AO's Canada FEM FAQ

[Teddy KGB]

Dear AO,

Greetings!

You can take a question either from here: http://www.casact.org/admissions/FEM-Expanded-FAQs.pdf

Or you can make your own. Hopefully from this we can compile the best responses for the Canada FEM Steering Committee, so that they know we are not asking them whether educational standards will suffer, but rather, we are TELLING them so.

There obviously has been some miscommunication given the extended FAQ they released. Let's try to make it as clear as possible.

Also, don't shy from using the same question as someone else if you think you can improve the answer.

Regards,

Teddy KGB

[Teddy KGB]

Okay I will start. The number reference is because they are official Canada FEM FAQ questions.

Originally Posted by Extended FAQ Q4

Why is it necessary to pass Exam P/1 prior to graduation?

Because a lot of people on the actuarialoutpost complained about Canada FEM, so the proposal was changed slightly in hope of compromise. The original proposal allowed for exemptions from Exam P/1 as well. Any statement about how Exam P/1 is better tested in multiple choice format than other preliminary exams was made up in the past 3 weeks.

Originally Posted by Extended FAQ Q6

What if a student fails to meet the CAS/CIA/SOA requirement for an exemption, but passes the university course?

Most students will register for the same course again in hope of a higher grade. Some will attempt the exam, but it is very doubtful they will pass if they cannot pass the university exam.

Originally Posted by Extended FAQ Q7

How does this affect Validation by Educational Experience (VEE) and will this process be similar?

VEE will not be affected, that program is running smoothly.

VEE had two primary motives:
1. Provide both Universities and some Seminar presenters with the opportunity to have their learning material “validated” by the actuarial societies.
2. Start the pathway to college credentialing.

The VEE certainly has been successful in #1, and it has been used by many FEM proponents as an argument for #2.

What started with VEE was official actuarial society exams and approved university courses, what resulted from it was students looking for the easiest route to credit, which ended up being NEAS online courses. Neither employers or actuarial students take VEE seriously, it could be removed from the education requirements to become fellow and no one would notice.

Originally Posted by Extended FAQ Q8

When will students learn if an exemption has been earned?

While details are yet to be worked out, the goal is for a quick turnaround so that students who fail to earn an exemption can register for the same course next semester.

Originally Posted by Extended FAQ Q11

What if a school loses accreditation prior to a student’s graduation?

Don't worry. The only way a school will lose accreditation is if Bruce Schobel starts teaching there.

Originally Posted by Extended FAQ Q13

What are some steps that can be taken to minimize cheating?

The CAS/CIA/SOA have very detailed policies about how examinations are to be conducted and will hope that similar policies are applied and enforced by university professors looking to grow their enrollment.

Originally Posted by Extended FAQ Q14

CAS/CIA/SOA examinations are graded blindly while university exams have student’s name on the paper. Won’t this lead to possible grading bias?

This issue is one of many that will be considered by the Joint Accreditation Committee. The solution will likely require an act of God to remove all possible grading biases.

Originally Posted by Extended FAQ Q16

Will the proposed changes satisfy the International Actuarial Association’s education requirements?

Yes. We will require that the material covered in the courses meets the IAA requirements. In fact, 50% of the actuaries in the world get by on significantly lower educational standards than US & Canada. If they can do it, we can too!

Originally Posted by FAQ Q2

Is it possible to earn an exemption merely by passing the course?

No. In the UK they require a 60% grade to pass the course, US & Canada will most likely require a slightly higher grade than that.

Originally Posted by FAQ Q6

Will the current examination pathway still be available for candidates attending nonaccredited schools?

Originally Posted by Mary Hardy

There is no intention to disallow the self study route. Maybe in 20 or 30 years we will review that.

[marnol4]

I sent this yesterday morning (it expands a little on #14 and mentions a few other things):

I see that the Societies have released an updated FAQ regarding FEM. I hope it is not thought that this resolves the grievances I've suggested before (because it doesn't).

Q14. CIA/CAS/SOA examinations are graded blindly while university exams have
student’s name on the paper. Won’t this lead to possible grading bias?
A14. This issue is one of many that will be considered by the Joint Accreditation
Committee. The solution will likely require that universities use candidate numbers to
preserve anonymity.

Yes, but the professor will still notice the handwriting on each test. You would have to have every single graded assignment (homework and everything) submitted with only candidate numbers for the professor not to recognize the handwriting. And this is only assuming that the student has not taken a previous class under the same professor.

No matter how you look at it, the FEM proposal is not going to benefit the actuarial profession. It is supposed to attract students to the profession. In reality, it will only take away access from those who aren't attending an accredited university and cannot pass all the preliminary exams before graduation in order to compete with applicants who've been exempted.

I'm beginning to wonder if asking for feedback is just a way of pretending that the committee actually cares what the members think. Such an important issue deserves a membership vote. Perhaps the people on the committee understand how overwhelmingly a vote would defeat this proposal. It is my understanding that chief actuaries from large actuarial employers are writing letters in opposition to the FEM proposal. If the Societies won't allow a vote, they need to listen to these letters as it is actuarial employers who pay membership dues and exam fees.

Matthew Arnold, ASA

[campbell]

So much effort for so little benefit.

It's a bit more cost-effective to have the exams as currently developed for CBT, which already has anonymity, uniformity, etc. baked right in [yum!]

I'd like to see the return on volunteer time and SOA/CAS money for the two directly compared.

[monkey2003]

I've read the updated FAQ, and it seems as though the SOA have spent a great deal of time/energy/resources/money etc. to get this FEM proposal moving. Although the majority of people oppose the FEM, its getting harder and harder for me to think this proposal would just get drop, just because the SOA have invested so much time and effort in the FEM. I really thought SOA was doing a good job in reducing FSA time by providing CBT test. Why don't they offer those more, like 4 times a year for all the prelims. Maybe the SOA don't think this will shorten the time enough, hence the FEM.

[campbell]

Sunk costs.

If they can't understand that, well, then we might need to beef up the economics portion of actuarial education [continuing education, natch]

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

Originally Posted by marnol4

I'm beginning to wonder if asking for feedback is just a way of pretending that the committee actually cares what the members think.

Ding, ding, ding. I think we may have a winner here!

[cubs1908]

Originally Posted by campbell

So much effort for so little benefit.

It's a bit more cost-effective to have the exams as currently developed for CBT, which already has anonymity, uniformity, etc. baked right in [yum!]

I'd like to see the return on volunteer time and SOA/CAS money for the two directly compared.

Is the next step to install test centers around the world? Should the IAA pay for this or should the SOA/CAS pick up the tab?

Originally Posted by Teddy KGB

Neither employers or actuarial students take VEE seriously, it could be removed from the education requirements to become fellow and no one would notice.

That material was removed from the syllabus as soon as it was moved to VEE, IMHO. It's been such a failure that it actually serves as a major indictment of the current proposal.

I see plenty of resumes with VEE listed. That ink would be much better served convincing me that the applicant is a strong communicator or possesses strong strategic decision making skills. Even an interesting hobby would be more valuable than listing VEE.

The funny thing is that the FEM proposal is being driven by a number of Canadian academics, if I'm not mistaken. You'd think that they would actually be trying to make the credentialing process more rigorous in now that everybody and their dog has passed a couple of exams. Passing the exams is where the Canadian programs had a competitive advantage, but they're trying to throw it away for some reason. Why would I recruit from Canadian schools when there are so many candidates in the States? Earlier this year Rob Brown sent an email to the CIA list trying to drum up jobs for Waterloo students who hadn't been able to secure any. Welcome to the future.