I have been unable to break into the profession at all. I started studying for the exams while working in a different industry, computer software. I studied very hard, initially getting through my exams without any problem. I kept failing CT4 by 1 or 2 marks every time. Results were becoming paradoxical, I failed by a greater margin when I was better prepared! In the end I lost interest, I simply could not see where marks were being lost, I wasn't learning anything new. I even wrote C++ code on weekends to automate modelling to aid my understanding. I ended up writing a pricing library.
I am willing to concede that maybe I am not good enough, but even I feel that if people are taking exams 3 or 4 times and still failing; the institute is not providing a good enough education. I met a South African FIA on a trip to Thailand earlier this year who failed two exams, a total of 7 times. In an exasperated tone he uttered: "I'm done with exams". What good would this particular FIA be in progressing the future of this profession, if for him further study becomes a tortuous prospect. A teacher should be judged by his/her failures, not only his/her successes.
I had the ambition of introducing new technologies into the profession, i guess now I'll vanish without a trace. What I don't understand is that students with training contracts at firms always progress at lightning speed compared with independent students. I won't ask how many school leavers became FIA's.
There is an important word which gives the value behind education and cannot be watered down: Rigour. This word ensures that a skill is worth more than a piece of paper, rather it becomes celebrated. However in certain instances the institute has concentrated on skills which are out of place with what an Actuary actually does. The data science module does not deal with big data computation or genetic learning algos. Over importance is given to financial engineering which now comprises 2 modules, no mention is given of caratheodory theorem as part of the theory of measures, a key result. The qualification deals too much with theoretical foundations that it forgets the computation. This is what I wanted to learn.
When learning CT5 for instance, there was little consistency when pricing contracts. Eventually pricing boiled down to assumptions that were not explicitly stated or rules of thumb. Independent /dependant probabilities can be calculated in many different ways for example, questions leave an uncomfortable ambiguity. This is what I found uncomfortable. My software background kept me thinking about consistency. If you have read mark schemes you'll understand what i mean.The chain ladder method in CT6 is essentially linear interpolation without an intecept term! Yet I am supposed to believe that it is state of the art.
If this is why the qualification is difficult then I have failed to see its virtue. The strange thing is that the best actuaries are more into teaching than practise.
What I have also found in the UK is that one has to jump through so many hoops until he/she gets noticed. When I started work in California, just recently, the philosophy was: "Show us what you've got". This attitude is precisely why the US/Far East are hotbeds of innovation.
