Why aren't Actuary exams completed by University courses

One must wonder why the Actuary Profession wants to keep hold of 'some' exams and not allow Universities to set up proper Actuary degrees so that people are qualified upon completion of those degrees. That's what happens in many other more respected professions in this country.

Clearly, the highly secretive Actuary Profession wants to keep control to themselves and their secretive ways over who gets to really pass and qualify.

Were these things done by University then the whole process would have to be far more transparent.

Ask yourselves- why is transparency lacking so much? Why all the secrecy? The secret meetings that examiners have to decide pass marks and who gets to pass?

 

Firstly, what you say is not correct. For example, neither engineering nor accountancy allow progression directly to chartered status without practical training and experience.

The SA exams are intended to examine practical application, not theoretical knowledge, and are not particularly well suited to a university course, especially at masters level.

 

Do you really think this? I don't really have a problem with the profession keeping control of the standards for passing/qualifying - that's one part of the reason they exist.

You seem to be phrasing it as if it's a game rigged in some people's favour. Possibly you've had a bad experience and feel hard done by but I honestly doubt that people pass/fail on anything other than the quality of their script. There is some subjectivity to the marking process for the later exams but that is required, because answers aren't black and white.

The people who pass and the people who fail are still just faceless exam scripts. They aren't choosing a group of people they like and letting them pass. They are choosing a group of people who have met the required standard and letting them pass - this seems like a totally sensible way to approach things.

What has your experience with exams been like mpyan1? It's difficult to understand why you're so cynical about the whole process..

 

You can actually get pretty much qualified through university courses these days. There are many undergraduate courses which allow you to pass the CT exams, and there are now postgraduate courses which give you the CA and the ST subjects, so you basically only need to pass one or two exams once you start work (and complete your 3 years' work experience).

I don't imagine it will be too long before you can get through all the exams at university without ever setting foot in an office.

 

I'd wonder if this is actually a desirable system? Already I think there's a feeling amongst employers that people are coming out of university highly qualified in theory, but with next to no practical experience. They're getting paid more to learn the ropes as a result. Possibly this might see starting salaries rescaled to give more emphasis to gaining experience alongside passing exams.

I would worry about the quality of the courses sometimes given there is more opportunity for playing favourites and otherwise gaming the system when a student has access to their examiner. I know of one evening course which has a 100% pass rate for CA1 and CA3. Given the course isn't cheap it seems like they have to sell it as a guaranteed pass despite that this is far removed from the average pass rate for these exams. I think there's much more danger of inconsistent standards in university courses (despite having several exemptions myself...)

 

There is a difference between taking a university course and professional examinations in that a university offers a commitment to all its students, whatever course they are taking and even if they do not graduate, to support them in their future career. On the other hand the actuarial profession, like other professional bodies, offers no such commitment to its students, unless they qualify.

In addition some professions have their students spend part of their time at multi-faculty universities. In such cases they may prioritise their students’ interests over others at the same institution.

It is therefore entirely reasonable to approach taking professional examinations with a certain amount of caution. Some professions have significant numbers of students who do not ultimately move into careers in that profession.

 

I agree with you, but I think employers have the opportunity to limit that through salary if they want to. I know of some employers that don't pay you any extra immediately if you have exemptions, but rather give you bigger increases as you pass your remaining exams. Also, paying to put someone through exams is not cheap, and employers get to forego this expense if you have already passed some yourself.

 

Perhaps if mpyan1 spent as much time revising as bemoaning the system he might find the "secret" to passing

 

You almost got there. The employers prefer you with less qualifications so they can pay you less. They know deep down you don't need these silly exam passes to use a spreadsheet but it sure comes in handy when you don't have them to give you poorer pay.

 

Are you an Examiner? yes/no

 

Hmm so they say. You still get a big fat file to memorise things from. Expensive tutorials to teach you how to pass it. People have been marked down for explaining things which are realities in practice but not in theory.

 

Are you an examiner? Have you in fact passed these exams? Have you helped anyone else pass these exams?

In fact, have you contributed anything useful that has actually helped anyone since the day you joined this forum?

 

That's a no. But I don't think that invalidates my opinion on the matter.

My comment on people who pass meeting the standard required was just from a common sense perspective - I don't think that there's anything for the examiners to go on except for your script. While there is subjectivity in the pass/fail criteria I think that it's fairly distributed - if there is any injustice then it's applied equally but possibly some people are naturally better equipped to deal with it. Life's rarely fair, though I sense you don't need to be convinced of that.

I have to throw the question back at you - are you an Examiner ? Fair enough if you are, but otherwise I'd love to know where you're getting this kind of info.

I'm merely looking at the system from the outside and trying to see what way it makes sense for it to work. I tend to think that a conspiracy against certain individuals is not likely to be the way things work in general. I don't deny that some people could have made a few enemies/friends which upsets the balance but I would be inclined to trust in the integrity of the system. I've seen and heard nothing that would make me think otherwise.

 

To be honest if I was an employer I'd be doing exactly the same thing because expense control would be part of my responsibility. If someone can do the same job for cheaper it's tough to justify hiring someone more expensive.

If you're concerned with things such as advancement potential and future requirements then you may want to weigh up the advantages of someone with more exams. There's no guarantee that employers are looking as much to the future when there are large amounts of trainee actuaries in the market (definitely the case in Ireland, and I'd imagine in the UK also).

I do think the exams do provide you with useful background knowledge for work. Obviously the extent of this depends on your area of employment and the individual tasks you're assigned and the level of input you're expected to have on the task.

 

However it makes your opinion benefit of the doubt or blind faith only.

 

Yes and this is how they think. Although HR and Actuary hiring managers will pretend that they're not going for the cheapest for the job but of course would pay £15k more for someone to do the very same job if they had really good experience and qualifications. Hahaha! Of course they wouldn't. They'd never justify that to their superiors.

This is why salary ranges are a complete lie. Say you see an Actuarial job advertised for £35-50k. It's odds on they will hire someone for no more than £35k.

This brings another interesting thought into play - Actuary salary surveys. Hardly no one feels their salary is at the top end of the ranges. Go figure.

None of this would be such a big deal if it weren't for the fact that a better salary than normal is one of the main selling points for this profession & the main motivator for people in this career.

 

Further point to consider :-

There are many nearly or newly qualified Actuaries out there out of a job. More exams would make no difference. Indeed, people are saying they had more calls when they had less exams.

It's obvious why. They were cheaper without those exams.

Remember, nowadays HR have a huge say in who gets the job. They neither appreciate nor care about Actuary exams. However if you come £10-15k cheaper then this excites them.

 

But not fully qualify huh? They're still controlling who actually gets to be a Fellow.

 

I wonder if you are forgetting how expensive it is to put people through the professional exams? The company have to pay for study leave, tutorials, material and exam sittings and then also give the pay increases when the exams are passed. Do you really think it is preferable for a company to take on people with no exams?

 

And long may they! In university you get no experience in working in industry. Surely even you can appreciate that it would be stupid to have fully qualified actuaries who have never worked or specialised. The CTs are most commonly covered in university because they are general exams. Specialisation with STs and SA requires experience, it requires students to understand what companies do and why they do it.

No matter how good the university, some things cannot be taught!

 

Calum was referring to mpyan1 not you.