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

Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Life, Health & Pension

Health Actuary Jobs
Insurance & Consulting jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows

Actuarial Recruitment
Visit DW Simpson's website for more info.
www.dwsimpson.com/about

Casualty Jobs
Property & Casualty jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows


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
  #31  
Old 12-28-2018, 03:25 PM
PeppermintPatty's Avatar
PeppermintPatty PeppermintPatty is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 42,121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maphisto's Sidekick View Post
...However, it if was previously communicated that sittings during the year 2020 would be available for transition, in addition to the three in 2018/2019...I think it's not unreasonable to complain about the change, or to request an explanation. Perhaps there is a simple one (e.g. a projection that almost no one is expected to need the additional year, or some resource constraint necessitating an earlier-than-intended change)...
If they said, "we are changing our exams, but will offer these ones until 2020", I would be annoyed, too. But I'm not sure what kind of "timetable" is being discussed. If they just have a published list of exam dates extending into the future, I can't get all that excited if the last date on the list got re-purposed for the new exams.

I, too, have been affected by transitions, although I was always able to get the pieces I needed to not lose credit. Still, I could have, and I scheduled some of my exams to minimize that risk. Unless a lot of people were likely to have more than one piece they needed to complete, I think 3 sittings is okay. Four would be better. If lots of candidates would have had 2 odd halves on the day the new scheme was announced (that is, they had two pieces each of which needed a second part or it would go away) then I think at least 5 sittings would have been more appropriate.

I really don't think it's a major problem that some candidates might have to take the pieces in a different order than what they originally intended. You have to get it all in somehow.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-30-2018, 03:23 AM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 326
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppet View Post
They had four sittings (if they knew when it was first announced). I suspect some of those most impacted weren't that active and so didn't see/read some of the initial corre.
They were promised they wouldn't be disadvantaged by IFoA CEO in the 2016/17 annual report. That is one statement they can't edit and their CEO has gone silent on the matter - no apology, no remedy offered, nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-31-2018, 06:07 AM
GargoyleWaiting's Avatar
GargoyleWaiting GargoyleWaiting is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Favorite beer: the closest one
Posts: 7,404
Default

Hey, a_t, before I get involved in this, your previous thread got locked before you had a chance to respond to my request here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GargoyleWaiting View Post
I don't know where you've posted my identity, but that is some serious action you're taking. And i can't really ignore that can I?

I'm not aware of anything i ought to apologise for, I've tried asking questions, I've tried giving advice, I've (not unreasonably i think) gotten frustrated at points. So, here's a straight request for you:

- tell me what you think I ought to apologise for, or take down whatever accusation you've put up elsewhere
Care to do so now?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFActuary View Post
But the mosquitoes in New Brunswick Bay of Fundy did mess with my understanding of some limited loss functions
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the North View Post
Excel gave me #VALUE.

Edit: Nevermind, I was linking a sumif and didn't open the linked spreadsheet. It is now giving me #N/A.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-31-2018, 08:58 AM
Kalium Kalium is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 185
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by almost_there View Post
They were promised they wouldn't be disadvantaged by IFoA CEO in the 2016/17 annual report. That is one statement they can't edit and their CEO has gone silent on the matter - no apology, no remedy offered, nothing.
Any transition arrangement has to strike a balance between moving to the new system as quickly as possible and being fair to people in the existing system.

In this case everyone studying at the time the new curriculum was published seems to have had a reasonable opportunity to get credit under the new system for every exam pass they had under the old system. To me that is sufficient to meet the "wouldn't be disadvantaged" clause.

Okay, so a few people, with exactly one of CT1/CT5, and one of CT4/CT6, had to pass one or two specific exams within 3 or 4 sittings to avoid being partially re-examined on a subject. Given that it is is quite common for people to take at least two CT exams in a sitting that isn't unreasonable.

Some others, starting the exams within the last year or two, could have (knowingly) taken a risk of getting in that situation if they sat for both in either pair but passed only one. But that was their choice.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-31-2018, 10:17 AM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 326
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalium View Post
In this case everyone studying at the time the new curriculum was published seems to have had a reasonable opportunity to get credit under the new system for every exam pass they had under the old system. To me that is sufficient to meet the "wouldn't be disadvantaged" clause.
You can't sanitise this situation. The promise was clear and was not honoured.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-31-2018, 11:41 AM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 326
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalium View Post
Okay, so a few people, with exactly one of CT1/CT5, and one of CT4/CT6, had to pass one or two specific exams within 3 or 4 sittings to avoid being partially re-examined on a subject. Given that it is is quite common for people to take at least two CT exams in a sitting that isn't unreasonable.
A few people- you mean thousands?

No one should need to be tested on competencies twice.

IFoA should compensate anyone disadvantaged. Some people have sat CT exams numerous times at their own cost and time only to find their pass rendered worthless.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-31-2018, 11:54 AM
PeppermintPatty's Avatar
PeppermintPatty PeppermintPatty is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 42,121
Default

I'd like to read the original statement, but it sounds more like "hot air" than a promise, and I would expect students to take it as such.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-31-2018, 12:06 PM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 326
Blog Entries: 1
Default

"We will also be starting to roll out the new curriculum ahead of examinations in 2019, ensuring that, as we do so, no students are left in limbo or put at a disadvantage." - Derek Cribb, IFoA CEO, Annual Report 2016/17
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-31-2018, 12:16 PM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 326
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppermintPatty View Post
I'd like to read the original statement, but it sounds more like "hot air" than a promise, and I would expect students to take it as such.
oh really, so IFoA CEO's word is "hot air", so can't be trusted and relied upon then isn't that what you're suggesting

Last edited by almost_there; 12-31-2018 at 12:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-31-2018, 12:36 PM
PeppermintPatty's Avatar
PeppermintPatty PeppermintPatty is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 42,121
Default

That's not even hot air. That's not a promise at all. That's a statement that the intent of the transition is to be fair to students. And I bet that WAS their intent. Having lived through several transitions as a student, and several more as someone who had to communicate them to students, I really don't see anything wrong with that transition. Yeah, it could have had another sitting or two. But it seems fine to me.

Some of your complaints, like the one about wildly differing scores, seem valid. This one just doesn't, and weakens your credibility overall.
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 03:22 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 0.22391 seconds with 9 queries