Page 4 of this publication is rather bizarre. Who might they be referring to when they say:
1. If your job title states "actuarial" then do they consider this as 100%?
(a) If yes, then what's the point of PPD? Don't they trust companies who hire actuaries to give people actuarial work?
(b) If not, then are they saying some jobs are not actuarial enough - if so which ones? Where?
2. I'm struggling to square this with claims made by the IFoA that "data analysis" is actuarial, even if this is outside the 'traditional' actuarial work contexts of pensions, life insurance, general insurance etc. which overwhelmingly dominate their "Directory of Actuarial Employers" document.
(a) In which case, someone working as a statistician could on that basis claim their work is actuarial.
(b) Also, as insurers are increasingly not covering actuaries for personal indemnity:
(i) if there are disguised actuaries out there with other job titles then surely there's a problem.
(ii) if there are people who have an actuarial job that the IFoA deems is not actuarial enough then why aren't they doing something to help those people get insured?
3. To further add to the confusion: the new version of actuaries code seems to widen the definition of what an actuary job is, while for demonstrating work experience for obtaining a qualification the IFoA appear to be more fussy. How can it be that a job is actuarial enough to get done in the disciplinary but not actuarial enough to get you the qualification?
I do believe there is an identity crisis going on in this profession and these inconsistencies are unacceptable.
Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2017
