch. There could be reasons why men are medically unavailable to sit an exam during that period also. Where they discriminated against to on medical grounds?

The main reason pregnant women take an exam sitting out is not because they physically cannot do the exam on that date, it's that they don't want stress that may have a side effect on the baby's development. That's a 6 to 9 month window, depending on when you figure out you're pregnant.

 

This is very true, especially for the April exam sitting. Many actuaries are busy Jan - March on year end work and would prefer to sit exams with IAI in May. People should let their employers know about this case.

 

Hi Guys

I am following the discussions with keen interest. I am however a bit confused about where the blame should lie. Isn't the IAI the one that is discriminating? I am not British but I could write IFOA exams and judging from Geraldine's experience, I wouldn't have been allowed to write IAI exams. Isn't the AI the one at more fault in this case?

I do however concede that that the IFA dropped the ball with the MRA agreement. The MRA agreement they had/have with ASSA did not allow for such a loop hole. The MRA was designed in such a way that you could only get the credit for a subject after you completed all the subjects with one body. So for example for the STs, you could write STs with both bodies but IFOA would not recognize an ASSA pass until you qualified as a fellow through ASSA first. I think that they should have(or should) have similar arrangement with IAI to level the playing field.

 

From my understanding what is missing from your picture is the influence the IFoA has over the IAI policy.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...tuaries_-_Case_Number_2207536_2017_-_Full.pdf

 

Let's explore this for those already qualified. Where do you suggest they should they go? Can you suggest a non-discriminatory actuarial body as an alternative. Please don't say IAI.

 

Again, another odd comment... what particular interests would you like posters to declare? You've made several comments along these lines but are reluctant to clarify what you are trying to suggest.

 

I'd disagree completely with you on the point about the policied discriminating on the basis of gender. Fathers may elect to take several months of paternity leave, for example.

 

dmck, why would you not want mothers expecting in Sept/Oct to have two exam sittings in April & May?

 

I heard that the IFOA barrister did a Hillary Clinton... She called the IAI deplorable..

 

It is because the IFOA instructed and or aided the IAI not to let British nationals join them. Any type of unilateral bar of this type gives British nationals the right to bring a claim against the IFOA. If the IFOA had instead stated, do not let Mr X join because he is British, then Mr X (and only Mr X) would have a claim.

This is what the IAI said to another student:
"Please accept my apology in cancelling your membership of the IAI. The reason is that the IAI (earlier Actuarial Society of India) conducts its examinations since year 2000 under an agreement/arrangement with the UK Actuarial profession and this means all our examinations except SA level are based on syllabus and study material of UK. We have mutual recognition arrangement too. We are facilitated to have the ActEd material at low cost (initially it was free). Such an arrangement made it necessary for us to ensure that we do not compete with UK Actuarial Profession and in specific terms not to conduct examinations in UK for UK residents/subjects."

Put short, the IFOA were operating what appeared to be a semi aparthied type system and they made millions from it.
The email was copied in to (as the judgement says) Trevor Watkins.
He did nothing to challenge such discriminatory conduct.
It was later sent to Karen Brocklesby. She did nothing about it either.

 

Interesting question. If we take your/Null's rationale that all UK students have a claim following the judgment, even those who haven't had applied to the IAI to join them, then does this mean that all female students have a further claim? As regardless of whether or not they were pregnant they were discriminated against too? What about potential fathers or couples considering adoption - they may have been discriminated against too applying your rationale. Perhaps the entry requirements to become a member of the IFoA are discriminatory too. Soon the entire UK population will have a claim against the IFoA if we extend your logic to the extremes.

Careful now, others might accuse you of being "too well informed" about the case.