Judgment Day

[Jimmy white]

It doesn't pale into insignificance at all. Quite the opposite. It's big news. The illegal discrimination has been going on for 10+ years.

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.

 

[Jimmy white]

Since snooker is something you understand. Think of it this way. If every Scotsman got a second shot every time he tried to pot a ball and you didn’t know about it how would you feel? You lose snooker game after snooker game and eventually all you can see are snooker balls. Instead of 15 reds they increase the triangle to include another of 6 reds that you also have to pot. You eventually don’t even feel like putting any balls and you just crawl under the table and die. That’s how I feel.

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

 

[Jimmy white]

I’m lost - the cake was homosexual?

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

 

[Jimmy white]

Sure why stop at members that have joined the IFoA - there could be people out there that wanted to be an actuary but wanted to sit exams more than twice a year - and as this wasn't an option or so they thought - they decided not to be an actuary - we could be talking about tens of millions of people who could make a claim....

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

 

[Jimmy white]

for what it's worth, I'd actually looked into writing the Indian exams at one point, and sadly realised I wasn't allowed to. It does seem a bit unfair that others have routes with extra benefits. The IFOA should have addressed that somehow)

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?

 

[Tarbuck]

What do you mean by this? I think you've said that myself and Ace123 seem "too well informed". I've asked before what you meant by that but you haven't respond.

Are you suggesting that all three of us are in some sort of conspiracy against you and Almost_there?!

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!

 

[mavvj]

It's not painfully obvious to me Geraldine, no. Firstly, what are you saying to your employer? Give me some extra study days and exam leave so I can sit the exam a month later just incase I didn't pass it first time round? How demotivational would it be if you failed both the exams? What would happen if you, say, passed the first exam but then failed the other - would only the positive pass be recognised even if you failed to reach the required knowledge in the same sitting a month later? How would you feel if you ended up passing both exams - delighted? Or devastated that you spent an extra month studying unnecessarily?

Burn out - so you do your exam in April then take a break. Nothing beats leaving that exam hall knowing you're free from exams. I'd question how motivated you'd be to then sit the exam again in a month. Also, you then sit another exam in late May and then what, start studying late June again for the September and then October diets with hardly any time for a break. Sounds pretty horrific to me!

Even if you thought the first attempt hadn't gone well - can you really accurately judge performance in these exams? I've failed exams I thought I passed and passed exams I thought I'd failed. I'd also imagine that you'd have to register to sit the later exam before you sat the first one, so wouldn't know how that had gone.

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.

 

[almost_there]

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.

 

[almost_there]

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.

 

[Jimmy white]

Perhaps taking the same exam twice in a short space of time might not be advantageous to you.

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

 

[Jimmy white]

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.

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.

 

[almost_there]

One particular exam period may be difficult due to work pressures and so another one month later may be useful.

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.

 

[Bidza]

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.

 

[Jimmy white]

Isn't the IAI the one that is discriminating? ...Isn't the AI the one at more fault in this case?

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

 

[almost_there]

What are you going to do when all the executives in charge do not resign? Are you going to continue to be a member of a body where it’s clear that those at top have different ethics than you - given your insistence that they step down.

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.

 

[dmck]

Some posters clearly can't deal with this and should declare their interests.

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.

 

[dmck]

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'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.

 

[almost_there]

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

 

[whistleblower21]

Quite. IFoA's attempt to shift the blame onto IAI completely failed at the Court.

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

 

[whistleblower21]

You keep saying this but the reality is very different, as another poster said - take the discrimination case against the bakery in Northern Ireland - UK court found that they discriminated against the gay couple as they refused to make the cake. This didn't mean that every gay person in the UK could sue the bakery did it?

Why is that so hard to understand?

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.

 

[dmck]

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

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.

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

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