Satisfaction with IFoA volunteering opportunities

Discussion in 'General study / exams' started by ProudActuary, Jun 17, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Null

    Null Member

    1. Where was it published?
    2. What is the difference compared to men?
    3. How do you know about this?
     
  2. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    For years, women graduates would have read a misleading statistic that one can qualify on average between 3 and 6 years on IFoA website. This had to be removed by IFoA earlier this year following an ASA probe. All those 21 year old women thinking oh that seems doable, exams out of the way between ages of 24-27, plenty of time after that to get a family. Then reality hits them few years down the line.
     
    Null likes this.
  3. ProudActuary

    ProudActuary Member

    What are you trying to insinuate here? Is it only people who agree with your opinions who are allowed to post questions?
     
  4. ProudActuary

    ProudActuary Member

    Some excellent points which highlight a number of societal issues faced by women in the professional sphere.
     
  5. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    IFoA blaming everyone else as usual. They did this in 1997 too, if you read the thesis, blaming employers back then.
     
  6. Null

    Null Member

    So since women are discriminated everywhere it’s ok to discriminate against at the IFOA? Great argument...
     
  7. Null

    Null Member

    No that’s not what I’m trying to insinuate. I’m not allowed to even insinuate my own opinions here so unfortunately I can’t clarify further.
     
  8. Marzipan

    Marzipan Member

    This statistic was first quoted on this forum by Infinity on the 19th January 2019, in the thread ‘Thesis dedicated to actuarial students’. It came from a tweet made by Axis Capital on 26th December 2018. On the 10th January 2019 Axis Capital deleted this tweet because ‘after further research, we weren’t satisfied with the research behind a statistic presented in the post’. Since then, a number of people on this forum have continued to use this statistic to accuse the Institute of discrimination against women. I’m not disputing the claim, only the use of an invalid statistic to support it.

    In response to almost_there’s comment, the statistic was not quoted as a problem to be solved. It was quoted by Axis Capital to advertise their support for the Actuarial Monitoring Program, which I believe was set up by the Institute to address some of the concerns around the high female drop out rate.

    In response to Null’s other questions:

    2. I don’t know, hence why I asked for the male equivalent statistic in the first place. Frankly, I don’t care, as a decision to leave the Institute is personal to each individual and will be for many different reasons. So whilst some difference may be due to a gender bias, it won’t all be explained by this.

    3. How do I know? Because in January Infinity asked me if I had seen this statistic, and so I took a look out of curiosity. The tweets are still on-line, so you don’t have to take my word for it. Take a look, as I did, and draw your own conclusions.
     
    ProudActuary likes this.
  9. Null

    Null Member

    If the IFoA won’t even publish the judgment, do you think they will public the significant negative feedback they’ve received about their volunteering opportunities... why does Cribb get paid 400k for running this not for profit royal charter, why don’t volunteers get paid too?
     
    almost_there likes this.
  10. almost_there

    almost_there Member

    Of course it was!
     
  11. ProudActuary

    ProudActuary Member

    Some volunteers do get paid. There are a number of individuals who seem to have benefitted from the volunteering they have undertaken. Unless they "know too much" too...
     
  12. ProudActuary

    ProudActuary Member

    Ah, ok - very odd then. I can only presume that almost_there either wasn't successful in legal action against the IFoA or didn't take action given his/her blatant refusal to answer the question and your response.
     
  13. Null

    Null Member

  14. Null

    Null Member

    Like the ones that went on a jolly to Africa to escape the media storm erupting in the uk?

    People are saying that it’s the most exciting thing to happen in the Actuarial world during the last 100 years...

    https://www.google.ch/amp/s/www.dai...m-racially-discriminated-against-BRITISH.html
     
  15. Null

    Null Member

    Wow you can’t be an IFoA employee. You’ve actually answered my questions, bonus point for using the same numbering too! Well done.

    I don’t suppose you could send me a link to the tweets as I can’t seem to find them anymore...
     
  16. ProudActuary

    ProudActuary Member

    Just a little patronising. Refreshing to have someone actually answer a question rather than you/almost_there/whistleblowers approach of ignoring perfectly legitimate questions.
     
  17. ProudActuary

    ProudActuary Member

    Interesting, I feel sorry for the claimant that he was unable to fulfil his dream of becoming a qualified actuary. I hope that with the conclusion of his court case he is able to sit his remaining exams and fulfil his dream.
     
  18. Null

    Null Member

    Thats patronizing, offensive and rude.
     
    almost_there likes this.
  19. ProudActuary

    ProudActuary Member

    I don't see how it is any of those things. The article states it was the claimant's dream to qualify as an actuary. Does it not?

    The claimant pursed the IFoA in court, presumably distracting him from sitting the aforementioned exams. If the claimant no longer wishes to pursue the exams that is his choice. Nothing patronising, offensive or rude. Please explain why you have interpreted it in this way.
     
  20. Marzipan

    Marzipan Member

    I will take that as a compliment.

    The link is:
    https://twitter.com/AXIS_Capital?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

    You will have to scroll down to Jan 10 or search 'AMP' might get you there quicker. Shouldn't be too difficult to find.

    I have seen a childless woman promoted over a mother, and an experienced mother with strong family support promoted over a new mother. In both cases the women had equal ability and actuarial experience for the role. I have heard it said often that a mother would not want the additional responsibilities that come with a managerial role on top of their home responsibilities. These comments come from both men and women, with and without children, alike. It is this perception that hinders a woman's career progression, not the IFoA, but people. Human beings who make decisions based on mis-judgements.

    At the end of the day, these decisions result in talent being wasted. Women who are already on a guilt trip through motherhood, are then made to feel below their worth in the workplace as well. And people who feel undervalued tend not to work to their best ability.

    You can go down the path of suing an organisation for discrimination, if you like, though would be difficult in the examples I have given. This might get some short term recompense, but the problem will not go away. You have to change how whole generations of people think, and you can't take everyone to court.
     
    ProudActuary likes this.
  21. Null

    Null Member

    Thanks for the link. Will come in useful.

    The point still stands. It’s not really linked to women although I can see that women may find it affects them more than men.

    The fact of the matter is that the IFOA said in court that their drop out rate was 10% in front of the judge.

    This is not true. I’ve calculated it on the contrived stats I’ve managed to get from the IFOA and it’s 50%. I expect it will be higher for women.

    This crystalises the point that the exams take so long that people can’t finish and end up with nothing but a wasted career, whereas people who have shortcuts available don’t have these problems.

    When the shortcuts are only available to those with a particular characteristics, this results in discrimination which is why the IFOA have lost in court
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2019
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page