Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > General Actuarial
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Upload your resume securely at https://www.dwsimpson.com
to be contacted when our jobs meet your skills and objectives.


General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-27-2018, 02:15 AM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 326
Blog Entries: 1
Default IFoA criticised for curriculum changes

The IFoA are being criticised by many who will lose out from their curriculum changes, which are implemented in 2019, where they've merged some CT exams. This means some without both the CT exams passed needed for an exemption in the new system will not only have had an exam pass rendered worthless but must now sit a new double exam and buy new study materials etc. This clearly increases qualification times and it is thought to affect thousands of students. The anger comes from the fact that in the IFoA 2016/17 annual report the IFoA CEO promised no one would be disadvantaged from this change; similar assurances were made on IFoA website. There's also criticism for their new work experience logging system PPD, where IFoA are essentially voiding people's work experience pre Sept 2017 by Sept 2020, as only that recorded via PPD will count towards the qualification. None of these matters and complaints can be seen discussed in IFoA Council minutes or the IFoA / FRC minutes. I've never seen relations so bad between IFoA and it's members.

Last edited by almost_there; 12-27-2018 at 06:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-27-2018, 08:30 AM
ishamael ishamael is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by almost_there View Post
The IFoA are being criticised by many who will lose out from their curriculum changes, which are implemented in 2019, where they've merged some CT exams. This means some without both the CT exams passed needed for an exemption in the new system will not only have had an exam pass rendered worthless but must now sit a new double exam and buy new study materials etc. This clearly increases qualification times and it is thought to affect thousands of students. The anger comes from the fact that in the IFoA 2016/17 annual report the IFoA CEO promised no one would be disadvantaged from this change; similar assurances were made on IFoA website. There's also criticism for their new work experience logging system PPD, where IFoA are essentially voiding people's work experience pre Sept 2017 by Sept 2020, as only that recorded via PPD will count towards the qualification. None of these matters and complaints can be seen discussed in IFoA Council minutes or the IFoA / FRC minutes. I've never seen relations so bad between IFoA and it's members.
I would appreciate it if any IFOA members could weigh in on the PPD regime.

The CPD coordinator at my company characterised it as a "hostile environment" for those who have given up on exams and almost feels like the IFOA is trying to drive out those who have stopped taking exams.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-27-2018, 08:38 AM
The_Polymath The_Polymath is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,314
Default

The problem with the old WBS system is that many, many people didn't do it on a yearly basis. They waited till they finished the exams and wrote all the questions in one go. The system was widely mocked because of this.

With PPD, the system is geared towards making people update their skills at least on a yearly basis. And you are also able to do this online, which is much easier than having to go through a supervisor by answering questions (and having them review them).

I do agree that the new exam system is not fair to people that only have one of the two required CTs per exam.

On the flipside, this curriculum is much more forward-thinking than the old one as evidenced by the heavy use of R now (it was about damn time).

Overral, the new curriculum is an improvement but they need to tweak the exam issues that arise from joining two exams together.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-27-2018, 08:49 AM
PeppermintPatty's Avatar
PeppermintPatty PeppermintPatty is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 42,121
Default

Poly, could you point us to the transition rules, or summarize them?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-27-2018, 09:04 AM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 326
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ishamael View Post
I would appreciate it if any IFOA members could weigh in on the PPD regime.
For anyone who joined IFoA prior to July 2004 they weren't subject to the predecessor of PPD, which was work-based skills, but rather were subject to the 'experience requirement', which simply was to fill in a form and get it signed by a Fellow to show you had completed 3 years actuarial work experience. These people, who would typically be in their late 30s now, were wbs exempt but everyone is now brought into PPD. This is unbelievably unfair as PPD renders void experience pre-Sept 2017 by Sept 2020. There is a transition period but already only 2 years, then 1 year, of pre-Sept 2017 wbs or experience requirement is allowed, totally void at Sept 2020. This is a mean and nasty policy by IFoA that disrespects work experience of people who have persevered with the exams for 15 years yet now are being treated like they only started working in actuary like someone in their early 20s.

Quote:
The CPD coordinator at my company characterised it as a "hostile environment" for those who have given up on exams and almost feels like the IFOA is trying to drive out those who have stopped taking exams.
Indeed. People are seriously wondering what's the point remaining a member being charged 750 a year subscription, for what? To be given things to do like CPD which is not being respected by the members or employers.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-27-2018, 09:15 AM
PeppermintPatty's Avatar
PeppermintPatty PeppermintPatty is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 42,121
Default

How many years of work experience do you need? I would think you ought to have some recent relevant work experience to become newly credentialed. I think it's completely reasonable not to count work performed long ago towards that.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-27-2018, 09:19 AM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 326
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppermintPatty View Post
How many years of work experience do you need? I would think you ought to have some recent relevant work experience to become newly credentialed. I think it's completely reasonable not to count work performed long ago towards that.
Three years for Fellow. I don't see how work experience pre-Sept 2017 is void or long-ago. That's an absurd suggestion. They're quite happy to test completely out-dated concepts in their exams. Their failing is to not convert existing wbs/experience requirement into PPD credits. You may not realise that some people have been filling in their wbs for many years already and all that's now a total waste of time. The wbs system was never fair anyway to demand people keep on filling that in until they were qualified when others qualify with less wbs.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-27-2018, 09:21 AM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 326
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppermintPatty View Post
Poly, could you point us to the transition rules, or summarize them?
Why don't you look at the IFoA website instead of expecting someone to provide you with a personal summary?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-27-2018, 09:24 AM
PeppermintPatty's Avatar
PeppermintPatty PeppermintPatty is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 42,121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by almost_there View Post
Why don't you look at the IFoA website instead of expecting someone to provide you with a personal summary?
Because I'm not an IFoA member, and don't know how it's organized, and that would take me a long time. I have enough experience researching other societies' exam requirements to have a good idea just how long, too. Whereas if you asked me that about a CAS transition that affected me I could type up an answer for you in 5-10 minutes, with little effort.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-27-2018, 09:25 AM
The_Polymath The_Polymath is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,314
Default

The new 2019 curriculum is here:

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/curriculum-2019

I have been asked to help design the new structure for the study program at my current job, so have been looking at this for the last few months (coming up with a pay award for each exam is now much more challenging).

Essentially, the biggest change is in the initial core exams CT1-CT8. The other exams have not been changed so radically (other than a name change from say ST2 to SP2, and CA1 to CP1 etc..).

Before we had 8 CTs which required 100-150 study hours each. Pay awards were therefore uniform, and study days given for each exam relatively straight-forward.

Now, they have collapsed down 8 CTs to 4 core exams (similar to the US system), namely CM1, CM2, CS1, CS2.
(CM = Actuarial Concepts Mathematics, CS = Actuarial Concepts Statistics) + 3 re-branded by name only exams.

So CM1 is approximately a combination of CT1 and CT5, CM2 is CT3, CS1 is CT4 and some CT6, and CS2 is some CT6 and CT8.

Apart from those for exams, CT2 and CT7 now become CB1, and CB2. The old CT9 becomes CB3. No big changes in these last three exams.

The four main core exams (CM1, CM2, CS1, CS2) each have one written paper (3 hours) and one computer-based R exam (1h 45 mins).

Problem here is that the required study hours are not uniform now. CM1 and CS2 are 250 hours, while CM2 and CS1 are 200 hours. This subsequently impacts how much time you get off to study for each one, and the pay award for it. So thats what I have been looking at for the last few months.

Worked based skills (WBS) is now PPD. And as discussed in my previous post the changes are good ones.

The transition arrangements however could have been done better, as it does leave a not insignificant portion of people worse off.

i.e. If you have CT1 and not CT5, you don't get any credit for CM1. You have to write CM1 as if you never passed CT1. This is going to create lots of angry people. Also, when an analyst gets salary X based on passing CT1, how do you bake in his new salary increase for passing CM1? Lots of issues there that need to be resolved in a fair way. Also, as A_T mentioned, this will increase qualification times for quite a few people, which is definitely a negative.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
criticism, curriculum, exams, ifoa, transition

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.46298 seconds with 9 queries