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

Browse Open Actuarial Jobs

Life  Health  Casualty  Pension  Entry Level  All Jobs  Salaries


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
  #21  
Old 06-09-2019, 05:59 AM
Kalium Kalium is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Polymath View Post
... I do agree that the exam issue was discrimination. Pretty obvious it was due to Acted as well. ...
Agreed. But I am not convinced it was deliberate discrimination, rather than an unintended consequence of a pragmatic decision.

Some (30?) years ago IAI didn't offer their own exams; almost all students in India took the UK exams. Then IAI started offering their own version of just the early stage exams. At that point it was a sensible transition arrangement for IFoA (or their predecessors IoA/FoA) to give credit for the IAI exams, in order to encourage the development of the Indian exam system. (Otherwise students could have started the early Indian exams, and then got stuck with nowhere to go). And for a few years thereafter, once IAI started to offer the advanced exams as well, it might have still made sense, as existing students would have been in transition beteen the two exam systems.

But once the IAI exams had been fully established for some years that transitional arangement ought to have been closed, and replaced by some form of mutual recognition for fully qualifieds.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-09-2019, 06:13 AM
The_Polymath The_Polymath is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalium View Post
Agreed. But I am not convinced it was deliberate discrimination, rather than an unintended consequence of a pragmatic decision.

Some (30?) years ago IAI didn't offer their own exams; almost all students in India took the UK exams. Then IAI started offering their own version of just the early stage exams. At that point it was a sensible transition arrangement for IFoA (or their predecessors IoA/FoA) to give credit for the IAI exams, in order to encourage the development of the Indian exam system. (Otherwise students could have started the early Indian exams, and then got stuck with nowhere to go). And for a few years thereafter, once IAI started to offer the advanced exams as well, it might have still made sense, as existing students would have been in transition beteen the two exam systems.

But once the IAI exams had been fully established for some years that transitional arangement ought to have been closed, and replaced by some form of mutual recognition for fully qualifieds.
They let what was once a sensible transition arrangement become discrimination solely due to monetary reasons.

It was all about access to cheaper study materials for Indian students which then morphed into a discriminatory advantage via both the exams/study materials.

It was stupid really, and we really need to do better than that going forward.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:09 AM
actuary_truther actuary_truther is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 301
Default

IFoA have over 6000 Indian members, which is more than they have British members. The main reason for Indian actuaries to join IFoA as well as IAI is they double their exam opportunities. They may lose 6000 members by eliminating this discrimination.

Kalium, you say it wasn't deliberate but the Judgment notes IFoA, when notified of this discrimination several times since 2010, did nothing to stop it. They've been found to have instructed, induced, caused or aided IAI to not let British nationals join. Also the Judgment ends by saying it is continuing.

If you analyse carefully their statement to the Financial Times, they have not apologised nor promised to change anything. They just say they're concerned by the outcome of the case. That's really not good enough.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:14 AM
actuary_truther actuary_truther is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntledactuary View Post
Do anyone not think it is even mildly embarrassing that the UK IFOA has been done for racial discrimination, instructing to discriminate and are even continuing to discriminate?

The story is now also in the Financial Times which is equivalent to the Wall Street Journal.
It's terrible. These discriminatory arrangements were kept very quiet. The IAI told students they can't join because they're British but then changed their story to say oh you can do our entrance exam ACET - but the Court found this was a sham and the real policy was not to let British nationals join. It's shameful that IFoA's defence was based on such a sham when they knew full well IAI had no British members and why that was. The way they've tried to get themselves out of this complaint has made themselves look even worse. They denied having any arrangements with IAI beyond the MRA but the email evidence showed they had an understanding with IAI and that British nationals were being denied IAI membership & IFoA did nothing about it. Furthermore they tried to argue the absurdity that there was no disadvantage in getting 2 opportunities rather than 4.

People should realise the Tribunal is not exactly a level playing field in terms of both parties's resources. IFoA has plenty of money to fund endless lawyers but the Claimant has beaten them with the assistance of one very good barrister. It is an incredible achievement and not without sacrifice for the Claimant.

Last edited by actuary_truther; 06-09-2019 at 09:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:41 AM
The_Polymath The_Polymath is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,314
Default

Fair enough.

Does the claimant have the right now to claim punitive damages?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-09-2019, 12:15 PM
Cooke Cooke is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Vancouver BC
Favorite beer: Dark Matter
Posts: 4,200
Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by actuary_truther View Post
IFoA have over 6000 Indian members, which is more than they have British members. The main reason for Indian actuaries to join IFoA as well as IAI is they double their exam opportunities. They may lose 6000 members by eliminating this discrimination.
And the IAI has over 9,000 members but less than 400 Fellows. The student/Fellow imbalance was even greater a few years ago.

A lot of the discrimination in favour of Indian students was a result of the IFoA trying to help the IAI when it started its own exam system. However well-intentioned it was at the time, this has come back to haunt them.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-09-2019, 12:26 PM
Disgruntledactuary Disgruntledactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 77
Default

The court has issued a judgment. It’s not opinion but fact now. Yes ACTED are a part of it too. If you go on the Acted forum, they’ve made up profiles to try to defend the IFoA and have 24 hour surveillance on certain members posts. They’re constantly deleting and modifying entires and their managing director has been caught out trying to defend the IFOA with a fake profile.

Last edited by Disgruntledactuary; 06-09-2019 at 12:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-09-2019, 12:27 PM
Disgruntledactuary Disgruntledactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooke View Post
And the IAI has over 9,000 members but less than 400 Fellows. The student/Fellow imbalance was even greater a few years ago.

A lot of the discrimination in favour of Indian students was a result of the IFoA trying to help the IAI when it started its own exam system. However well-intentioned it was at the time, this has come back to haunt them.
It wasnít well intentioned. It was an attempt to profit from discrimination
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-09-2019, 12:32 PM
Disgruntledactuary Disgruntledactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Polymath View Post
They let what was once a sensible transition arrangement become discrimination solely due to monetary reasons.

It was all about access to cheaper study materials for Indian students which then morphed into a discriminatory advantage via both the exams/study materials.

It was stupid really, and we really need to do better than that going forward.
Itís not just the issue with the IAI. The IFOA executive have been galavanting around the world trying to globalize the profession. Itís all about money. Take a look at the CEO of this not for profit royal charterís salary. Itís increased from £200,000 to nearly £400,000 due to the fact that heís doubled student membership. This man, Mr Derek Cribb, has single handedly destroyed the reputation of the Actuarial profession globally.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:05 PM
Gormenghast Gormenghast is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntledactuary View Post
It wasnít well intentioned. It was an attempt to profit from discrimination
I recall that a bit of colonial guilt may also have been involved at the outset so the UK felt that it needed to help these national institutions (not just India) be successful. However the rules should have changed many years ago.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:18 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 0.37052 seconds with 10 queries