UK candidates should sit for exams if they intend to apply for jobs in North America

[Anonymouse]

The reason I bring this up is that we annually receive several dozen CVs from the UK and Ireland that list university credit. University credit is a complete non-starter at my company, and those CVs that indicate exemptions are given no consideration whatsoever. I imagine that this is the norm at other companies.

I'll admit that the likelihood of securing a position is remote unless you're a truly standout candidate, but there is absolutely no chance if you haven't sat for some sort of actuarial exam (Institute or otherwise).

[UKstudent]

Is there a reason for this policy at your company?

There is simply no reason why any student in the UK would take an actuarial exam by the Institute when they are getting exemptions from their university for the same exam. To go further ahead with the exams than the CT exams without any experience would be similar to having say 5 or 6 exams in the US but not having any experience and I question whether you would also hire such a person.

It would sound to me like you are unfairly discriminating against students from the UK. What is the difference between a student from the UK with exemptions due to a degree and a US student with a degree that has done the first 4 exams?

[Darkness Falls]

It would sound to me like you are unfairly discriminating against student from the UK. What is the difference between a UK student with exemptions due to a degree and a US student with a degree that has done the first 4 exams?

Objective validation of knowledge. Sadly something you can trust teachers to do.

[The bums will always lose]

What is the difference between a UK student with exemptions due to a degree and a US student with a degree that has done the first 4 exams?
1. Only one of the above has demonstrated an ability to pass actuarial exams.
2. Only one of the above has earned credit towards a U.S. designation, which of course is important in the U.S.

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

It would sound to me like you are unfairly discriminating against student[s] from the UK.

Why is it unfair?

[Enough Exams Already]

Is there a reason for this policy at your company?

There is simply no reason why any student in the UK would take an actuarial exam by the Institute when they are getting exemptions from their university for the same exam. To go further ahead with the exams than the CT exams without any experience would be similar to having say 5 or 6 exams in the US but not having any experience and I question whether you would also hire such a person.

It would sound to me like you are unfairly discriminating against student from the UK. What is the difference between a UK student with exemptions due to a degree and a US student with a degree that has done the first 4 exams?

In the US, actuarial students typically work at actuarial jobs while taking exams. Hence to have passed a certain number of exams implies a certain amount of work experience and work-acquired practical skills. Job recruitment and advancement in the US similarly focus on the exams one has passed as a measure of both knowledge and work experience. UK students who have been granted exam credit for university courses wouldn't have the same work experience. And, as you point out, hiring such a person would be questionable, especially when there are US students who have work experience along with exam progress.

It's part of an ongoing debate in the actuarial communities in the US and Canada. You can find details of both sides' positions and the history behind the debate if you look for threads with the term 'FEM' in the title.

[UKstudent]

Why is it unfair?

The reason why I would say that it is unfair as a student from the UK would never have had the opportunity to do the exams where as a student from the US would have had this opportunity.

[UKstudent]

1. Only one of the above has demonstrated an ability to pass actuarial exams.
2. Only one of the above has earned credit towards a U.S. designation, which of course is important in the U.S.

On point 1 it is worth noting that actuarial exams at universities are similar to the exams that the institute sets and are also moderated by them to ensure that standards are maintained.

On point 2 the CT exams can be converted to credits in the US system due to mutual recognition agreements.

[UKstudent]

In the US, actuarial students typically work at actuarial jobs while taking exams. Hence to have passed a certain number of exams implies a certain amount of work experience and work-acquired practical skills. Job recruitment and advancement in the US similarly focus on the exams one has passed as a measure of both knowledge and work experience. UK students who have been granted exam credit for university courses wouldn't have the same work experience. And, as you point out, hiring such a person would be questionable, especially when there are US students who have work experience along with exam progress.

It's part of an ongoing debate in the actuarial communities in the US and Canada. You can find details of both sides' positions and the history behind the debate if you look for threads with the term 'FEM' in the title.

I took the initial post to be relating to graduates who were coming out of university with no work experience and the only difference being exemptions verses exam passes and my comments were designed to reflect this.

I agree that a student with work experience and exam passes is more valuable than one with just exam passes or exemptions. Getting students to do some work experience is a valuable thing at university and something that North America does a lot better than the UK.

[Gandalf]

The reason why I would say that it is unfair as a student from the UK would never have had the opportunity to do the exams where as a student from the US would have had this opportunity.
Pencil and Paper Exams are given in Croydon. The SOA website isn't easy to search, but special exam centers can be arranged. In Nov 2008, the only list of special centers I found, one exam was given in Belfast and another in Birmingham.

There are 8 cities in the UK where Exam P is given by CBT. I didn't check, but most of those probably offer the other CBT exams.

Most students from the UK may have little reason to take SOA exams, but they have the opportunity.

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

On point 1 it is worth noting that actuarial exams at universities are similar to the exams that the institute [sic] sets and are also moderated by them to ensure that standards are maintained.

On point 2 the CT exams can be converted to credits in the US system due to mutual recognition agreements.

On point 1, perhaps that speaks poorly of the Institute's exams.

On point 2, I wouldn't bet money on that if I were you.

[Noddy]

On point 1, perhaps that speaks poorly of the Institute's exams.

On point 2, I wouldn't bet money on that if I were you.

http://www.soa.org/education/general-info/credit-exams-passed/edu-waiver-rules-for-faculty.aspx

[UKstudent]

On point 1, perhaps that speaks poorly of the Institute's exams.

On point 2, I wouldn't bet money on that if I were you.

On point 1

I would not see why this would suggest that the Institute's exams are of poor quality. There is actually no evidence presented here that either UK universities or the Institute exams are in any way substandard.

Do you have any evidence of this?

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

On point 1

I would not see why this would suggest that the Institute's exams are of poor quality. There is actually no evidence presented here that either UK universities or the Institue [sic] exams are in any way substandard.

Do you have any evidence of this?

If your actuarial work is as accurate as your drafting and editing, ...

[campbell]

http://www.soa.org/education/general-info/credit-exams-passed/edu-waiver-rules-for-faculty.aspx

Eeeenteresting. I don't recall seeing that there before.

I had emailed them about Institute/Faculty credits from college being given waivers against what is explicitly written in the SOA bylaws.

I guess I'm going to have to write them again.

[JohnLocke]

In the US, actuarial students typically work at actuarial jobs while taking exams. Hence to have passed a certain number of exams implies a certain amount of work experience and work-acquired practical skills. Job recruitment and advancement in the US similarly focus on the exams one has passed as a measure of both knowledge and work experience. UK students who have been granted exam credit for university courses wouldn't have the same work experience. And, as you point out, hiring such a person would be questionable, especially when there are US students who have work experience along with exam progress.

It's part of an ongoing debate in the actuarial communities in the US and Canada. You can find details of both sides' positions and the history behind the debate if you look for threads with the term 'FEM' in the title.

Using exams passed as a proxy for experience is silly. Just ask for how much they worked.

[campbell]

Using exams passed as a proxy for experience is silly. Just ask for how much they worked.

Odd that people have trouble reading a resume.

[Lucy]

Is there a reason for this policy at your company?

There is simply no reason why any student in the UK would take an actuarial exam by the Institute when they are getting exemptions from their university for the same exam. To go further ahead with the exams than the CT exams without any experience would be similar to having say 5 or 6 exams in the US but not having any experience and I question whether you would also hire such a person.

It would sound to me like you are unfairly discriminating against student from the UK. What is the difference between a UK student with exemptions due to a degree and a US student with a degree that has done the first 4 exams?One reason to do so might be if you wanted to work in the US.

The US has an enormous variety of universities, each of which is independently run and each of which has courses and exams which are impossible to compare directly to each other. US employers have a high degree of trust in the uniform and anonymous testing the SoA and CAS provide. They do not have a similar level of trust in grades from any university, US, UK, or otherwise. As a result, few US employers would be satisfied with UK exemptions. You might be able to make a case for yourself, but it would be an uphill battle.

[campbell]

Eeeenteresting. I don't recall seeing that there before.

I had emailed them about Institute/Faculty credits from college being given waivers against what is explicitly written in the SOA bylaws.

I guess I'm going to have to write them again.

Email sent. I found my prior one and just Replied to All on it.

Oh, looks like education staff are Out of Office.

The SOA office will be closed throug Monday, September 6. We will not have access to email and will respond to you on Tuesday, September 7.

Education Staff

Um. That's quite the holiday. [yeah, I know. They just didn't change their Labor Day message.]

[Enough Exams Already]

Using exams passed as a proxy for experience is silly. Just ask for how much they worked.

I agree, it is silly. And yet....

[UKstudent]

One reason to do so might be if you wanted to work in the US.

The US has an enormous variety of universities, each of which is independently run and each of which has courses and exams which are impossible to compare directly to each other. US employers have a high degree of trust in the uniform and anonymous testing the SoA and CAS provide. They do not have a similar level of trust in grades from any university, US, UK, or otherwise. As a result, few US employers would be satisfied with UK exemptions. You might be able to make a case for yourself, but it would be an uphill battle.

I agree that that there might be varying standards at some universities in the US but the key thing here is that the Institute ensure that they only give exemptions where candidates have reached the required standard and this is well above just passing the exams.

Given that the SOA and CAS are happy to allow candidates to transfer under the waiver rules who have gained exemptions through UK accredited university programs it would suggest that the SOA and CAS are happy with the standard required to gain exemptions.

I am assuming that employers are interested in getting the best candidates for the job. It is therefore in there interests to have an unbiased view on how exemptions work and the standards involved before making a decision to reject a candidate based on a narrow criteria.

[campbell]

The best candidate for a U.S. job may be one more familiar with the U.S. market and regulations. There are lots of barriers in this biz in the U.S., and the exams are just a part of that.

If you're so low down on the experience ladder that familiarity with products, behaviors, and specific regs is not important, that pretty much means you're in competition with all the pre-ASAs [if on life/pensions/health side], and we do not lack for candidates there.

You can see plenty of threads in the Careers section of those in the entry-level/low experience bucket having a hard time finding jobs. You are naive if you think HR depts or actuarial hiring managers will not use "narrow" criteria to shave down that pile of resumes to something more manageable.

It's hard to tell at this late date, but I may have run into a similar problem, in that I didn't put my undergrad GPA on my resume when I applied for my first actuarial job. Silly me, I had been out of undergrad for 6 years at that point and thought it was irrelevant given what I had done since then .... but exams and GPA are some of those easy, "narrow" criteria employers use. Sometimes they make the assumption that if your GPA wasn't listed, it must have been bad.

So if you'd like to just argue the theory, fine. But many people here are talking about the reality of what employers actually use as some of the qualifying/disqualifying criteria just to do the first sorts through applicants.

[Lucy]

I agree that that there might be varying standards at some universities in the US but the key thing here is that the Institute ensure that they only give exemptions where candidates have reached the required standard and this is well above just passing the exams.

Given that the SOA and CAS are happy to allow candidates to transfer under the waiver rules who have gained exemptions through UK accredited university programs it would suggest that the SOA and CAS are happy with the standard required to gain exemptions.

I am assuming that employers are interested in getting the best candidates for the job. It is therefore in there interests to have an unbiased view on how exemptions work and the standards involved before making a decision to reject a candidate based on a narrow criteria.While it is the official policy of the CAS and the SoA to accept Institute-approved exemptions, let's just say that that policy is not popular with most US actuaries, including many in hiring positions. This is partly because there is some pressure to start doing something similar in the US, for CAS and SoA exams, and that is wildly unpopular with US-based actuaries, who have no faith in the societies to be able to do that in a way that is comparable to the current exam process. That's rignt, many US actuaries do not trust the societies to appropriately apply standards to exam exemptions, here or abroad.

So to some extent, UK students are just caught up in a larger (in the US) issue. And to some extent, "foreign" credentials of any sort are typically devalued somewhat, because hiring managers don't know for sure what they mean, so they apply what you might think of as an uncertainty discount. This will affect anyone who moves from one market to another, in almost any field. It's tought luck if you want to move, but quite understandable from a hiring manager's perspective.

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

I agree that that there might be varying standards at some universities in the US but the key thing here is that the Institute ensure that they only give exemptions where candidates have reached the required standard and this is well above just passing the exams.

Given that the SOA and CAS are happy to allow candidates to transfer under the waiver rules who have gained exemptions through UK accredited university programs it would suggest that the SOA and CAS are happy with the standard required to gain exemptions.

I am assuming that employers are interested in getting the best candidates for the job. It is therefore in there interests to have an unbiased view on how exemptions work and the standards involved before making a decision to reject a candidate based on a narrow criteria.

I won't even bother to fix your numerous subject-verb agreement problems.

About that "happy to allow candidates" nonsense, we are more likely to drop mutual recognition than allow exemptions. In fact, dropping mutual recognition is probably a good idea anyway.

If you want in, take the exams.

Oh, and please do something about your appalling grammar and careless spelling.

[Enough Exams Already]

I agree that that there might be varying standards at some universities in the US but the key thing here is that the Institute ensure that they only give exemptions where candidates have reached the required standard and this is well above just passing the exams.

Given that the SOA and CAS are happy to allow candidates to transfer under the waiver rules who have gained exemptions through UK accredited university programs it would suggest that the SOA and CAS are happy with the standard required to gain exemptions.

I am assuming that employers are interested in getting the best candidates for the job. It is therefore in there interests to have an unbiased view on how exemptions work and the standards involved before making a decision to reject a candidate based on a narrow criteria.

Then, as the standard counterargument goes, if your students are so well prepared, passing the exams should be a piece of cake. Take the exams, pass it, and everyone will be happy.

[campbell]

Hey, I had a graduate degree in math and had been teaching probability and calculus for 10 years.

And I still had to take Course 1 [old calc & probability exam]. Barely studied for it. Got a 10.

As EEA says, just take the exams. It's only a few hours out of your life, if you already know the material.

[Noddy]

Hey, I had a graduate degree in math and had been teaching probability and calculus for 10 years.

And I still had to take Course 1 [old calc & probability exam]. Barely studied for it. Got a 10.

As EEA says, just take the exams. It's only a few hours out of your life, if you already know the material.

This smells like a trap

[Noddy]

Some of you will no doubt find this British authored report interesting

Discussion
5.45 At present it would be fair to say that, given equivalent work experience, an actuary
who has just passed the CAS examinations will have far greater knowledge of general
insurance theory, and in particular pricing, than one who has just qualified with the
Faculty or Institute. This lack of knowledge may be compensated for by personal
study and relevant work experience (especially considering that the feedback
suggested that a good working knowledge of products and markets is very much
valued by our stakeholders). However, there is anecdotal evidence, particularly in the
London Market, that some companies now prefer to recruit general insurance actuaries
with the CAS qualification.

[limabeanactuary]

This smells like a trap

Hush you.

I'm completely trustworthy in my advice. :D

[UKstudent]

Some of you will no doubt find this British authored report interesting

[/B]

This is why the UK split out the old ST3 general insurance exam into two parts, ST7 and ST8.

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

This is why the UK split out the old ST3 general insurance exam into two parts, ST7 and ST8.

Ok. Here's a question for you:

We are a multi-line writer and our loss adjustment expense (LAE) averages 20% of the claim amount. I'm reserving the 1998 accident year, is it reasonable for me use 20% of my outstanding loss reserve amount as my LAE reserve for that year? Why or why not?

[UKstudent]

Ok. Here's a question for you:

We are a multi-line writer and our loss adjustment expense (LAE) averages 20% of the claim amount. I'm reserving the 1998 accident year, is it reasonable for me use 20% of my outstanding loss reserve amount as my LAE reserve for that year? Why or why not?


This thread is not about my ability to answer exam questions.

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

This thread is not about my ability to answer exam questions.

You really don't get it, do you?

That is precisely what this thread is about.

[UKstudent]

You really don't get it, do you?

That is precisely what this thread is about.

Not really.

The tread is about whether individuals who have exemptions from UK universities should sit exams under the US system that they have already covered under the US system.

The initial post was saying that his company refused to even consider these cases. I queried why as basically it has been shown such a candidate could use the mutual recogonition agreements that are in place to convert over to the US exams and avoid the need to repeat exams. I say that discriminating against these people solely on these grounds is unfair and potentially depriving an employer of a good employee.

I appreciate that others might have a different view.

Colymbosathon ecplecticos at no point during this discussion have I ever suggested that I am in this position. For some reason you seem to have assumed that I am. I am a fellow with 7 years life insurance experience and have been involved with recruitment at my own company.

I am growing tired of your personal attacks on this tread. There is no reason for these. It is just showing your lack of professionalism and it lowers the quality of discussion.

[tommie frazier]

UKS-in terms of depriving the company of a potentially good employee, it depends on what the alternative choices are. in a terrible economy, we are awash in applicants anyway so no need to try the out of the ordinary candidate. another strike is that some companies/hiring managers use the exams passed as a signal (rightly or not) that someone has the ability to pass future exams. someone who has gotten credit via exemption lacks that signal and has more to overcome.

would someone who appeared to be an exceptional candidate have a decent chance? of course. but that person would need to get through the HR screen and dazzle in the interview. such candidates are rare in general, so the chances that one happens to be coming from the UK and holding exam credit via University are smaller still. for all others, to level the playing field, taking the exams would be advised.

in more happy economic times when jobs are plentiful and candidates are scarce, it likely would change some.

one last thing is this-companies often worry about hiring someone from out of town anyway. the person may not like the new city, and look to leave. for someone from another country that has a thriving insurance industry (like the UK), that will also work against the candidate.

[Oriental]

Not really.

The tread is about whether individuals who have exemptions from UK universities should sit exams under the US system that they have already covered under the US system.

The initial post was saying that his company refused to even consider these cases. I queried why as basically it has been shown such a candidate could use the mutual recogonition agreements that are in place to convert over to the US exams and avoid the need to repeat exams. I say that discriminating against these people solely on these grounds is unfair and potentially depriving an employer of a good employee.



I suspect this discrimination is more prevalent in the UK.

In my own case, I'm a life actuary with ASA from USA by passing exams, and when I apply to UK employers they don't even equate me with a local novice who's completed a 9 month diploma in Actuarial Science and has exemption credit for CT 1-8!

I thought you'd be aware of this since you're involved in recruitment in your company.

[Enough Exams Already]

Not really.

The tread is about whether individuals who have exemptions from UK universities should sit exams under the US system that they have already covered under the US system.

The initial post was saying that his company refused to even consider these cases. I queried why as basically it has been shown such a candidate could use the mutual recogonition agreements that are in place to convert over to the US exams and avoid the need to repeat exams. I say that discriminating against these people solely on these grounds is unfair and potentially depriving an employer of a good employee.

I appreciate that others might have a different view.

Colymbosathon ecplecticos at no point during this discussion have I ever suggested that I am in this position. For some reason you seem to have assumed that I am. I am a fellow with 7 years life insurance experience and have been involved with recruitment at my own company.

I am growing tired of your personal attacks on this tread. There is no reason for these. It is just showing your lack of professionalism and it lowers the quality of discussion.

UK physicians, even those with long experience in practice, still have to pass USMLE Step 3 and do a US residency to practice medicine here.

Barristers and solicitors from the UK who want to practice law in the US still need to pass the Bar Exam.

UK accountants who want to work as CPAs in the US still have to pass the CPA exams.

But actuaries should be special?

Employers in this profession, as well as those listed above, care about whether a candidate is worth the expense and trouble of hiring him/her, as compared to the cost of hiring local/domestic candidates with similar credentials whose validity won't be questioned. What you're calling discrimination is actually economics. We can get US-qualified people for cheaper, so we're not going to waste time, money and effort looking at people who aren't. If you don't like that, get a helmet. You don't have to work in the US.

[Noddy]

UK physicians, even those with long experience in practice, still have to pass USMLE Step 3 and do a US residency to practice medicine here.

Barristers and solicitors from the UK who want to practice law in the US still need to pass the Bar Exam.

UK accountants who want to work as CPAs in the US still have to pass the CPA exams.

But actuaries should be special?

Employers in this profession, as well as those listed above, care about whether a candidate is worth the expense and trouble of hiring him/her, as compared to the cost of hiring local/domestic candidates with similar credentials whose validity won't be questioned. What you're calling discrimination is actually economics. We can get US-qualified people for cheaper, so we're not going to waste time, money and effort looking at people who aren't. If you don't like that, get a helmet. You don't have to work in the US.

iatp

I know of someone who's attempted exam 2/FM several times and is now in the UK getting CT 1 through 8 via a university course.

So she'll return in about 9 months with exemptions from all of the prelims (and VEE). ?

Sweet.

I also met someone who I wrote an MFE with who got 4/C via CT6 and highly recommended me taking this route. I ran it past an FCAS who worked in london who said that if I can do this then he would recommend I do so.

Waiver Rules For Faculty and Institute Exams
http://www.soa.org/education/general-info/credit-exams-passed/edu-waiver-rules-for-faculty.aspx

Waiver Policy for Examinations
http://www.casact.org/admissions/index.cfm?fa=waiver

I've passed 1/P and 2/FM but have failed 3FE/MFE three times (the first time I wrote it I got a four). I know the material quite well. :violindude: But have recently decided I'm now all in for the UK designation, although, I'm going to have do it the old fashioned way; by taking the exams (ie. not course credit).

The exam format appears to be more suited to gauging the level of understanding of the material; part marks are given. If these prove just as hard (I’ll eat my hat) I may have to see if I can try underwriting or go back to engineering.

luckily
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/students/pages/casualty-actuarial-society-students

Also FYI and remembering CT8 = MFE/3FE
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/research-and-resources/documents/subject-ct8-financial-economics-core-technical-exam-paper-april-201

about 20 question in 3 hours with part marks given

that’s about 9 minutes per question ( ~50% more time by my reckoning ) - did I mention part marks are given?

I’d rather stick with the US system (because of the cred) but, as I occasionally sing to my children,
♪♫You can’t always get what you want♪

so anyhoo, loads of anecdotal evidence, I'm about to find out for myself whether or not I’ll be eating my hat.

[UKstudent]

I suspect this discrimination is more prevalent in the UK.

In my own case, I'm a life actuary with ASA from USA by passing exams, and when I apply to UK employers they don't even equate me with a local novice who's completed a 9 month diploma in Actuarial Science and has exemption credit for CT 1-8!

I thought you'd be aware of this since you're involved in recruitment in your company.

The associate qualification is not very common in the UK and most employers push for full fellows for their "Actuary" jobs. This attitude is slowly changing but if you are a career ASA then this can cause problems.

This is the first that I have heard of equating ASA in the same league as a graduate with exemptions. At my work we did recruit an ASA a few years ago so not all employers are like this.

[Oriental]

The associate qualification is not very common in the UK and most employers push for full fellows for their "Actuary" jobs. This attitude is slowly changing but if you are a career ASA then this can cause problems.

This is the first that I have heard of equating ASA in the same league as a graduate with exemptions. At my work we did recruit an ASA a few years ago so not all employers are like this.

Yes I konw and I'm not gunning for a fully qualified job, as a Fellow is known in the UK. I've been talking to a number of companies for senior student role and they don't appear to value ASA much in their scheme of actuarial credentials.

Unfortunate, since we are a small profession worldwide and should have more cooperation and recognitoin among the major professional bodies like SOA & IOA then trying to look down upon each other and make the profession less international.

[FSAPlusFCAS]

By looking at the conversion rule, and ignoring APC, FAC and DMAC for SOA and Subject P0-6 for IOA, I have the following points to make:

Requirement for FSA
1. Preliminary Exams + VEE subjects
2. FAP
3. FETE
4. AFE or APMV
5. Three FSA modules

Requirement for FIA
1. CT 1 to 8
2. CA 1 and 2
3. CA 3
4. Two ST papers
5. One SA paper

Comparison
1. Item 1 of FSA and item 1 of FIA are fairly comparable.
2. Item 2 of FSA and item 2 of FIA are fairly comparable.
3. Item 3 of FIA is not covered by SOA. One point to IOA.
4. Item 3 of FSA and item 4 of FIA are fairly comparable.
5. Item 4 of FSA is not comparable to item 5 of FIA, since to get conversion 1 ST and 1 SA paper are required. One point to SOA.
6. Item 5 of FSA is not covered by IOA. One point to SOA.

Conclusion: 2 points for SOA, 1 point for IOA. This suggest that in terms of exam quality, SOA > IOA

:party:

Appendix
1. The material covered by DP and CSP (12 hours exam in total) = material covered by 2 ST exams and 1 SA exam (3x4 = 12 hours exam in total). Fair.
2. Note that the discussion has already excluded FAC and DMAC by SOA, which potentially cover up CA 3, though not totally equivalent.
3. Note that to obtain CERA designation, one only need to pass ST 9 (and those small exams) by IOA compared to the AFE + FSA module (and those small exams) by SOA. Are they saying that CT9 = AFE + Op Risk Module? AFE candidate, please respond!
4. This does not consider the fact that IOA candidates can get exemption from university. Even ST papers can be exempted. When has a professional level become on par with university level?
5. If anyone wants more comparisons, try FCAS vs. FIA version. That would be even more interesting.

Reference:
http://www.soa.org/education/general-info/credit-exams-passed/edu-waiver-rules-for-faculty.aspx

http://www.actuaries.org.uk/students/pages/syllabus-exams

http://www.soa.org/education/exam-req/edu-fsa-req.aspx

[sohpmalvin]

small exams)Are they saying that CT9 = AFE + Op Risk Module?

I think you are referring to ST 9.

http://www.actuaries.org.uk/news/articles/new-chartered-enterprise-risk-actuary-cera-qualification

[campbell]

Wait, Anonymouse is gone? When did that happen?

[Enough Exams Already]

It was announced in the same memo that described the change in the cover sheets to the TPS reports. Did you not get that memo? Yeah...so I'll just go ahead and send you another copy of that memo, 'k? :joe:

[campbell]

It was announced in the same memo that described the change in the cover sheets to the TPS reports. Did you not get that memo? Yeah...so I'll just go ahead and send you another copy of that memo, 'k? :joe:

I'll add it to the pile.

Damn, I need to clean out my cube.

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

Not really.

The tread is about whether individuals who have exemptions from UK universities should sit exams under the US system that they have already covered under the US system.

Because we don't allow any exemptions in the US system.

The initial post was saying that his company refused to even consider these cases. I queried why as basically it has been shown such a candidate could use the mutual recogonition agreements that are in place to convert over to the US exams and avoid the need to repeat exams.

It was never intended that exemptions for individual exams would be given. Mutual recognition (if we are to have it at all) should be at the fully-quallified level only.

I say that discriminating against these people solely on these grounds is unfair and potentially depriving an employer of a good employee.

There is nothing unfair about it. US insurance laws refer to "unfair discrimination".

Colymbosathon ecplecticos at no point during this discussion have I ever suggested that I am in this position. For some reason you seem to have assumed that I am. I am a fellow with 7 years life insurance experience and have been involved with recruitment at my own company.

My appologies. I do not know who you are. I made the (reasonable in my view) assumption that "UKstudent" would be a UK student.

I am growing tired of your personal attacks on this tread. There is no reason for these. It is just showing your lack of professionalism and [sic] it lowers the quality of discussion.

My comments are not intended as personal attacks. Indeed, I don't even know who you are; it is very unlikely that I actually know you.

You do make an exceptionally large number of grammatical mistakes, the existence of which, I feel, calls into question the efficacy of the UK education system.

[GargoyleWaiting]

Mutual recognition should be at the fully-quallified level only.




I find it strange that people would switch country half way through the exams, if you want to be an actuarial student in the US then start off doing US exams. If you want to do it in the UK then start off with UK exams.

While there may be good reasons that people have to move country, I don't see why there should be an expectation of detailed mutual recognition of exams - you gets what you're given.

For fully qualified, certainly in my experience of US actuaries over in the UK, just being "an actuary" is sufficient for them to do the job so there's no real need to switch over to FIA/FFA. Maybe if they need to take on a regulated role they have to, but there's plenty other stuff they need to demonstrate before that happens anyway.

I don't know how things'd work the other way round though.

[othmar]

The tread is about whether individuals who have exemptions from UK universities should sit exams under the US system that they have already covered under the US system.

Is there something that prevents a student who gets a university exemption from sitting from an IOA exam? It sounds like the concern isn't that the student went through the UK system, it's rather that the student got credit through university work.

there is absolutely no chance if you haven't sat for some sort of actuarial exam (Institute or otherwise).

[othmar]

Yeah, it would seem that the issue is the university credit. From a post about the Canadian university exemption route in the careers forum:

An employer will look at somebody who has taken exam credit instead of exams and wonder whether they lack either the ambition or the mental capacity necessary to pass an exam. Certainly this candidate hasn't gone out of their way to demonstrate that they possess ambition and mental capacity. Given that the Canadian employment market is so competitive and that the exam credit effectively pins a student to the Canadian market (the FCIA designation requires three years of Canadian work experience) I would seriously question the judgement of somebody who had exam credit and chose to not sit for the Society exams.

Goes on to liken university credit to an STD.

[campbell]

I don't think that we are =yet= questioning the quality of the official Institute exams. It's just getting credit for college classes for real exams.

College classes/education aren't necessarily a good indication that one has the chops, at least from the U.S. perspective in general.

[actuary_aspire]

By looking at the conversion rule, and ignoring APC, FAC and DMAC for SOA and Subject P0-6 for IOA, I have the following points to make:

Requirement for FSA
1. Preliminary Exams + VEE subjects
2. FAP
3. FETE
4. AFE or APMV
5. Three FSA modules

Requirement for FIA
1. CT 1 to 8
2. CA 1 and 2
3. CA 3
4. Two ST papers
5. One SA paper

Comparison
1. Item 1 of FSA and item 1 of FIA are fairly comparable.
2. Item 2 of FSA and item 2 of FIA are fairly comparable.
3. Item 3 of FIA is not covered by SOA. One point to IOA.
4. Item 3 of FSA and item 4 of FIA are fairly comparable.
5. Item 4 of FSA is not comparable to item 5 of FIA, since to get conversion 1 ST and 1 SA paper are required. One point to SOA.
6. Item 5 of FSA is not covered by IOA. One point to SOA.

Conclusion: 2 points for SOA, 1 point for IOA. This suggest that in terms of exam quality, SOA > IOA

:party:

Appendix
1. The material covered by DP and CSP (12 hours exam in total) = material covered by 2 ST exams and 1 SA exam (3x4 = 12 hours exam in total). Fair.
2. Note that the discussion has already excluded FAC and DMAC by SOA, which potentially cover up CA 3, though not totally equivalent.
3. Note that to obtain CERA designation, one only need to pass ST 9 (and those small exams) by IOA compared to the AFE + FSA module (and those small exams) by SOA. Are they saying that CT9 = AFE + Op Risk Module? AFE candidate, please respond!
4. This does not consider the fact that IOA candidates can get exemption from university. Even ST papers can be exempted. When has a professional level become on par with university level?
5. If anyone wants more comparisons, try FCAS vs. FIA version. That would be even more interesting.

Reference:
http://www.soa.org/education/general-info/credit-exams-passed/edu-waiver-rules-for-faculty.aspx

http://www.actuaries.org.uk/students/pages/syllabus-exams

http://www.soa.org/education/exam-req/edu-fsa-req.aspx

Exemption for an upper level exam?So, a student who performs well in his college courses has a shot at becoming a Fellow by the time he graduates?:confused:. The system should be the same for everyone.Take exams. No college credit. Easier said than done I suppose.

[Solitude]

I took the initial post to be relating to graduates who were coming out of university with no work experience and the only difference being exemptions verses exam passes and my comments were designed to reflect this.

I agree that a student with work experience and exam passes is more valuable than one with just exam passes or exemptions. Getting students to do some work experience is a valuable thing at university and something that North America does a lot better than the UK.

UK companies are hiring fewer and fewer job applicants that have recieved exemptions based on the fact that a majority of them tend to struggle passing the actual exams even after they've recieved all the exemptions they could possible have recieved from university

[Solitude]

Exemption for an upper level exam?So, a student who performs well in his college courses has a shot at becoming a Fellow by the time he graduates?:confused:. The system should be the same for everyone.Take exams. No college credit. Easier said than done I suppose.

YOu don't know what you're talking about - talking to the guy you quoted btw

[campbell]

UK companies are hiring fewer and fewer job applicants that have recieved exemptions based on the fact that a majority of them tend to struggle passing the actual exams even after they've recieved all the exemptions they could possible have recieved from university

:link:?

Has there been anything published in the UK "The Actuary" on this topic?

[Solitude]

:link:?

Has there been anything published in the UK "The Actuary" on this topic?

http://www.the-actuary.org.uk/875047

[Enough Exams Already]

UK companies are hiring fewer and fewer job applicants that have recieved exemptions based on the fact that a majority of them tend to struggle passing the actual exams even after they've recieved all the exemptions they could possible have recieved from university

Was this a study published somewhere? That would be helpful with the FEM debate here in the US.

:link:?

[Enough Exams Already]

http://www.the-actuary.org.uk/875047

Ninja'd!

[limabeanactuary]

http://www.the-actuary.org.uk/875047

for the lazy:



This is now becoming an issue. Specific attitudes to exemptions vary across the industry. However, in our view a disconnect has clearly emerged between the way exemptions are awarded and the attitude of employers towards them.

The most compelling evidence that something is amiss is the number of students who, following the completion of university-based actuarial courses, are then unable to confirm their abilities by passing exams via the traditional route. In the most extreme cases, we speak to individuals who have completed an undergraduate degree followed by back-to-back masters degrees, leaving them as ‘nearly qualified’ actuaries but with no industry experience. If they have been told this will make them attractive to employers, they’ve been misinformed.

Our concern is that, rather than being used to prepare potential actuaries for their professional lives, these courses are being used to short-circuit the training that makes the fellowship such a worthy and respected prize in the first place. We believe that a debate about exemptions in actuarial education is now overdue within the actuarial community.



I think I remember reading that back in October - showed up in a thread making the point "Even the UK guys are questioning college credentialling".

Had forgotten about it.

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

http://www.the-actuary.org.uk/875047

Very Eurocentric.

Understanding and modelling the world’s economy over the long term is something we’re just starting to get to grips with. It’s an area in which UK-trained actuaries can expect to play a central role. With the possible exception of Paul the psychic octopus of World Cup fame, their predictive skills lead the world. As a French actuary we know once said, “When things go wrong in Zurich, they call in the experts from London. When things go wrong in London, there is no one else to call”.

Another European consultant we know told us the story of meeting an insurer in Saudi Arabia. When they learned he was an actuary the client asked, ’So where is it that you are a fellow? The Institute or the Faculty?’ Now that’s international recognition.

[othmar]

Our concern is that, rather than being used to prepare potential actuaries for their professional lives, these courses are being used to short-circuit the training that makes the fellowship such a worthy and respected prize in the first place. We believe that a debate about exemptions in actuarial education is now overdue within the actuarial community.

which is funny since the process is supposedly about better training

sounds lots like vee

[limabeanactuary]

Very Eurocentric.

Well, I assume his interlocutor knew he was European -- more likely UK-credentialled than North-American-Society-credentialled.

[UKstudent]

UK companies are hiring fewer and fewer job applicants that have recieved exemptions based on the fact that a majority of them tend to struggle passing the actual exams even after they've recieved all the exemptions they could possible have recieved from university

As far as I am aware there have not been any studies to prove or disprove this.

Here is my experience

Out of all my classmates who got a full set of exemptions and went into actuarial are now all Fellows.

Out of the 6 people that my company hired in the same year as I was recruited, two had exemptions. Both of us are now Fellows. Out of the four who did not have exemptions one left actuarial after a year without passing a single exam. One left after about 3 years to another company as he was about to lose the study support. He is still studying. The other two are close to being Fellows but still studying.

Yes you are going to get some people coming out with exemptions who are not going to make it to Fellows. Similarly, you will get people who don't go through the exemption route who don't make it either. The profession has a high drop out rate. Some of this might be down to how people have studied but I suspect that more of it has to do with motivation to do the exams, ability and personal circumstances.

It is worth noting that the author of The Actuary article is not an actuary. Some of his points I agree with. One of these is on doing an actuarial science BSc and then a MSc in actuarial management which could exempt to the person from the CT, CA and ST exams. Instead students should try to get jobs after their BSc. The MSc works best where students have completed the CT exams and have several years of practical actuarial experience.

I also, as an employer, would be reluctant to recruit someone with 4 or less CT exam exemptions after doing an actuarial degree. Generally, these are the people that struggle most with the exams.

[campbell]

It is worth noting that the author of The Actuary article is not an actuary.

That may be true, but a more useful thing to ask is whether he's an employer of actuaries or actuarial students.

[UKstudent]

That may be true, but a more useful thing to ask is whether he's an employer of actuaries or actuarial students.

He is a recruitment consultant.

[Lucy]

He is a recruitment consultant.
Then I would expect him to have a very solid idea of what actuarial employers are looking for, and what credentials they trust.

[campbell]

Yeah, an individual actuary is less likely to know the generic employment requirements than an employment recruiter is going to know.

We have actuarial recruiters writing all sorts of advise articles in actuarial publications all the time. I'm not about to sneer at them not being actuaries.

[UKstudent]

Yeah, an individual actuary is less likely to know the generic employment requirements than an employment recruiter is going to know.

We have actuarial recruiters writing all sorts of advise articles in actuarial publications all the time. I'm not about to sneer at them not being actuaries.

My comment about them not being an actuary was not intended as a sneer. It was mearly to point out that he was not an actuary when some of the earlier posts seemed to assume this.

[Solitude]

My comment about them not being an actuary was not intended as a sneer. It was mearly to point out that he was not an actuary when some of the earlier posts seemed to assume this.

re-read the posts properly

[campbell]

My comment about them not being an actuary was not intended as a sneer. It was mearly to point out that he was not an actuary when some of the earlier posts seemed to assume this.

Fair enough. Tone can be difficult to read.

In any case, knowing his affiliation makes what he has to write more credible to me. I had no clue as to his affiliation, as I am not familiar with different UK-specific groups.

[ishamael]

As far as I am aware there have not been any studies to prove or disprove this.

Out of the 6 people that my company hired in the same year as I was recruited, two had exemptions. Both of us are now Fellows. Out of the four who did not have exemptions one left actuarial after a year without passing a single exam. One left after about 3 years to another company as he was about to lose the study support. He is still studying. The other two are close to being Fellows but still studying.



The reservations that some people might have with respect to those with exemptions is that if those people were to take the exams that those without exemptions have to take, will they be able to pass?

Honestly I have no clue as I don't think anyone has ever tried but I know of one appointed actuary who had full exemptions express the opinion that the actual Institute exams are way way tougher than any uni exam and he wouldn't have been able to pass if he had to sit for them.

[Ajay_Shekhar]

Bumping a dead topic, it's funny the UK students view it differently (http://www.acted.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=5641)

:popcorn:

[campbell]

Bumping a dead topic, it's funny the UK students view it differently (http://www.acted.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=5641)

:popcorn:

If you're talking about the difficulty of =exams=, then as one of the posters over there notes:

Looks like they weren't sneering at the UK exams, just the university exemptions. Maybe somebody who's attended these courses can better detail how objectively their papers were evaluated, in comparison with the IOA exams.


I have looked at UK exams, and they look fine to me re: difficulty.

The thing that I question is the comparability of college courses to passing actuarial exams. Even getting a good grade in a college course (B or better) tends to be a lot easier than passing actuarial exams, whether UK or SOA/CAS.

[Ajay_Shekhar]

If you're talking about the difficulty of =exams=, then as one of the posters over there notes:


That was me over there!

[limabeanactuary]

That was me over there!

:tup: