Thesis dedicated to actuarial students

Yes exactly the problem. People can qualify more quickly now due to easier routes being opened up for them. Current students however don’t have this luxury.

 

for which you have my sympathies - but you won't solve this by continually posting about it on here and annoying others. You'l have to keep going back to them. This forum is not the IFoA's complaints' mailbox.

 

you keep accusing the IFoA of lying and then post this. Given you have over 200 posts then ..................
Are the other three moderators? Can I be one too please ActEd?

 

It’s a place where I can express my opinion. I don’t need you to tell me that I’m annoying you. The ifoa don’t have a complaints process so where else can I express my view?

 

Just like to say that this isn't true. I personally think they have made mistakes, changed their minds a few times - but don't we all.

 

No. The problem is that you’re disagreeing with me but have no substance. Please tell me why I have to take extra exams next year when the ceo has printed in black and white that no current students will be affected.

Acted. I would appreciate if you could not delete this post as every time I ask this simple question you seem to close the thread

 

It's demeaning going back to IFoA over and over, especially after you've received the inevitable "we consider the matter closed" after they've failed to answer your question.

Infinity speaks the truth when he criticises in reality what is a lack of complaints process. Before anyone says they have a "putting things right" (PTR) complaints process, you need to understand a few things. First of all this doesn't address anything they consider to be IFoA policy but rather service standards. Secondly PTR has at least two clauses within it they can rely on to not consider your complaint at all. The end result is that hardly anything ends up meeting the scope of PTR in their opinion, and only their opinion counts on that, however laughable that opinion may be.

PTR is the responsibility of Mr Derek Cribb the IFoA CEO. The PTR webpage states his name and office address and lists a PTR email address. There has been an instance of a very serious complaint gone directly to Mr Cribb's office, albeit to his direct email address (& coying in IFoA deputy general counsel) rather than the PTR. The IFoA ignored this complaint for months then an excuse emerged they hadn't addressed it as the complaint went to the "wrong" email address i.e. to Derek Cribb directly rather than PTR. This just illustrates how unprofessional IFoA are conducting themselves when a very serious complaint direct to their CEO is ignored for such a minor protocol excuse. The professional thing to do is to address the complaint. It wouldn't take much for Mr Cribb or his staff to respond the same day saying thank you we shall consider this in our PTR process given the gravity of the complaint.

 

A poster in another thread asked a questions about CT5 who sat it and what they though the past mark would be - and you went off on one again giving out about the IFoA which had nothing to do with the OP's question.

Why should anyone assist you when you don't positively assist anyone else - as per the CT5 thread that I just mentioned.

Yourself and Almost_there basically get every thread shut down because of rants.

You stated that Muppet gave "evidence demonstrating that the ifoa are lying." Muppet then came on to say that wasn't true.

Does this then mean that you were in fact lying in your post - will you be apologising in every thread where you stated this starting with this one, or are you going to ignore this lie that you said and carry on giving out?

 

This has no substance but I predict the following:

In a few years, the IFoA will put a time limit on how long people will have to pass their exams and qualify - like many of the accountancy professions do. I suppose this will help to ensure that someone who qualifies still has the complete set of skills they need (appreciate "need" is debateable") when they qualify.
But I doubt they will do it for this reason, but instead to avoid complaints that are emerging now due to the transition. So the end result will be that future students don't get as long as students have had in the past.

Arguably the upside of this will be students will end up moving on to bigger and better things and not get bogged down in exams for years. There are more important things in life than FIFA (2018).

 

You don't need to bring in extra exams, double exams, have people lose existing exam passes in order to modernise the content. You just update the content within the existing structure. The problems identified in the thesis are made worse by this curriculum change.

Also the curriculum change does not address fundamental problems such as the marking inadequacies, identified in the thesis and 21 years later we've seen examples posted on this forum of serious discrepancies between markers and students still in a position where they don't understand why they've been failed.

 

The thesis explores the issues of not only the overloading of content but also the irrelevancy / disconnect of content in the exams with that in the workplace. For years IFoA have retained out-of-date materials in their exams when they should have done some weeding, which should have led to a reduction in exams but we've had the opposite.

 

I'm wise to the fact that there are a couple of posters who don't like the content of the thesis and are seeking to get this thread shut down.

Page 18:
I wanted to try to discover what the examinations required of students, before going on to consider why people who had previously had virtually unblemished examination records, so often failed to satisfy the assessment demands. I could not do this because I was denied access to the confidential examiners' marking schemes

Page 19:
The months of trying to gain access to the examiners' marking schedules, in the hope of pursuing my original plan, involved conversations with several of the actuarial profession's policy-makers in the field of initial qualification. There were some strenuous attempts to discourage me from looking into actuarial education

Page 21:
I was told repeatedly that nothing would be revealed by considering the student experience of actuarial examinations. Actuarial students failed examinations because they did not properly prepare for them

 

It's rather sad how they seek to blame employers rather than their own assessments for being a barrier to women in the profession:

Page 55 research found:
"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

Page 56, Institute not taking responsibility and blames employers:
"A distinction needs to he made between employers en the one hand and the profession on the other. Many of the difficulties which women in the actuarial profession experience are caused by the employers and not the profession.

 

They haven’t changed their mind. They have made a mistake or knowingly screwed up. The unprofessional and unethical piece is to try to cover it up. They have not apologized or informed people that a mistake has been made, they have tried to avoid taking any responsibility.

If I made a mistake at work like this which affects thousands of people, I would be fired.

And it is not just one mistake. It is a catalogue of errors.

It is also difficult to prove but the intentions behind their decisions are dubious to say the least.

 

I feel sorry for any other half of an actuary. The exams are a burden on any relationship.

ybother

 

I don’t think it is just myself and almost there that have complained. Many others have also expressed their dissatisfaction as can be seen by the evidence of purpleuk. The problem is people like you who have little understanding. Why don’t you just agree that the ifoa have made an error and suggest that something should be done for the people affected?

The evidence that muppet provided shows the ifoa have lied. I have cited the evidence and not muppets opinion and there is nothing I should apologize for. Anyway, why should I even apologize? The ifoa screw up, make mistakes, knowingly or unknowingly and they don’t even have the decency to apologize.

It is not my fault the threads are getting shut down. I started on one thread, acted shut it down. I tried to continue on another, acted shut it down. Acted claim that everyone has a right to an opinion, but they constantly edit my posts and delete them when they feel like it.

It seems there is a small minority of people, some with dubious made up profiles who want to defend the ifoa, even when the ifoa is completely wrong.

Answer the questions I’ve posed

A) why had the ifoa lied to students about c2019 not being disadvantageous or the new CTs being sat and passed independently or about number of years to qualify?

B) why have they tried to cover up their mistakes without telling anyone?

Find one reference to why the pass marks were disclosed or why CA1 was moved from one day to two... you won’t find it.

I’m sure since my points are valid and relevant acted will shut me down and I have to post somewhere else.

 

It's disgusting that acted are treating posters like children and editing their posts. I invite Acted to confirm whether they're doing this at the instruction of the IFoA, after all it does say at the top "on behalf of the IFoA".

 

Indeed. Let's not forget the useless IFoA Council who are failing to do anything about this also. It's not clear to what extent (if any) they are being informed of complaints received by IFoA by IFoA Executive or not- can't see any mention of this being discussed in Council meetings. There's no excuse now because some of them have been made aware by members & frankly they should have been aware the moment it was said need two CTs to be exempt from a new double exam, that people would be disadvantaged. They ought to put this to IFoA Executive next meeting and demand they come up with something to ensure no one is disadvantaged, just as Derek Cribb promised.

 

Mods have the right to modify comments.

 

So your saying that they should just update content and keep the same structure? So does that mean that students who have sat and failed exams will have to learn new material and what they have already learned my not be needed- surely this also increases the hours needs to pass - but don’t let that get in the way of your arguments.

21 years ago google didn’t exist - technology is huge now and you need it for all actuarial work and so having an excel exam makes sense - but of course again your against this.

Again I’ll ask you why don’t you help other students positively by helping them on threads that you’ve passed and answer their questions?

 

Excuse me !!! Already said this isn't true. I just made a passing comment. I haven't provided any evidence.