TAN: ACAS/exam vote is a done deal

[Happy Skunk]

BTW, my sources in the CAS hierarchy tell me that the BoD is leaning toward doing this without a vote, because they know that it will fail if it's put to a vote.

My sources tell me this as well.

I don't mind becoming one class of membership if it is done correctly.

I do mind doing anything that belittles the FCAS unless it is totally necessary. "We" are toying with the idea of doing two things that will do this:
1) Giving away ACAS for "free" - I would vote against it but could stomach something that is long term.
2) Reducing exams from 9 to 8 - I would vehemnetly oppose this for many reasons.

I understand some of the reasons for 1) and none for 2), especially in light of the fact that we used to have 10 exams and pass rates have gone up significantly.

But there are rumours that, depsite the fact that both of these measures would likely be overwhelmingly voted down my the current membership, the BoD is considering implementing them (one or both) without a vote.

Makes me sick.

Why vote.

Why bother having task forces.

Unfortunately these are rumors and I must qualify my statements. If these rumors are true, I will be a very squeeky wheel in our community.

Very Squeeky Indeed! :P

[four seasons]

BTW, my sources in the CAS hierarchy tell me that the BoD is leaning toward doing this without a vote, because they know that it will fail if it's put to a vote.

My sources tell me this as well.

I don't mind becoming one class of membership if it is done correctly.

I do mind doing anything that belittles the FCAS unless it is totally necessary. "We" are toying with the idea of doing two things that will do this:
1) Giving away ACAS for "free" - I would vote against it but could stomach something that is long term.
2) Reducing exams from 9 to 8 - I would vehemnetly oppose this for many reasons.

I understand some of the reasons for 1) and none for 2), especially in light of the fact that we used to have 10 exams and pass rates have gone up significantly.

But there are rumours that, depsite the fact that both of these measures would likely be overwhelmingly voted down my the current membership, the BoD is considering implementing them (one or both) without a vote.

Makes me sick.

Why vote.

Why bother having task forces.

Unfortunately these are rumors and I must qualify my statements. If these rumors are true, I will be a very squeeky wheel in our community.

Very Squeeky Indeed! :P

Excellent post. I will be right beside you, squeeking like crazy.

Regarding the FCAS giveaway -- there is no way that the CAS could do this that I could stomach. Giving the FCAS away to those who haven't passed parts 8 and 9 is an outrage. (Yes, MR does this -- but, again, we were assured that MR would only apply if the other organization had acceptable standards -- it was NEVER intended to be used as a "slippery slope" argument for lowering the overall standards for an FCAS.)

[Howard Mahler]

I suggest you start a discussion on CASNet of the issue of a vote.

Howard Mahler

[four seasons]

I suggest you start a discussion on CASNet of the issue of a vote.

Howard Mahler

Howard --

I've got a question for you, if you don't mind. Both my sources (I've got several) and Mugambi's indicate that the BoD will attempt to implement one or both of these changes without a vote from the membership. What are you hearing? I assume that you're still fairly well tied in.

[Basso]

ARTICLE XII. - Amendments

This Constitution may be amended by an affirmative vote of 10% of the Fellows or two-thirds of the Fellows voting, whichever is greater. Notice of such proposed amendment shall be sent to each Fellow by the Vice President-Administration at least one month before the vote is taken.


Article III. - Membership

Section 1.-Classes of Members

a) Fellows
The Fellows of the Society shall be the present Fellows and those who may be duly admitted to Fellowship as hereinafter provided. ...

Article III. - Membership

Section 2.-Requirements for Admission to Membership

b) Fellowship
An Associate shall be enrolled as a Fellow of the Society following notification of successful completion of the examinations prescribed by the Borad of Directors for Fellowship, subject to any further requirements the Board may prescribe.

Proposed amendment
Article III. - Membership

Section 2.-Requirements for Admission to Membership

b) Fellowship
An Associate shall be enrolled as a Fellow of the Society following notification of successful completion of the examinations prescribed by the Borad of Directors for Fellowship, subject to any further requirements the Board may prescribe. The Board of Directors may not allow for the enrollment of an Associate as a Fellow of the Society by means other than examination without an affirmative vote of 10% of the Fellows or two-thirds of the Fellows voting, whichever is greater.

This is just a quick suggestion. The wording or the suggested wording should be improved upon. If you really believe the BoD will try to circumvent the membership's wishes, start squeaking BEFORE they make this happen. Proposing an amendment such as this is one way to start the noise.

[whisper]

2) Reducing exams from 9 to 8 - I would vehemnetly oppose this for many reasons.


I'm sorry, but I don't understand this at all.

Who cares about the NUMBER of exams someone has to pass?
Why is the NUMBER of exams more important than the QUALITY of the exams passed?

If I could construct an exam system that teaches everything the CAS deems important for an actuary to know in 5 exams and do a better job at it than the current 9 exam system, why should the fact that there are now 4 less exams matter?

What is more important - having highly skilled actuaries representing the CAS or people who can pass 9, 10, whatever exams?

[Me3]

If these rumors are true, I will be a very squeeky wheel in our community.


Excellent post. I will be right beside you, squeeking like crazy.


Is this some sort of in joke or do we need to add an exam to the syllabus that makes sure that everyone can spell "squeak"?

[Happy Skunk]

2) Reducing exams from 9 to 8 - I would vehemnetly oppose this for many reasons.


I'm sorry, but I don't understand this at all.

Who cares about the NUMBER of exams someone has to pass?
Why is the NUMBER of exams more important than the QUALITY of the exams passed?

If I could construct an exam system that teaches everything the CAS deems important for an actuary to know in 5 exams and do a better job at it than the current 9 exam system, why should the fact that there are now 4 less exams matter?

What is more important - having highly skilled actuaries representing the CAS or people who can pass 9, 10, whatever exams?

You seem to be jumping to quite a few conclusions on why I oppose lowering the number of exams.

My reasons are varied.

However, my real beef and the topic of this thread is not the virtues of 5 vs 8 vs 9 vs 1 exams (lets all become CPAs!) and the quality of such (its been discussed but feel free to start a new thread and I will respond), it is about the threat of making changes to our system without a vote when we oppose such changes.

[Happy Skunk]

If these rumors are true, I will be a very squeeky wheel in our community.


Excellent post. I will be right beside you, squeeking like crazy.


Is this some sort of in joke or do we need to add an exam to the syllabus that makes sure that everyone can spell "squeak"?

Part 10 I presume?

[Howard Mahler]

I have not been asking people recently.
You are probably more up to date than I am.

There are people in power who are of the attitude that the Board
should do whatever it thinks is best on all topics. They try their best to find an arguement that a vote by the membership is not absolutely required.
Only if they fail, will they bring items to a vote of the membership.

Most discussions are about whether they can do something without a vote of the membership, rather than whether they should do so without a vote of the membership.

Howard

I suggest you start a discussion on CASNet of the issue of a vote.

Howard Mahler

Howard --

I've got a question for you, if you don't mind. Both my sources (I've got several) and Mugambi's indicate that the BoD will attempt to implement one or both of these changes without a vote from the membership. What are you hearing? I assume that you're still fairly well tied in.