The Bottom Line on giving Associates the FCAS for free....

[Bog Dog]

If you're in any of these groups, you're for it:

1. students (just get the ACAS by 2009 and all you have to do is wait a few years and you get the last two exams for free -- without even having to crack a book)
2. brand new Associates who have never studied for a Fellowship exam (they say, "great, I won't have to worry about passing those last two, because it looks like I'll be getting a free-bee!!!")
3. career associates (this group basically says: "hell yeah, it's a good idea!")

If you're in any of these groups, you oppose it:

1. Fellows
2. ACAS's who have been actively pursuing Fellowship

[Bog Dog]

Fortunately, if they require a vote on it, the only ones who can vote are Fellows!

[Truth Soldier]

You're also not factoring in the 5-year gap between getting the ACAS and getting the FCAS.

[Bog Dog]

You're also not factoring in the 5-year gap between getting the ACAS and getting the FCAS.

Yes, I am. If I'm a new ACAS in 2009, then I've got two exams left. Assume the average candidate takes two sitting to pass an exam, studying 300 hours per sitting. So, do I spend 1200 hours and two years of my life -- not to mention all the stress and headaches -- to try and pass them, or do I just wait a couple of extra years and get them for free?

Easy decision.

[DW Simpson]

Regarding ACAS's getting their FCAS for free (http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=34953)

Two Issues involved in Proposal to eliminate ACAS (http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=35002)

ACAS will be scrapped. Near Associates please read (http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=31257)

Maybe I'm the only one that's getting a kick out of 4 threads saying the exact same things.

[Avi]

Regarding ACAS's getting their FCAS for free (http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=34953)

Two Issues involved in Proposal to eliminate ACAS (http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=35002)

ACAS will be scrapped. Near Associates please read (http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=31257)

Maybe I'm the only one that's getting a kick out of 4 threads saying the exact same things.

That's 3 links for the price of one :dsmile:

[Maine-iac]

Actually, I'm in group two, but I reserve judgement on the proposal. I don't see hoards of exam pursuing ACAS's suddenly deciding to sit it out for a few years so that they can be grandfathered in down the road, unless their employers start to push that route. You will have to wait several years to get the "freebie", while your exam taking contemporaries get the exam raises and promotions.

I see it as an imperfect solution to the problem of what to do with people who are either career ACAS now or would choose that route absent the CAS mucking around with the designations again. If they just eliminate ACAS, then they de-value a credential they have already granted, and that they charge bucks for equivalent to an FCAS. Not good.

The alternative proposed is to grant FCAS to a fixed pool of career ACAS after a given amount of additional experience is gained. You can't really equate the additional experience to additonal exams, so this is not particularly good either, but I'm not prepared to say its more unfair than option one.

My personal favorite would be to restore the ACAS/FCAS distinction by re-setting the exams so that you get it earlier (somewhere at the 4 or 5 level), but work with the AAA so they don't grant MAAA status at that level. (MAAA for existing ACAS who already got it at the higher level would be fine.) But that's not on the table, and probably has more drawbacks than I have briefly considered.

[MountainHawk]

I'm a soon-to-be-Associate, and I'd be against the CAS just giving the FCAS to people that are ACAS as of 2014, or whatever the date would be.

[Wigmeister General]

Maine-iac's points are pertinent, and should be seriously considered.

The real issue with the current membership is the focus on "fairness". It's been couched in so many ways, "Passing the last 2 or 3 exams makes me a breed of super human who has climbed the pinnacle of Mt. Actuarial Knowledge through skill and determination. Those who climbed 3/4 the way up are not worthy to untie my snow shoes."

Our profession, if indeed it is one, is to the public first. The best solution is to leave the process alone. The FCAS' have been tinkering with the machinery for far too long, and each time they put the whole thing back together, they noticed they left some more parts on the floor. They pull it apart, and damage it some more.

The public can't distinguish an ACAS from FCAS. It can't even distinguish a CFA or MBA or BA from ACAS or FCAS. We throw alphabet soup at the public, and tell them they need at least "ACAS", but "FCAS" is preferable, but we can't tell the public why it's preferable. That fault lies with the CAS.

Whether or not there should be one or more classes of membership should depend on what best serves the public. Ascertain the needs of the public, and the solution to this "problem" will fall out naturally.

[Marvel Mole Man]

Regarding ACAS's getting their FCAS for free (http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=34953)

Two Issues involved in Proposal to eliminate ACAS (http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=35002)

ACAS will be scrapped. Near Associates please read (http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=31257)

Maybe I'm the only one that's getting a kick out of 4 threads saying the exact same things.

The career associates, I'm sure, do not like seeing this issue raised. They were hoping to slip this on in under our noses, quietly, without any of the Fellows noticing. But the plan was foiled, when several forward-minded individuals caught on to this ruse and loudly objected. This plan is ridiculous. Giving away the FCAS for free is a disgrace. It's an abortion. An outrage. It can't happen and it won't happen.

[DW Simpson]

Most career Associates, by definition, do not care, they're busy doing their jobs, 3M.

[Marvel Mole Man]

Most career Associates, by definition, do not care, they're busy doing their jobs, 3M.

Wrong. The career Associates have been secretely convening in Amsterdam every December for the last four years, working on a plan to achieve a back-door entry into Fellowship. God only knows what other perversions they have engaged in at these clandestine gatherings.

[Wigmeister General]

Most career Associates, by definition, do not care, they're busy doing their jobs, 3M.

Wrong. The career Associates have been secretely convening in Amsterdam every December for the last four years, working on a plan to achieve a back-door entry into Fellowship. God only knows what other perversions they have engaged in at these clandestine gatherings.


We hired Pinkertons to keep our secret meetings confidential! How did you find out?!? Someone's gonna pay!

[Tobias Funke]

If you're in any of these groups, you're for it:

1. students (just get the ACAS by 2009 and all you have to do is wait a few years and you get the last two exams for free -- without even having to crack a book)
2. brand new Associates who have never studied for a Fellowship exam (they say, "great, I won't have to worry about passing those last two, because it looks like I'll be getting a free-bee!!!")
3. career associates (this group basically says: "hell yeah, it's a good idea!")


You forgot:

4. Persons in charge of updating salary surveys who would like to have fewer darn boxes to populate (No more need for the "8 exams" line and the "ACAS" and "FCAS" would be merged into 1). This would reduce Clawed's task by almost 20%... ;)

[mathseal]

LVB wrote

Whether or not there should be one or more classes of membership should depend on what best serves the public. Ascertain the needs of the public, and the solution to this "problem" will fall out naturally.

You're I think the only other voice I heard saying that.
I tried to reason this through from first principles a few weeks ago. ("Public can't quantify actuarial skills, but knows good skills add value - and looks to us to certify").

Our livelihood is not served by arbitrary decisions, it's by providing the public a measure they find useful of our value relative to non-actuaries.

If we certify poorly (MR, watering down exams, giving too easy an ACAS or SOA path) we lose value.

If we certify too stringently (making the exams harder) or uselessly (Know your quark theory! Study that phone book!) qualified individuals will give up "signaling". And the public will quickly turn to the abundant supply of non-certified labor (CFA's, CAS students, etc) who can do the job just as well.