Not so, as not all routes to Fellowship are equally demanding. People need correct information in order to make such decisions. The ASA found IFoA had misleading information on its website on qualification times.
I passed my exams. I learnt nothing of any consequence from them. I just need them to say to people that I am qualified. Now they’re being taken away from me and I have to learn this information of no consequence all over again. My decision to enter the profession was based on misleading information which after an investigation by the ASA remains misleading
My response was deleted as it was supposedly too rude. I find this message offensive and derogatory. Why is it still here?
Attaining Fellowship represents a standard. Admittedly, sitting an exam is an imperfect attempt to demonstrate that a minimum standard has been attained. However, how anyone who claims to have ‘learnt nothing’ confidently asserts they have met the requisite standard remains a mystery.
By the IFoAs own admission, the fellowship is not a required standard. If you haven’t noticed they are now downplaying the relevance of fellowship as it is worthless. It is only required in the UK for a handful of jobs. I can confidently say that I have learnt nothing from taking these exams. The effort involved in taking the exams is disproportionate to the benefit. Please read the Morris review and you will see that even the Government have asked the IFoA to reduce the knowledge they are imparting on unsuspecting students. Why should I have a certain voice or manner of body action
I’m fully supportive of the profession not conferring Fellowship to those who cannot demonstrate that the requisite standard has been met.
I am blessed to have such supportive Profs in NTU who help me prepare for the CS2 paper, specifically R and those new topics not in the old syllabus which the cohort currently does. It's unfortunate though that not all people get this kind of support (the exams to get exemptions are around the same difficulty overall). Come to think of it, I joined the iFoA as a member sometime around April to June 2018. But I will graduate from NTU only in May 2019 (after which I can then start work), so I'm wondering if I still have to somehow meet PPD requirements for this first year when I haven't graduated yet.
What is the required standard? I’ve passed Ct6, why does my fellowship require that I demonstrate this competency twice where as those before me only had to demonstrate it once? Why confer it if it is not required? Why tout a qualification which is useless and overvalued?
I think it’s the part about me having to bow out insinuating that I am the one that has done something wrong here
Same here but what standard would that be? In the old CA3 they penalised people for their voice and body movements. People enquired with IFoA what that standard was exactly and they refused to elaborate, yet they call this a competence standard. Such standards are required to be transparent and apply to all... but they're not.
I’m not saying how you feel is invalid, but do you think it’s appropriate for you and @almost_there to inflict your negativity into most threads on here? You’re both at it on here, and on the IFoA twitter page and it’s honestly embarrassing. You have a right to an opinion on the profession, but you’re abusing that right by polluting every platform imaginable and not caring about those who have to put up with it. What has ActEd got to do with how you feel about the IFoA? Absolutely nothing, yet here you both are talking about the same rubbish months on end. @almost_there , how does it feel to spend so long to qualify only to spend your time hating the profession you spent so long to be qualified in? It seems you’d rather hate the profession than actually practice it. Was it worth it? Please let me know. @Admin , modify or delete my post where necessary, but I know I’m not the only one who’s had enough of this charade. The majority of threads are derailed by the same people and it discourages any kind of reasonable discussion.
NorthernFusion, you're attacking people for telling the truth, yet failing to criticise those who have been done for making materially misleading statements. Actuaries code #4. Compliance: members will comply with all relevant legal, regulatory and professional requirements, take reasonable steps to ensure they are not placed in a position where they are unable to comply, and will challenge non-compliance by others P.S. Don't lie that I hate 'the profession'. I hate lies, rip-offs, that sort of things, no matter where it comes from. Actuaries code #1. Integrity: members will act honestly and with the highest standards of integrity
You seem to forget that I was prepared to take the last few exams to qualify but the ifoa have doubled them. Their CEO is allowed to get away with lying because of people like you who are allowed to continue and make abusive comments on this platform. I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re also an Acted or IFOA employees. Your post has for nothing to do with the OP and should have been deleted but it’s allowed to remain. I’ve received private messages from people on here who are also disgruntled, so please don’t make out like you are in some sort of ruling majority, because you’re not. I’m going to continue talking about the “same rubbish” until someone can give me a reasonable answer. What is the same rubbish? The fact that the CEO has lied in the annual report? That the study hours published are not realistic? That the IFOA and Acted have messed up every single exam sitting that I can remember? That the IFOA have lied about qualification times? Yes i have a list as long my arm. It goes on. I do not see why your message is not deleted. I’ve tried to inform people that the study hours are not certain. The reason I’ve complained here is because the ifoa have changed their statement that the exams can be sat and passed separately to they have to be taken together with no explanation whatsoever. Of course I’ll never complete my exams if the IFOA keeps moving the goal posts. It appears that Almost there is a qualified actuary, endorsed by the profession and he doesn’t seem to be to pleased. So please don’t make me out to be like some sort of thorn in your side. You’re welcome to not respond to my posts if it offends you so much. You are trolling me it seems, checking my every move here and searching twitter if Facebook or whatever you have been doing in your free time
I noticed you edited out calling me a ‘shill’, yet decided to edit in an excerpt from the Actuaries Code as if you’re of a higher standard. Thanks for proving my point.
