Results September 2018

I guess the "change of rules" is allowed in any type of form or shape, as IFOA is the rule maker for the exams. They changed it in 2005 with a number of students loosing the exam passes and nothing happened.....so we are just witnessing the repetition of history. No consequences. Maybe its just not breaking the law and its ok. But the part I don't get how can you say "its fair and nobody will be disadvantaged".....that's not right to say this as its clearly not the case. Why have we been lied to?

 

Because their basis of "nobody will be disadvantaged" is that they indeed carry over all historical passes from the past papers including the CT series. But whether that historical pass for that single CT paper of its pairing (CT1/CT5 and CT4/CT6) will help you clear any Curriculum 2019 papers is a different matter. Unless you count the case where you have passed CT4 and just so happen to be taking the CT6 module next semester in your university.

 

One solution would have been to allow for longer transition period so that all students part way through their CTs get all the "right pairings" ready for going 100% 2019 strategy without loosing some exam passes.

 

I have a feeling that they could have given a 5 year transition period and some people would still be saying that it’s not fair.

In changing the curriculum there is never a fair way of doing it and someone is going to be negatively affected.

 

Yep, may be past experience suggested that those who didn't complete the odd CT in the 4 sittings given were unlikely to carry on or complete anyway. On first glance 1200 resits is huge. But break it down. Those who failed on their first attempt knew the risk they were taking, and so can't really complain. Those who failed on 2nd/3rd/4th attempt might actually have done themselves a favour. Assuming they tried extra hard because they knew they might lose CT1, then if they can't clear it with all that extra effort, then clearing CT4,6,8 in future is very likely to be an even tougher struggle. So they may realise that years and years of exams, just for a few letters, isn't the be all and end all of life. Plenty of other opportunities in the world. (Yes I know this line of reasoning is a little harsh.)
Of course there's bound to be the odd exception, the odd bad day etc; and we all feel for those; but as is often the case, the stats can be misleading.
The CEO should never have said the quote that keeps being repeated as it's fueled the fire. Presumable, because it was made in signed accounts, it can't be deleted. It's not a statement the IFoA has made in lots of places. It's been made a hundred times more on this forum than anywhere else.
Congrats to all those who cleared what they needed to.

 

I don't accept that nor their rationale for changing the curriculum. Just because IFoA totally botched it after lying no one would be disadvantaged doesn't mean a better run organisation with proper oversight wouldn't.

If IFoA had proper oversight, not the current rubbish non-oversight from the discredited FRC, then I doubt this new system would be allowed to progress. It is not in the public interest. People who agree with me should share their concerns with the Kingman review to ask for proper educational oversight of IFoA education system from say a board that provides oversight to Universities. There needs to be some kind of independent oversight like this for people to take their exam appeals and so on to as well. FRCReview@beis.gov.uk

 

That's a good thing and in my view he should resign. Other false and misleading statements such as on their website have been modified- that doesn't make it right.

 

What is your solution to the new curriculum?

Do you want a case that some people are doing the old exams and some are doing the new exams? That's not fair on new students, it's also adds a lot more admin, how long do you let people do the old exams for - until they pass regardless of how long it takes?

Your whole argument on this stands on one statement that one person made. I have yet to see you post a solution to the new curriculum.

 

The IFOA has said in numerous publications that no current student will be disadvantaged. Even in the first curriculum 2019 publication it said no one would be disadvantaged. It is very easy for them to make a system where no one is disadvantaged. One to one mappings. But that’s too difficult for the IFOA. No I didn’t know that the ifoa would change the system in such a way as prior to the introduction they’ve been touting to people that no one would be disadvantaged

 

It’s one one statement. That’s the only one that the ifoa can’t doctor or modify. As per my other post it is very easy to have a solution that doesn’t disadvantage people. Joining together exams which previously had nothing to do with each other is a pretty convoluted way to design transition arrangements. They also previously said the new components could be sat and passed separately - another complete lie.

 

I'm not paid hundreds of thousands of pounds by IFoA to provide solutions. I could provide better solutions at a small fraction of what it's cost to come up with what they have. The cost is exacerbated by all the lawyers and spin doctors they rely in their attempts to sanitise the situation, failing miserably. I have come up with a solution for the PPD fiasco if you actually read my forum posts, which is to convert everyone's existing WBS into PPD credits. Then no need for a transition.

 

Yet despite all your posts you haven’t given a solution to a new curriculum for the exams.
Cause you know as well as everyone else that anything new will negatively affect someone which goes against everything you’ve said hence you won’t make any suggestions.

 

Please name this solution for a new curriculum that doesn’t disadvantage anyone. Any new material will mean people will have to revise again and learn more which is not fair to anyone that just failed is it?

 

No I don't accept that at all. Your attempts to justify massive IFoA failures as "normal" or "reasonable" won't work with me.

 

You need to read more carefully. He already said one to one mappings. The complaint is not so much about updating material, if you paid any attention to what's posted. You can update material in existing structure.

 

Seriously, how easy is it to design a system which doesn’t mean taking extra exams or increasing studying time? What is the point of retrospectively joining exams. I can’t believe you’re asking this question. There is a very simple solution. The IFoA has completely screwed up and to make matters worse they’ve tried to cover up their mistake

 

And what will the new exams cover - the exact same material or can they add in new material?

If they add in new material then that will increase study time for people repeating for instance which is sometime you don’t want.

Basically you don’t want the system to change at all and just stay the same - that’s your solution to ensuring no one is negatively impacted.

 

Do you seriously not understand? The syllabus has not really changed much. You can see several references on university websites (who I assume have expertise in educating people) to say that the content is generally the same. I am sure I’ll find the same rubbish about triangulating in the new course as the old. I’ve already passed this course and I don’t see why I need to be tested on the same thing again. If they say the course material of the new course is roughly the same as CT1 and CT5 for example, why are these exams joined now? And please also explain at what point the IFoA has changed that the exams can be sat and passed separately to the exams have to be passed together.

 

I have a solution. Keep the 9 exams separate but with the reduced theoretical side of the syllabus currently prescribed within the new curriculum (the theory element of CM1 is a stripped down version of CT1 + CT5), then introduce a 10th subject called 'Predictive Analytics' (as the SOA have done) to cover the new R, Excel and Machine Learning components that has a study time equal to the reduced study time in theoretical materials for the 9 subjects. Those who have completed over 50% of their CTs before 2019 are exempted from the 10th subject so as not to be disadvantaged.

Then take CT2, CT7 and CT9 out of the IFoA exams altogether and turn them into an online proctored multi-choice test that is available on demand (just as the SOA do with VEE Economics and Accounting & Finance). This will give students the flexibility to clear these subjects (that are of trivial importance to employers) as and when they choose so they can focus exclusively on the more important quantitative subjects in the exam sessions.

That way anyone who has CT1 but not CT5 (or vice versa) or CT4 but not CT6 (or vice versa) will still get the exemption for the exam that they passed, any disadvantage to students is minimal (certainly compared with the current arrangements) and there are fewer session based exams to sit.

 

might be 2 years too late.

But sounds like the solution = merge with the SOA

 

I wouldn't wish that on the SOA