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

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.

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-02-2019, 12:00 PM
ishamael ishamael is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 294

Originally Posted by actuary_truther View Post
I'm afraid that is complete nonsense. The qualification is meant to vouch for a competency standard and fitness to practice. If not, the qualification has no value. You seem to be arguing that. Perhaps you should explain to the IFoA their qualification has no value and ask yourself why then you did it.
And this is the problem I have with the UK actuarial profession.

I have seen people who can deliver brilliant work but just can't (or can't be bothered to) pass exams.

On the flipside, I have seen FIA/FIFA whose, to put it diplomatically, only actuarial skill is passing exams.

Yes there is a correlation between passing exams and competency but neither is it absolute the way that the UK profession seems to view it, leading to an overemphasis on the exams (and I won't delve into the general UK attitude where they already "know" that UK exams are the best of all and any other countries' exams are second rate at best).

As an example on this fixation with exams, when I first moved to the UK, I had a student (~3 yrs experience) reporting to me. When the goals for the year were set, cascaded down by the head of department, I found it odd that the first item on the list, with the highest weightage was "passing exams". I pushed back on this, saying that he should be graded solely on his work product, not whether he passed a bunch of exams, noting also the somewhat random nature of exams. This was shot down by the HOD, and it was made clear to me that as a student, his first job was "to pass exams".

I find this attitude quite bewildering to say the least. Yes exams are important (unless you are of an Andrew Smith like figure who can basically thumb his nose at the IOA) and the reality of the profession is that if you are not qualified there will be some kind of ceiling if you persist in the traditional actuarial track but telling actuarial students gainfully employed in full time jobs that exams are their first priority sounds like misplaced priorities to me.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2019, 01:58 PM
actuary_truther actuary_truther is offline
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 301

Originally Posted by The_Polymath View Post
I am not sure why you guys keep arguing against his point.

There is most definitely a ceiling. Lets not start sugarcoating the situation with outlier examples.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2019, 02:01 PM
actuary_truther actuary_truther is offline
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 301

I share your problem, Ishmael. The problems all start with IFoA.
Reply With Quote

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 01:43 PM.

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 0.29084 seconds with 10 queries