US vs UK actuarial exams

The Indian and UK systems are similar with the same set of exams and study material. There is mutual recognition of exams with exemptions. Exams are roughly spaced one month apart. Enrolling for both gives me effectively two shots at a paper. I am sure I am flunking CA1 of Sep, so am taking a go at the Indian one next week. If I am fairly confident of the UK exams then I let the Indian ones go, like I did with CA1 last time 'round only to flunk with an FA.

Apart from 2 CTs, I have cleared all the others under the UK system, hence I thought it might not be a bad idea to apply for exemptions under the US system and appear for the 2 CTs - 1 & 3: exams FM and P. The US ones, at least these two, are easy and it doesn't require revision of more than 2 days ... so why not.

And if I am slogging so much and without too much extra effort can qualify under multiple systems I ought to give it a go. Especially when there is the possible additional benefit from mutual recognition.

 

This is complete BS. Did your friend also get 10 exmeptions before ever taking an actuarial exam?

They should. Can you imagine a US student getting VEE-like credit for all exams except 1? If a UK student actually passes the exams, then it is a different issue.

How so? CT9 is an exam? CA3? Sounds like these are present just to increase the count. Also, CT2 and CT7 are a joke compared to other CTs, just like VEEs are a joke compared to other prelims.

Exemptions are ridiculous. Surely you can see this.

 

I'm glad you understand the structural differences. I like the first two paragraphs, but I can't let the 3rd one slip.

Getting VEE credits are easy. However, I have a hard time believing that you had to put in 20 times the effort for CT2 and CT7. If you needed just 20 hours of study throughout the course of a semester, to get a B- grade or higher in a VEE approved Econ course, then you had to put in 400 hours for CT7? I hope, for your sake, that you were exaggerating here. If you take 400 hours to get through the CT7 material, did you/will you put in 800 hours for CT8 and CT5? 2000 for the STs?

I also have no idea why you've mentioned CT3 here, since VEE statistics is not equivalent to CT3 in course content.

Apparently, the same problem exists on this site as well. I do agree with everything you've said before that though.

I will agree that, overall, the same level of effort is required to become an FIA(except the GI track) and FSA. Sadly, the FCAS path is longer than the FIA general insurance track. I call for a complete ban on exemptions and exam waivers. After that, it would probably make some sense to have mutual recognition at the Fellowship level.

 

I can find a number of people who think UK exams are 'noticably' simpler than those in US.

Yes, there is more specialization in the US system. The general insurance track branches out after the prelims+VEEs, and one would need to take 5 upper level exams to gain a Fellowship credential, as opposed to just 3 in the UK GI track. The exams are administered by the CAS.

You have to pick the field by the time you're done with the prelims and VEEs.

The first statement is not necessarily true. You've forgotten all about the P&C actuaries. As for the number of exams, it depends on how you go about counting it, I suppose.

Best post in this thread.

For life, investments, pensions, and health - Assuming a UK candidate doesn't get exemptions, it is easier to get to Associateship in the US by passing prelims+VEEs+FAP, compared to passing 9 CTs and 3 CAs in the UK system. For fellowship exams, SOA track offers 2 6.5 hours exams, as opposed to 2 STs + 1 SA in the corresponding UK track. A glance at the syllabus and the sheer stamina required to sit through a 6.5 hour exam will tell you that these 2 exams are harder than 2 STs+ 1 SA. You also have 3 Fellowship modules, and a few seminars you need to attend to be granted an FSA designation.

In the end, it all evens out, IMO.

For non-life - A US candidate needs to pass 5 3 hour exams, as opposed to just 3 exams needed in the UK non-life track. It is significantly harder to obtain an FCAS compared to an FIA in the UK general insurance track. You do have 3 CAs , which are harder than the 2 CAS online modules though.

Two days to revise? The real question is: how many hours did you put in to get through the probability part of CT3, under the Indian system? There is no doubt that the questions on Exam P will be harder than the probability questions on CT3. It should also be easy to see that CT3, on the whole, is a harder exam than P, since P covers only half of the CT3 syllabus. If you want to make a fair comparison, syllabus wise, try this:

CT3+CT6 = P+C+VEE Stats.

I hope you reconsider your strategy though. Take exams from one society, and knock them out. The waivers listed on the SOA and IOA don't always make sense, and since the structuring is so different, you wouldn't really learn as much as someone who takes exams offered by just one society.

Best wishes.

 

"Rediculous" mr badass? Really?

So is it the idea of an exemption that you disagree with - i.e. that if you've already demonstrated you've reached the required level of knowledge and understanding, there's no point forcing you to waste your time taking an equivalent CT exam? For example, would you really expect someone who has a phD in stats from Oxford to sit CT3, or in economic theory to sit CT7?

Or do you just think the institute/faculty is not strict enough in determining if a university course and mark achieved by a student is sufficient to be considered equivalent to a particular CT exam?

I have some concerns on the second point, i.e. ensuring standards are maintained when deciding on what should qualify for an exemption, but not with the principle.

 

Matt, it's not the question of the exams being easy. If you don't take the university route, you'd probably start working after say 5 or 6 actuarial exams. By the time you become a fellow, you'd have already accumulated more than 5 years of work experience and moved up the ladder in your company going through each and every phase in between.

Contrast this with someone who's done back to back bachelors and masters and sitting on 13 papers without any work experience. Do you think it's actually a good idea for these people with no practical exposure to become fellows or even associates? (ok I know 3 years is a requirements, but will that do?)

 

um, will you be surprised if I say I just wrote the university exams 'without' any preparation (bar sitting in classes)? Besides, hours has very little to do with "effort".

Oh, didn't bother to look it up really. Thanks for the info.

 

I agree, but they can't! The profession requires all fellows to have a minimum of 3 years actuarial experience, working in an actuarial role!

 

You just beat me to my edit!

 

exemptions etc

I agree - maybe it should be 4 or 5 years experience before you've earned your FIA stripes.

But I suppose since no two jobs are the same, you can never really ensure consistency here - e.g. 3 years in a purely actuarial role might be alot better than 5 in a partially actuarial role

 

If a phd in stats from Oxford thinks he'll have no problem passing actuarial exams, then he should go ahead and take them. I know a number of people from top B schools who've failed actuarial exams. It is easy to underestimate the difficulty of these exams, and exemptions are an easy way out. Your school might have maintained a great standard, but you have to see the big picture here. You simply cannot monitor every school's program, how the question papers are set, how the papers are evaluated etc etc.

There are a number of things that can go wrong with the exemptions process. Objective validation is something you cannot trust every teacher to do.

 

This is true. In the US, most students have 2 or 3 exams and the VEEs completed, when they start their first actuarial job.

 

Taking classes, turning over assignments, preparing for final exams, and getting credit IS THE WHOLE POINT of VEEs and exemptions. Please factor in the number of lecture hours you listened to, to get a B- or higher grade. Or do you claim that you don't even need to attend classes to get a B- at your school?

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my previous post, but can you tell me why the Econ course at a college you went to, and an MIT Econ course, are evaluated on the same scale? Would you agree that a B- from a top school actually means something? I'm not a big fan of VEEs either, and this post should tell you why.

For actuarial exams, how exactly do you measure effort, if not by the effective number of hours you put in to understand the material?

 

Reference - http://www.acted.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1106&page=2

Lol. Who are you, and what have you done to the real Matt?

 

Good spot!

Well i'm not really being inconsistent - I don't have a problem with exemptions in principle, but the devil is in the detail. How does the profession ensure that people who get exemptions really deserve them, i.e. that they really have demonstrated they have the same (or higher) level of knowledge and understanding needed to pass a given actuarial exam?

In my opinion that's almost impossible to do - especially when people who've already graduated from uni are paying large sums to take a course specifically designed to give an exemption for an actuarial exam (or 10 exams) - the conflict of interests created is obvious, as I said in the other post.

If the profession really can ensure people who get exemptions have met the same standard, and haven't been at an advantage over the rest of us, then I don't see why anyone should have a problem. But i'm a bit sceptical as to whether they really can do that

 

I do. We were 6 in my class and 5 got VEE credits in at least two papers. No body else managed to clear another actuarial paper (IAI/SOA) in those two years... and that about sums it up. I just don't think the VEE credits earned this way can be even remotely compared with the IAI (or SOA or IOA or "fill in your body name here") exams.

If the MIT/Oxford phd's are 'that' well versed in their subject (which they probably are), passing a few basic exams shouldn't be a big deal should it? The idea is really to evaluate the lot in a fair scale. Exemptions just distort that.

Let me put it this way...studying 3 hours a day is more than 18x the effort of studying 10mins a day. Will you agree? Anyway, this is speculative and probably has no ending.

 

Even if you already know you're stuff, its not very realistic to pass more than 2-3 CT papers in one sitting, so you're asking people to spend 1.5-2 years (on the CT papers) going over stuff they have arguably already proved they understand to a high standard. I think if, for example, i'd just spent 3-4 years getting a 1st in actuarial science from a top uni, i'd find that a bit unreasonable.

I can see both sides - maybe a sensible comprimise would be to set a maximum of, say 5 exemptions, on CT papers only, and only where the student has acheived a 1st class mark from an approved list of top universities on a course covering 90% of the same material as the CT paper.

 

On the subject of exemptions, doesn't the Uni in question have to send the exam paper (for which an exemption could be granted) to an Actuary from the IOA to have it evaluated and the pass mark set? If this is indeed the case, I'd like to think that there is nothing wrong with a person being granted an exemption if they've gotten above the pass mark. I think the bigger issue is the difference in being taught in a classroom rather than having to learn by yourself (with the help of ActEd tutors of course). Working as an actuary and studying is much more difficult than having to only worry about finals and projects.

 

I don't think you can punish people because they've paid for extra lessons (although it may seem a bit unfair to the rest of us) - if you're good enough to pass, you're good enough to pass - the standard should be the same for everyone.

I assume the profession looks at the exam papers, but you'll never know if the tutors have tailored their lessons or homework etc to the exam, or hinted to students what will be in the exam, or keep similar questions from year to year etc, so looking at the paper and syllabus alone won't give the IOA the full story. (And of course, if most people don't pass, they'll soon be out of a job, so i'd expect there's a bit of a helping hand in some way.) Also, I'd be interested to know if students on these actuarial uni courses have to wait 6 months before they re-take, like the rest of us.

 

This sounds like the worst actuarial program in the world. In fact, take out actuarial from that line.

As for the MIT/Oxford phds, that's kinda what I've been saying the whole time. There are some very good alternatives offered by the SOA/CAS for VEE credits, but sadly not everyone needs to take these. College credit for VEEs, like exemptions for UK exams, are an easy way out.

 

If you think it is unfair, get in touch with me and I will help you get justice