Thesis dedicated to actuarial students

Thesis: "Actuarial Examinations: What can be learnt from the students' perspective? "
"This work is dedicated to actuarial students; past, present and future."
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10021710/1/150390.pdf

 

Interesting to note what it says on length of time to qualification & dropout rates on page 57:
It was noted that more than 40% of entrants withdrew within four years, that about 30% "... can then expect to qualify within a tolerable period, say nine years, a further 10% in ten years or more while the remaining 20% struggle on for periods of five, ten, fifteen years or even longer without completing the examinations. ... "

and in terms of the actuarial qualification system being more harsh on women, page 55:
"Nearly half of the respondents' felt that there were aspects peculiar to the actuarial field which hinder women more than men ... The most frequently cited aspect was the length of study time, meaning that women either deferred starting a family (or, some said, even starting a relationship) until qualification, or faced the prospect of studying with a young family"

 

Blimey, 300 pages! Some interesting analytic techniques, I have to say - although so much is bound to have changed (exams, attitudes, exam processes etc) since it was written over 20 years ago, that I can't help feeling much of it might not be so relevant any more. But food for thought.

 

I don't think much has changed at all. The fundamental problems are still there.

 

I think a lot has changed.
The fact that more students then ever get exemptions for over half of the exams, if not more, this will speed up to the qualification time.

 

Issues such as an overload of material, marking incompetencies and unnecessary time pressures are still common complaints 21 years later.

 

Almost there has pulled out a conclusive study made by someone else other than the “few people” on here that have nothing better with their lives to do other than complain about the ifoa. Nothing has changed. The exams are increasing and qualification time is being increased even more. There are now 11 CT exams as opposed to 9. Current students will have to take even more.

 

Conclusive? It doesn't sound like she even sat any exams and I can tell just from reading the chapter summaries its very biased! Furthermore its a thesis and not a peer reviewed research paper - I could provide you much more valid "conclusive studies" about global warming not being real as they would at least be actual peer reviewed papers and not a thesis.

 

Why would she need to exactly - do you realise by making that comment you've deemed almost everyone on the IFoA payroll as unqualified to comment on the qualification...!

 

It is quite a comprehensive study made by someone other than almost their or I.

 

No....I'm saying that almost everyone on IFoA's payroll's opinion as an individual would not be classed as a peer reviewed/ widely accepted industry view let alone a "conclusive study" But lets not good scientific process, due diligence and multiple sources influence our opinions.

 

You're now talking about your second point, I was challenging your first one.

 

Not interested. Show us a thesis, research paper, anything at all beyond IFoA opinion that celebrates the qualification system as a model for all others to follow.

 

I don't see any particular need to bash the paper (or each other). I haven't got the time or patience to read it all, but just had a quick scan and saw many sensible points; plus many subjective, anecdotal statements; and many things that are probably now out of date. It is an old paper so that's fine.
May be some of the changes made during the past 20 years were influenced by the paper - who knows. Perhaps someone looking for change could do a new research paper and submit to to the Profession. Think it might be more worthwhile than letting out your frustrations here. I haven't even seen anyone arrange an online petition. Surely there are more effective ways ...

 

I did try constructive feedback many moons ago including concentrating it on one thread but after months of making Japanese knotweed look like a welcome short term visitor my patience has evaporated. There is a point when the constant re-posts and repeated arguments across other people's unrelated questions are just wilfully disruptive.

 

The problem is they don't listen. As Infinity has pointed out, increasing the number of exams is not in accordance with the Lord Morris Review. The problems of overloading are made worse with this new curriculum with more double exams. Year after year people on this very forum complain of time pressures in the exam. Pass rates remain low despite numerous promises to improve them. Only last year did IFoA sent out a student newsletter to try and defend the integrity of their marking after examples were posted on this forum of huge discrepancies between markers 1 & 2 and the mysteries of marker 3.

 

Look at how this guy was treated by IFoA after only trying to collect student views on the curriculum changes:
https://www.acted.co.uk/forums/index.php?threads/ifoa-exam-changes-student-survey.11867/

 

Just because the IFoA doesn't listen to you or infinity, doesn't mean that they don't listen to others. If the pass rate for exams increases, then the number of actuaries increases which in turn will increase supply in the market and decrease salaries. Only recently you had a thread up stating that salaries where going down in the UK.

What exactly do you want to IFoA to do - would you like then to set easy exams for you to pass? Like people are qualifying every year which proves that if you put the hard work in that you can qualify.

 

It seems you Tarbuck are also just reposting the same thing over and over again. You claim that I’m in some minority and i should just be repeating my negative points again and again. The difference between me and you is that I have a point which needs to be addressed by the ifoa. I have pointed out several inaccuracies such as the false statement in the ceo report, the statement about students being able to sit and pass the individual components of the new CT exams separately not being true etc etc. I have never got a straight answer out of the IFoA and you just continue to defend them and bash my posts trying to portray me in the minority or some negative light. Almost there and muppet have provided evidence demonstrating that the ifoa are lying.

 

I did contact this poster and he seemed like he just lost his patience with the ifoa. He managed to qualify I guess and doesn’t come on here anymore

 

Almost there has just found a good example of quite a detailed study which confirms the view that the ifoa are lying to students about qualification times.

Please provide something which demonstrates that most people can qualify in 3 years including people with a partner or children. Please provide some information on how many people drop out and that it is only the minority. Please provide some information on how difficult the exams are in other countries.