Should they split 2A into two exams?

[HatCapitol]

Here's what I'm thinking. Since the advent of PPA, the multiemployer and single employer worlds have diverged dramatically, to the extent that they hardly resemble each other anymore. Partly as a result of this, but even before PPA, it's normal for practioners to focus their practice either in one of the two worlds. It's not as common for an individual actuary to have clients under both sets of rules, and it will become less so as the old dogs retire.

In light of all that, would it be good to have separate 2A exams for single and multi? One reason this is possible is that the Schedule B has been split into the MB and SB. The requirements to sign an MB could now be passing EA1, EA2AM, and EA2B. Likewise, the requirements to sign an SB could now be passing EA1, EA2AS, and EA2B. People who wanted to work in both could take both 2AS and 2AM.

The advantages? Candidates focus more on what they will need to know in the exam process. The multiemployer practitioners learn alot more about what they need to know instead of learning a bunch of single rules.

Just a thought. Does anybody else think this might be a good idea?

[davefarber]

I actually like that idea a lot. But it would take a lot for it to happen. The law does not allow for this currently, so it would take an act of Congress to make it happen. Good luck with that.

[redsoxnation]

They should definitely split it into two exams - the questions I answered, and the ones I did not get to! Call it separate testing of otherwise excludables.