January 12, 2021 at 3:48 pm #2022
On one of the CAS webinars or meetings, I remembered that someone said they might lengthen the travel time to fellowship. I was wondering whether they’d say that if they were not FCAS yet.
I agree to set a high bar to make actuarial work/credential exclusive. But on the other hand, if they want to standardize the test as SOA or CFA or CPA did, they need more experts, like psychometricians. CAS is not as wealthy as CFA or CPA who hires educational measurement experts to design and evaluate the test so it’s competitive and fair. I believe CAS will get there eventually. But before that, I feel bad that we are the guinea pig. Just my 2cents.January 12, 2021 at 4:16 pm #2023
The idea of making the profession exclusive is predicated on actuarial work being restricted to a narrow number of disciplines (ex. Insurance, cknsulting) which isn’t the case. Other than stroking your own ego, I’m not sure what purpose that exclusivity angle serves.January 12, 2021 at 4:24 pm #2024
To follow up on that, as a society, do we say that we want less surgeons so that brain surgery can be exclusive? And I’m sure they’re making tons more than actuaries and doing far more fulfilling work.January 12, 2021 at 4:29 pm #2025
There are definitely a lots less positions available for people working in actuarial field, than say CFA or CPA. Hey, every company needs an accounting department, but maybe 1 in 50 (that’s probably an overly generous assumption) companies needs an actuarial department.
As for the exclusivity/the grind, my theory is much more machiavellian. However, I don’t think the current AO is the right platform to discuss it, so I won’t go there.January 12, 2021 at 5:56 pm #2026Psych14Participant
Do we think they will still release a list of passing candidates at least?January 12, 2021 at 5:58 pm #2027
I agree that ceiling on the number of credentials won’t make the profession exclusive. Maybe “exclusive” is not the right word. My point is part of the reputation and the honor of being an actuary comes from the credential because it’s hard to get, and not many people get it (or if you’d like to say it’s the ego, that’s fine). The job market also makes it clear that salaries and promotions are to some degree tied to the credentials, even though passing one more exam doesn’t mean you’re better at your job. So what I’m trying to say is that those exams and credentials make this career a bit different from similar professions. When it’s different in a good way, it’s partially due to the very difficulty of getting the credentials.January 12, 2021 at 6:01 pm #2028Tigger0209Participant
But, people who make these rules up got there in a much more straightforward way.January 12, 2021 at 6:06 pm #2029act_123Participant
I think they release passing candidate list of names. But they might not release the amount of people who took the exam.
When FCAS said that ACAS shouldn’t have the right to vote because they haven’t proven themselves on the exams, it’s like hello you guys haven’t proven yourself on these exams too. The exams even three years back, let alone six years before bloom’s was introduced were significantly easier.January 12, 2021 at 6:10 pm #2031
I totally agree. In a few years people after us may think we got there in a more straightforward way. I really hope they won’t make the journey even harder or longer.January 12, 2021 at 6:15 pm #2032
Well, some of us never wrote MAS I & II (with guessing penalties), or PA.January 12, 2021 at 6:16 pm #2033
To xyz: I think my point is that if the standard is high (which it currently is) and the candidates are performing at a high level on exams and an even higher level than the prior FCASs who took the easier exams, if their only response is to artificially raise the bar so less people qualify then that’s artificially exclusive (not authentically exclusive).
To Tigger: Fully agree. My favorite was when they introduced CERA and decided to grandfather a bunch of old actuaries who didn’t have to take exams. That’s a prime example.
To act_123: Fully agree. I took exams up to 2013 and they were way easier back then. I never resumed till 2019 and immediately noticed how much harder they were. It wasn’t even close.January 12, 2021 at 6:24 pm #2034
“When I was your age back in the day, I had to walk 10 miles to school in a blizzard, and uphill both ways with only 1 glove.” hehe
Hmm, Resact26, how was the study material back then? I suppose there probably are a lot less option back in the day, and perhaps not as comprehensive as the materials available today?
Maybe in a way the availability of study materials also contributed to the increased difficulties of exams?January 12, 2021 at 6:37 pm #2035TryhardActuaryParticipant
Speaking of old exams being easier, I love it when I get to the True/False questions when I do the exercises.
I bet there weren’t any guessing penalties then either.January 12, 2021 at 6:41 pm #2036Tigger0209Participant
Is the goal to know materials or take vengeance? We share study notes, help each other figure things out. How is mentoring = trying to screw candidates by tricky wording?January 12, 2021 at 6:41 pm #2037ampParticipant
I get that the exams are hard and agree they have gotten harder in recent years, but if you spent as much time trying to master the material as you did complaining, you’d probably have more success. When you fail an exam it’s because you didn’t prepare accordingly. Full stop. Stop shifting so much blame to the CAS. There’s so much salt in this thread, Morton is probably gonna come in and start selling it soon.January 12, 2021 at 6:42 pm #2038
Red: I would say the materials were comparable. The only new upper level materials since then that appear to be widely used now are the Cookbooks. I’ve heard of a couple others recently but I’m not sure how much adoption they’ve gotten.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.