Potential claims against the UK profession(s)

Just like you've neglected to answer my questions over your litigation history with the IFoA or chembod's response to my question over whether they've posted under previous aliases. Seems you struggle to answer questions - you got something to hide?

 

Where has the 99.85% figure come from? I hope that we are not using the Daily Mail as a good barometer of the view of the British public.

Anyway seeing as foolishly decided to join in this conversation on Friday, my view is:

1. Yes the IFoA were wrong.
2. However I don't think that they were doing it to disadvantage British students.
3. Whilst I don't think that it is much of an advantage, the IAI should have had to have their exams at the same time as the IFoA to prevent any discrimination.
4. Whilst I don't know Null's specific circumstances, I find it hard to see that not being able to sit the same exams a month later is the reason that they are still not qualified 18 years after starting the exams.
5. It has been stated somewhere in the last few days by either you or Null that everyone would prefer to be able to do what Indian students can do. I certainly would not wish to drag out my exam sittings for another month to sit an exam again that I may have passed the first time.
6. Yes IFoA definitely needs to review the MRA for European actuaries. I thought that their defence about FIA* not being as good as FIA as you don;t get the advantage of the MRA with other countries eg the US was pretty poor.

 

It’s not about dragging your exam sittings for another month. However it could be and some people will appreciate having a second chance.

Alternatively you might be ill or have some issue at work so you could take the same exam a month later.

Or you could spread out the exams better so you don’t have to take two exams on the same day.

Or you could take even more exams if you were so inclined and qualify much faster.

The options are endless.

Four sittings per year is obviously better than two. You can study (what we all know are inhumane study hours on top of our jobs and family commitments) and then sit the exam twice. You’ve got double the chance to pass as well as more opportunity to pass.

Perhaps the second sitting on the Indian exam contains topics which you would perform much better on, especially as the IFoA exams test very little of the subject material you actually have to study.

I’m glad you agree on point 6. This FIA* is a joke and don’t worry, the issue will be resolved.

The IFOA have not published anywhere what the star actually means and on one hand they say the qualification is the same when it comes to satisfying European Labour laws but then they tell the Employment Tribunal in the UK that the qualification is different!

Yes the IFOA were wrong. Yes they have discriminated. If you did some research you’d see how much the IFOA have profited from this. Mr Cribb’s salary has doubled from GBP 200 to 400k because there are now 5,800 Indian students in the IFOA, outnumbering the 5,600 British students.

There is not one British student in the IAI.

The IFOA have purposefully prevented British students from joining the IAI as they didn’t want to lose revenue stream while at the same time generate a large amount of income from India.

Please ask the IFOA how much they spend on international affairs...

GBP 1m of your money is spent annually on memberships to the AAE and IAA. This benefits about 40 members per year. It’s just a jolly for privileged IFOA staff

 

Hi Null, What are your thoughts on the gender pay gap in our profession.
As a women, I believe the profession indirectly discriminates against me

 

You've filled out your profile incorrectly Singapore Actuary, it says you are male.

Edit:- I see you've fixed it now!

 

Hi, thanks for asking... at least someone seems to thinking out of the box...

A SAV (Swiss Actuarial Survey) which has quite a large dataset clearly shows that women get paid quite a lot less than men. I think this is an issue in all lines of work, but for Actuarial it is particularly pronounced due to the qualification process

As I have stated before, 82% of women leave the profession after 7 years. Axis capital have posted this (by accident it seems as they were trying to use this in a positive light) and they have now withdrawn the statement.

What I do know is that there is a very high drop out rate. The membership statistics are heavily skewed towards there being many more men in the profession and I think that the qualification interferes with family planning so yes women are disadvantaged, quite substantially.

Given that the qualification takes 8 or 9 years on average if you do the exams the normal way (please do not believe the 6.5 year lies that the IFoA tell you), women leaving university would probably like to take a career break to have children and they would struggle afterwards to study and to return to work with a family. Even for a man, it is difficult if you have children at home to study.

I think a woman would have a sex discrimination complaint against the IFoA due to unnecessarily long time to qualification.

 

In what way do you think the profession discriminates you as a woman? I'm genuinely interested to understand why feel discriminated against.

 

The qualification time indirectly discriminates against women

 

I believe the reasom for this being withdrawn was due to issues with data. Another poster has articulated this in quite some detail.

I don't agree with how this could only affect women. Males may decide not to sit exams due to preparation for a baby, males may take career breaks to support a baby.

In any case, having children may disrupt careers temporarily as people will take time off. I fail to see how sitting exams differs from say, a woman deciding not to for promotion until after the birth of a child. There are wider societal issues for sure, but I don't think the IFoA can be accused for merely setting exams!

You state 8 or 9 years as average qualification time. What is this based on?

 

And I think the claim would get thrown out of court and you'd have to pay the IFOA's legal expenses, just so you have a balance of opinions.

 

I suggest you message Null, Chenbod or Almost_there - they seem to have extensive knowledge on the atrocities committed by the IFoA. I don't know if they have any expertise on Singapore's legal system but they may be able to assist with you litigating if this is something you are considering. In any case, I'm not sure they have extensive experience/expertise of litigating in UK courts! I'm sure they will be happy to assist you.

All the best in your studies/litigation.

 

Let’s see what the court decide on that one. I hope Singapore actuary will pursue her claim. An abnormally long qualification time is discriminatory towards women since men don’t have a biological clock. The low number of women in the profession demonstrate the sad state of affairs at the IFOA

As we’ve seen from the recent race discrimination claim, the IFOA have little regard for diversity and inclusion, let alone English law.

I hope that their new CEO will turn things around after the IFOA restructure, however the reputation of the IFOA has been tarnished and things are about to get even worse.

 

That’s what you were also saying prior to the IFoA being convicted of race discrimination and instructing to discriminate. I think someone also said nothing would change and now the CEO has had to resign...

 

Yawn, as stated previously correlation doesn't imply causation. You are merely speculating as to the reasons why the CEO moved on - it could be for a whole host of reasons.

 

Yes but it’s funny how it doesn’t say where he is going or what he will do next.

The FRC CEO also didn’t say that he was stepping down due to his failings even though it was all over the news.

This whole system is a shambles and the party is about to come to an end

 

What system you talking about here? Nice slogan perhaps but devoid of any real meaning.

 

I’ve just got a subject access request back from the Actuary magazine since they didn’t publish the judgment on the recent discrimination case whereas the Financial Times, Daily Mail, Private Eye and Insurance ERM have. Once they see the email alerting them of the judgment, they write straight to the IFOA marketing department and state they’ll just “ignore” the email!

 

It's futile thinking this scandal can be suppressed... it's only going to get worse.

 

Indeed, let's hope this "scandal" actually has some substance behind it this time!

 

Because the last scandal, namely the IFOA being done for discriminatory behaviour aswell as instructing to discriminate. It didn’t get reported in the Financial times, Daily Mail, Private Eye and Insurance ERM and didn’t result in the mysterious departure of the CEO. The IFOA weren’t criticized in the Kingman Review and are about to have their power of self regulation taken away?

Read something other that the actuary magazine

 

Tell us the reasons then.