CSP - What's in a name?

[Deja vu]

I still don't understand why we haven't been given a brief description of what "Company Sponsored Perspective" is? At least we know it is an exam. I thought it might be a project or something company specific before I found out it was an exam. I know the syllabus is a long way from being ironed out, but the BOG and E&E must have signed off on this new structure with at least an "intent" or "concept statement" -- something more than just a statement that it will be an essay exam much like the current exam 8 in depth and difficulty, and independent from DP. The purpose of this exam must be more than just to create another exam of 8-like difficulty to pass just to have another hurdle, but that's kind of what it looks like to us right now.

Everybody knows that there is a transition issue regarding "what does the current exam 8 syllabus map into". Does it map 1-to-1 (more or less) into DP, CSP or a will it be a 50/50? Unless, of course, the old 8 syllabus is also deemed to be obsolete, which creates a whole different set of concerns. I know there are worries about people finessing the transition process; however, the reality is, even if the SOA stays silent, there will be a distribution of people who have passed 8 w/o PD and people who have PD w/o 8. You will either have people getting FSAs without mastering the old 8 material (PD w/o 8, if the old 8 maps mostly to DP) or people taking the old 8 again under the CSP title (8 w/o PD, if the old 8 maps mostly to CSP). Regardless, some will find themselves siting on the lucky bench. Some will find themselves on the other bench, never feeling like they were given the opportunity to play on a level playing field with those sitting on the lucky bench. That is not healthy for the Society. We are all putting a lot of our lives into this exam process. We all want a healthy Society.

Perhaps you will elaborate on this Bruce. I don't know if you are the official liaison here from the E&E or if you are the only one who volunteers and really tries to allay our concerns. The common theme these days in these groups seems to be simply seeking transparency. I certainly get the feeling that you want to say more than you probably have ... or are allowed to. I just don't get this resistance to transparency. In fact, "transparency" is so old in management circles that it has even become cliché. Why is the SOA the last holdout? Lack of transparency breeds distrust, and inflates the perceived magnitude of errors/failures. Has anybody there at the BOG and E&E read any of Jack Welsh's writings on his experiences running GE? I'm sure they have. Why the resistance?

[Farmer Mac]

...and therefore the only way to prevent the Society from becoming unhealthy in this regard is to allow people who have passed a course 8 to complete PD before the conversion to get credit for CSP (they would still have to complete the other exams and modules).

This is what many people have proposed to the Society.

[E]

I think the first group of people (other than the exam committee) to know what CSP looks like will be those that sit for it in spring 2007. . . and only on exam day will they know what is on it. LOL.

[Deja vu]

...and therefore the only way to prevent the Society from becoming unhealthy in this regard is to allow people who have passed a course 8 to complete PD before the conversion to get credit for CSP (they would still have to complete the other exams and modules).

This is what many people have proposed to the Society.

Your comment is completely off topic!
I ask for clarity = more information.
You are seeking to change the requirements.

I do not understand why the society did what they did for the Fall 8 exam. I would understand if they relaxed the PD start requirement to passing exams 1-7 for those that sat for 8 last fall instead of just anybody who sat for 8.

My comment is about transparency of information and general goodwill to improve relations. Your comment sounds almost like a threat to the Society. I have already responded to your issue with advice in your other thread.

[Smash Puny Human]

I do not understand why the society did what they did for the Fall 8 exam. I would understand if they relaxed the PD start requirement to passing exams 1-7 for those that sat for 8 last fall instead of just anybody who sat for 8.


Is this correct? Can someone who took C8 this in November 2005, that does not have credit for 1-7, has no PD from pre 2000 system, and already is an ASA complete their PD?

[E]

Is this correct? Can someone who took C8 this in November 2005, that does not have credit for 1-7, has no PD from pre 2000 system, and already is an ASA complete their PD?

As long as you can finish 1-7 by the end of '06, you can start PD (provided you did take one of the 8's in fall '05).

http://www.soa.org/ccm/content/exams-education-jobs/candidate-and-exam-information/november-2005-course-8-candidates---pd-policy/

[Smash Puny Human]

I emailed the SOA for clarification, though I think it is pretty clear from the link as well as the email that was received by folks that took C8 in November '05.

If you took the November 2005 Course 8 and do not have credit for courses 1-7, you may not start your PD until you have credit for 1-7.

At this point, the only people that should be able to file for their PD before the conversion that can't currently file, are those that need C6 and/or C7 to have 1-8, or those that need C6 and/or C7 to have 1-7, provided they took a November C8. They would need to pass the appropriate course 6/7 before filing.

[wat?]

I emailed the SOA for clarification, though I think it is pretty clear from the link as well as the email that was received by folks that took C8 in November '05.

If you took the November 2005 Course 8 and do not have credit for courses 1-7, you may not start your PD until you have credit for 1-7.

At this point, the only people that should be able to file for their PD before the conversion that can't currently file, are those that need C6 and/or C7 to have 1-8, or those that need C6 and/or C7 to have 1-7, provided they took a November C8. They would need to pass the appropriate course 6/7 before filing.

I agree with all but your second to the last sentence.

One last group that may file PD before the conversion are those that hadn't taken Course 8 in November 2005, but need that as their final requirement and pass the exam in November 2006. This gives those individuals effectively 5 1/2 months to complete 50 credits of PD.

But yes - that was my interpretation of the PD Requirement Waiver w.r.t. the Nov. 2005 Course 8. If Course 8 was the last thing you needed before you can start PD, you can waive it. Otherwise, no dice.

[E]

I emailed the SOA for clarification, though I think it is pretty clear from the link as well as the email that was received by folks that took C8 in November '05.

If you took the November 2005 Course 8 and do not have credit for courses 1-7, you may not start your PD until you have credit for 1-7.



Yeah. . . I meant to imply that you can't start until you actually have 1-7 in the win column.

[Farmer Mac]

Easy there. Take a Xanax.

Actually, my comment was in regard to your second paragraph.

About PD:
I think anyone who completes another exam system before the deadline can file for PD (if it is worth >= 15 credits) - if they complete the rest of the PD they are exempt from Exam CSP or DP. Don't quote me on this.

[wat?]

About PD:
I think anyone who completes another exam system before the deadline can file for PD (if it is worth >= 15 credits) - if they complete the rest of the PD they are exempt from Exam CSP or DP. Don't quote me on this.

E.g. the CFA credential?

[Deja vu]

I stand corrected on the PD prerequisite changes due to the exam 8 issue. However, this thread is not about that topic anyway. I personally don't even agree with the elimination of PD. I think it's a great idea to encourage actuaries to obtain affiliated credentials, pulling ideas from other professions, and getting other professionals to know what we do. God knows, nobody from another profession would want to take SOA exams just to broaden their professional knowledge. There aren't even that many FCAS/FSAs that follow both sides of the actuarial profession to spread information. For instance, did you know that the CAS is thinking about going to 8 exams and having one designation instead of the Associate and Fellow designation? And those outside of our own little world ... how often do you get a blank stare when you tell somebody a social event that you're an actuary? The best I've gotten (from non-actuaries) is "you take a lot of tests, right?" I think Professional Development is one of the most enlightened ways to change our career prospects over the long run. Most other professional organizations embrace professional development. I guess the E&E had their reasons. It would be nice to know why all the upper level exams and PD were so horrible in the post 2000 system. We're back to that transparency issue again.

[wat?]

It would be nice to know why all the upper level exams and PD were so horrible in the post 2000 system.

For one, the Board felt that the nation-specific information that was covered in the pre-2000 system and eliminated in the 2000 system was too important to continue to leave out of the examination system. Bruce has mentioned this a few times in a few threads.

For instance, did you know that the CAS is thinking about going to 8 exams and having one designation instead of the Associate and Fellow designation?

I'm not an actuary yet, but I have taken note (through the AO, no less) that there has been talk of eliminating one of the exams from the current 9-exam CAS route to Fellowship, and that the ACAS designation was being discussed as to whether it should still be around.

At the same time, it's not just the SOA. I've spoken briefly with a few individuals from the CAS side, and they were amazed to find out that Course 5 (SOA) is no longer offered, and that our entire upper-level syllabus is being revamped, despite all the threads complaining about the new redesign.

[Deja vu]

For one, the Board felt that the nation-specific information that was covered in the pre-2000 system and eliminated in the 2000 system was too important to continue to leave out of the examination system. Bruce has mentioned this a few times in a few threads.

... but this doesn't explain why PD was removed as being "bad." Whatever was wrong with it (I feel it was in the implementation) should have been fixed, not chucked. Don't forget, they also eliminated FE in the process and are now scrambling to put something resembling FE back in, somewhere. Makes you wonder ...

[wat?]

... but this doesn't explain why PD was removed as being "bad." Whatever was wrong with it (I feel it was in the implementation) should have been fixed, not chucked. Don't forget, they also eliminated FE in the process and are now scrambling to put something resembling FE back in, somewhere. Makes you wonder ...

They took out some of FE - the more calculation-intensive parts. There's still some elements of FE in the FSA modules, I believe. At least, I think that's the case, which has been expressed once or twice on this board.

I think most people consider PD as non-intensive. At least, I get the feeling that the intentions of PD are not necessarily fulfilled by the actual completion or participation in PD. I guess one could say that for just about any part of the exam process, though.