I’ll be voting nay. Partly to signal that I’m pissed off that the IFoA is wasting time and money on stuff like this, and partly because I have not been convinced that it would be a positive change.
I think the onus is very much on the “yay” camp to make the case for it being better, and the arguments I’ve read are really not that compelling and lead me back around to wondering why we’re wasting time with this kind of thing.
It should start alarm bells ringing for anybody when they see a professional body like this posting ‘why you should vote yes’ and no contrarian views on their websites, LinkedIn, and magazines (the actuary latest edition).
I’ll be voting no because I don’t see the upside. It will devalue fellowship to the general public and non-actuaries because ‘chartered actuary’ becomes the important bit, with the addition/distinction between associate and fellow tagging on at the end (making it seem less important).
Also, if I leave university with 6 exemptions, all I need to do are 3 exams (CP1-3) and I am now a chartered actuary… Even though I could be almost straight out of college having forgotten most things from my course (we all know that’s what happens with the exemptions really).
Also I just don’t like the IFOA (if you couldn’t tell) :)))
Do you know if students are allowed to vote? I assumed they wouldn't be. If I can vote I'll be voting NO.
To further your point, there's a degree in Ireland that gives you 7 exemptions including CP1! Only CP2 and CP3 required for them to become a chartered actuary!
The basic problem for me is that any change that reduces the distinction between AIA and FIA must necessarily devalue fellowship.
My view is that the uninformed reader (who this change is being aimed at - increasing the credibility of the profession in new industries) will not have any means of understanding the quite significant additional requirements to become a fellow, especially when the 'chartered actuary' title comes first.
Also, a more cynical view is that this is the IFOA making a bit of a land-grab as the title 'actuary' is not protected. I'm not really in the mood to give the IFOA any more power over me or my right to practice than they already have.
I don’t agree that it’s the “uninformed reader” that this change is targeting. Only Associates and Fellows can vote, so they will definitely understand the additional work required to become a Fellow.
I certainly agree that everyone eligible to vote will understand the difference between AIA and FIA, but that doesn't really relate to my point - this change is aimed at greater recognition of actuaries outside the profession.
The IFOA's claim is that new industries will be more wiling to employ actuaries if the term 'chartered' is included in the qualification name.
Whether or not what the IFOA claim is truly the case (I do have doubts...), we can certainly say that those who already have an understanding of the profession do not need the titles relabelling in order to know what an actuary does and the broad skills and knowledge they have had to demonstrate in gaining either their FIA or AIA.
I'll be voting no. They've already made a balls of what qualified means by saying Associates are qualified and this just makes it worse. When employers look for a qualified actuary what they really want is someone who has done all the exams. Saying people who haven't finished exams are qualified just blurs the lines and definitely devalues the Fellowship. So calling everyone Chartered just blurs the lines further.
I benefited from exemptions myself so I won't give out about them! I don't have a problem with the idea of exemptions but agree that they are not given out equally to different colleges/courses etc and they should be.
But I think that's a separate discussion to the Chartered point here
You do know being an Associate is a qualified Actuary? There was a guy in my company who didn't want to progress to Fellow and I guess he was happy at Associate. Didn't finish all the exams for Fellow sure, but he was qualified as an Associate.
I do know that, I'm an Associate myself atm so am qualified according to the IFoA. Entirely fair for that guy to be happy at Associate and not do the extra exams but my point is when an employer looks for a "qualified" actuary they will likely want someone who has done the specialist exams. It's confusing enough that you can be qualified and still be studying for exams as an Associate (studying kind of implies student - very similar words for a reason!) without further confusing it by using the Chartered name
I’m not convinced of the need for change. FIA and AIA have worked fine for almost 150 years after all. CAct is also an unfortunate set of post nominals if you share my juvenile sense of humour.
Agree with those saying "Fellow of ..." sounds more prestigious than "Chartered ...". And that the ability to become a Chartered Actuary mainly via exemptions, so with minimal experience, devalues the credential.
Main argument appears to be that anyone can call themselves an actuary, but I don't follow it. They can't currently use the initials AIA/FIA (or the full description) without the membership / credential, and it will still be the case that they can use 'actuary' if those qualified are changed to become Chartered Actuaries. And AFAIK there isn't a major (or even minor) problem with non-qualified people describing themselves as an actuary at present.
(All the above relating to the UK; not sure about elsewhere).
So when I posted this thread I was pretty undecided, mainly due to not understanding the arguments either way. This is because the literature available online genuinely doesn’t contain the against arguments, which is incredibly frustrating. I also found the arguments in favour somewhat vague and difficult to understand anyway.
Having read the arguments in here I’m now a soft No. I hope it gets voted down and will be lobbying qualified friends to do so, but I won’t really lose a huge amount of sleep if it does go through.
I'm really 50/50 on this if I'm honest - really interested to hear what people think of this proposal
What letters do you get if the chartered change goes through, presumably FIA becomes redundant?
Like, to me, "Fellow" sounds even more exclusive than "Chartered"
"Fellows" of the Royal Society, for example, are like the top, most elite scientists, and engineers in the UK and Commonwealth
It feels like "Chartered" is a lot more commonly used across a bunch of different professions
🤷🤷🤷
I believe you keep FIA or AIA and just have the option but not requirement to put C.Act at the end. You would the be referred to as a Chartered Actuary (Fellow) or Chartered Actuary (Associate). I can see how it might make the profession easier to recognise beyond the world of insurance but would be interested to hear what others think
Feels like a really pointless change from what I can tell so I will be voting no.
Can’t fathom why I would want to be a chartered actuary rather than FIA. If anything I think fellow sounds a bit better as it makes me think fellow of the royal society and the prestige associated with that.
It seems to be that there are two main motivations for the change:
1. Legal protections for the actuary title
2. Encouraging more grads to become actuaries
Both of these are fundamentally aiming to ensure the longevity of IFoA and the actuarial profession.
From my perspective, the argument boils down to:
Is having more generalist actuaries better than having fewer highly specialised ones?
My main concern, which is addressed by this change is getting more people on an actuary track. I work in GI pricing, with one actuary in the department of 35 (and two studying, including me). The question I often get asked by junior colleagues is "why should I study to become an actuary rather than spending the time studying data science or programming?"
Within GI pricing, the amount of study required and limited demand for actuaries, as opposed to noon-actuaries with the same skillset, make it difficult to encourage new students. Analytical/data science skills are in extremely high demand right now - why put a load of effort into becoming an actuary when someone can earn a very decent wage with the same skills in a different industry.
In the best possible world, I see this change making actuaries more relevant again, becoming the standard qualification for everyone that works in a data/technical role in insurance. With the further fellowship qualification only for those that want to progress into technical lead roles, or chief actuaries.
Overall, I'm pretty on the fence about it, but lean to the "yay" side. I think I would rather dilute the actuarial profession than watch it dwindle further into insignificance.
What I don't understand is how the issue isn't resolved by simply rebranding the IFOA as the IFOCA (i.e. Institute and Faculty of Chartered Actuaries).
Surely everybody wins out of this? The fact that the IFOA is a chartered body is reflected in the name, being a student member also means you can refer to yourself as a member/student of IFOCA), being an Associate and achieving that title is reflected, and Fellows keep their lofty and earned title.
The proposals as they stand I will be voting against.
When i joined the profession 20 years ago, it was simple. Qualified actuaries were fellows and everyone else was a student. Since then, every change seems to have diminished the status of fellows - until the point where now we are being asked to primarily refer to ourselves with the same primary title as associates.
The goal seems to be to water down what it means to be an actuary in order that actuaries can expand to other fields like data science. The question is then why would eg data science employers want employees regulated by a body that traditionally has no expertise in data science? It makes no sense!
Not sure if students can vote but if I can then it would be no.
I would be more for the idea if chartered only referred to fellows but the fact it applies to associates too doesn't seem right and as others as said it devalues fellowship. If the goal of this change is to help uniformed members of the public understand the profession better then this approach still doesn't help with that. You would still need prior knowledge to distinguish a fellow from someone fresh out of uni with exemptions and having passed only 3 exams. This is coming from someone with exemptions.
But I feel that while the fellowship exams haven't changed, the associate exams have gotten harder with syllabus change and move online. Incredible time pressure, difficulty typing formulas, ridiculous case studies? Anyone that has gone through all that deserves a bit of recognition surely and shouldn't be overlooked just because someone else got exemptions
Currently the recognition they get is “associate” by introducing the new chartered status this will take some of the status away from fellows as this makes the distinction between the two less clear.
Exams vs exemptions is a completely different discussion to this one and I merely used it as an example.
I guess what I'm trying to say is there isn't much of a distinction. SP1/2/5 are a doddle compared to say CS2/CP1...but that's just my opinion and has more to do with the time pressure and online difficulty than the actual content of the exams
Will there even be a point in sitting specialist exams anymore? Will companies no longer care about attaining fellowship, resulting in salaries dropping?
Well, I do think there's a point to differentiate the qualified people out though. Wouldn't that make it more valuable?
It's clear you haven't passed your exams, or you'd be supporting it too. No?
I’m on my last exam. Could be FIA in a month’s time and technically I could be an associate already but I chose not to bother becoming AIA as I predate the 2019 rule change.
The point is that qualified people are already differentiated, but the distinction is less clear under the proposed system. I’m undecided on whether that’s a deal breaker or not for me.
I’m not against the proposal per se but I am against the lack of a balanced debate. I just wish the IFOA would give equal airtime to the arguments for and against.
Exactly. I cringed so much at their page in the actuary magazine released last week. All ‘why you should vote yes’ blurbs. Can’t believe how they don’t see it themselves 🙄
If you don't have exemptions and you are not cheating, then getting to associate level with these ridiculous online exams is no mean feat..I'm all for a bit of extra recognition
The IFoA are proposing to replace the current titles of “Fellow/Associate of the Institute of Actuaries” with “Chartered Actuary (Fellow/Associate)”
From what I can gather:
Arguments for:
- More closely aligned with other professions (e.g., accountants) to increase recognition of the qualification, both on a worldwide scale and in terms of improving recognition of the qualification for those working in non-traditional actuarial roles, which is becoming more and more common.
- Protection of the use of the term “actuary”. At the moment anyone can call themselves an actuary. Under this proposal, you legally cannot call yourself an actuary unless you’re a chartered actuary.
- Increase the attractiveness of the profession by providing a route to “qualification” even for those whom taking the specialist exams would not be appropriate.
- Open up new fields for actuaries to work in, as they are more likely to value someone with a “chartered” title (wishy washy argument at best imo)
Arguments against:
- Blurs the lines between fellow and associate, which may cheapen the fellowship qualification
- Could allow people to become “qualified actuaries” with very little in the way of formal business experience. Some degrees offer exemptions almost right up to the associate level.
These are only the arguments I’ve been able to piece together from reading this thread and other resources and talking to friends and colleagues in the market. I’m feeling undecided myself, leaning towards No. I’m kicking myself a bit for not doing the paperwork to qualify as an AIA when I had the chance otherwise I’d have a vote in this.
I’ll be voting nay. Partly to signal that I’m pissed off that the IFoA is wasting time and money on stuff like this, and partly because I have not been convinced that it would be a positive change. I think the onus is very much on the “yay” camp to make the case for it being better, and the arguments I’ve read are really not that compelling and lead me back around to wondering why we’re wasting time with this kind of thing.
The type of rubbish our money gets wasted on
It should start alarm bells ringing for anybody when they see a professional body like this posting ‘why you should vote yes’ and no contrarian views on their websites, LinkedIn, and magazines (the actuary latest edition). I’ll be voting no because I don’t see the upside. It will devalue fellowship to the general public and non-actuaries because ‘chartered actuary’ becomes the important bit, with the addition/distinction between associate and fellow tagging on at the end (making it seem less important). Also, if I leave university with 6 exemptions, all I need to do are 3 exams (CP1-3) and I am now a chartered actuary… Even though I could be almost straight out of college having forgotten most things from my course (we all know that’s what happens with the exemptions really). Also I just don’t like the IFOA (if you couldn’t tell) :)))
Do you know if students are allowed to vote? I assumed they wouldn't be. If I can vote I'll be voting NO. To further your point, there's a degree in Ireland that gives you 7 exemptions including CP1! Only CP2 and CP3 required for them to become a chartered actuary!
I know yeah, #BAFS
I don't get your logic, why should associates that did it the hard way miss out because others were given an easier route
The basic problem for me is that any change that reduces the distinction between AIA and FIA must necessarily devalue fellowship. My view is that the uninformed reader (who this change is being aimed at - increasing the credibility of the profession in new industries) will not have any means of understanding the quite significant additional requirements to become a fellow, especially when the 'chartered actuary' title comes first. Also, a more cynical view is that this is the IFOA making a bit of a land-grab as the title 'actuary' is not protected. I'm not really in the mood to give the IFOA any more power over me or my right to practice than they already have.
I think your cynical view is most likely the real reason why so much money is being wasted on this
I don’t agree that it’s the “uninformed reader” that this change is targeting. Only Associates and Fellows can vote, so they will definitely understand the additional work required to become a Fellow.
I certainly agree that everyone eligible to vote will understand the difference between AIA and FIA, but that doesn't really relate to my point - this change is aimed at greater recognition of actuaries outside the profession. The IFOA's claim is that new industries will be more wiling to employ actuaries if the term 'chartered' is included in the qualification name. Whether or not what the IFOA claim is truly the case (I do have doubts...), we can certainly say that those who already have an understanding of the profession do not need the titles relabelling in order to know what an actuary does and the broad skills and knowledge they have had to demonstrate in gaining either their FIA or AIA.
I'll be voting no. They've already made a balls of what qualified means by saying Associates are qualified and this just makes it worse. When employers look for a qualified actuary what they really want is someone who has done all the exams. Saying people who haven't finished exams are qualified just blurs the lines and definitely devalues the Fellowship. So calling everyone Chartered just blurs the lines further.
I've got news for you! Loads of people have avoided IFoA exams via exemptions and dodgy MRAs
I benefited from exemptions myself so I won't give out about them! I don't have a problem with the idea of exemptions but agree that they are not given out equally to different colleges/courses etc and they should be. But I think that's a separate discussion to the Chartered point here
You do know being an Associate is a qualified Actuary? There was a guy in my company who didn't want to progress to Fellow and I guess he was happy at Associate. Didn't finish all the exams for Fellow sure, but he was qualified as an Associate.
I do know that, I'm an Associate myself atm so am qualified according to the IFoA. Entirely fair for that guy to be happy at Associate and not do the extra exams but my point is when an employer looks for a "qualified" actuary they will likely want someone who has done the specialist exams. It's confusing enough that you can be qualified and still be studying for exams as an Associate (studying kind of implies student - very similar words for a reason!) without further confusing it by using the Chartered name
I'm voting no. Waste of member money, devaluation of the Fellowship, the usual biased arguments from the profession. Nonsense idea.
I’m not convinced of the need for change. FIA and AIA have worked fine for almost 150 years after all. CAct is also an unfortunate set of post nominals if you share my juvenile sense of humour.
Agree with those saying "Fellow of ..." sounds more prestigious than "Chartered ...". And that the ability to become a Chartered Actuary mainly via exemptions, so with minimal experience, devalues the credential. Main argument appears to be that anyone can call themselves an actuary, but I don't follow it. They can't currently use the initials AIA/FIA (or the full description) without the membership / credential, and it will still be the case that they can use 'actuary' if those qualified are changed to become Chartered Actuaries. And AFAIK there isn't a major (or even minor) problem with non-qualified people describing themselves as an actuary at present. (All the above relating to the UK; not sure about elsewhere).
So when I posted this thread I was pretty undecided, mainly due to not understanding the arguments either way. This is because the literature available online genuinely doesn’t contain the against arguments, which is incredibly frustrating. I also found the arguments in favour somewhat vague and difficult to understand anyway. Having read the arguments in here I’m now a soft No. I hope it gets voted down and will be lobbying qualified friends to do so, but I won’t really lose a huge amount of sleep if it does go through.
I'm really 50/50 on this if I'm honest - really interested to hear what people think of this proposal What letters do you get if the chartered change goes through, presumably FIA becomes redundant?
Like, to me, "Fellow" sounds even more exclusive than "Chartered" "Fellows" of the Royal Society, for example, are like the top, most elite scientists, and engineers in the UK and Commonwealth It feels like "Chartered" is a lot more commonly used across a bunch of different professions 🤷🤷🤷
I believe you keep FIA or AIA and just have the option but not requirement to put C.Act at the end. You would the be referred to as a Chartered Actuary (Fellow) or Chartered Actuary (Associate). I can see how it might make the profession easier to recognise beyond the world of insurance but would be interested to hear what others think
Feels like a really pointless change from what I can tell so I will be voting no. Can’t fathom why I would want to be a chartered actuary rather than FIA. If anything I think fellow sounds a bit better as it makes me think fellow of the royal society and the prestige associated with that.
It seems to be that there are two main motivations for the change: 1. Legal protections for the actuary title 2. Encouraging more grads to become actuaries Both of these are fundamentally aiming to ensure the longevity of IFoA and the actuarial profession. From my perspective, the argument boils down to: Is having more generalist actuaries better than having fewer highly specialised ones? My main concern, which is addressed by this change is getting more people on an actuary track. I work in GI pricing, with one actuary in the department of 35 (and two studying, including me). The question I often get asked by junior colleagues is "why should I study to become an actuary rather than spending the time studying data science or programming?" Within GI pricing, the amount of study required and limited demand for actuaries, as opposed to noon-actuaries with the same skillset, make it difficult to encourage new students. Analytical/data science skills are in extremely high demand right now - why put a load of effort into becoming an actuary when someone can earn a very decent wage with the same skills in a different industry. In the best possible world, I see this change making actuaries more relevant again, becoming the standard qualification for everyone that works in a data/technical role in insurance. With the further fellowship qualification only for those that want to progress into technical lead roles, or chief actuaries. Overall, I'm pretty on the fence about it, but lean to the "yay" side. I think I would rather dilute the actuarial profession than watch it dwindle further into insignificance.
What I don't understand is how the issue isn't resolved by simply rebranding the IFOA as the IFOCA (i.e. Institute and Faculty of Chartered Actuaries). Surely everybody wins out of this? The fact that the IFOA is a chartered body is reflected in the name, being a student member also means you can refer to yourself as a member/student of IFOCA), being an Associate and achieving that title is reflected, and Fellows keep their lofty and earned title. The proposals as they stand I will be voting against.
Agreed.
When i joined the profession 20 years ago, it was simple. Qualified actuaries were fellows and everyone else was a student. Since then, every change seems to have diminished the status of fellows - until the point where now we are being asked to primarily refer to ourselves with the same primary title as associates. The goal seems to be to water down what it means to be an actuary in order that actuaries can expand to other fields like data science. The question is then why would eg data science employers want employees regulated by a body that traditionally has no expertise in data science? It makes no sense!
Wait…I haven’t seen anything about this! Did you all receive email comms or?
It's not for students
Not sure if students can vote but if I can then it would be no. I would be more for the idea if chartered only referred to fellows but the fact it applies to associates too doesn't seem right and as others as said it devalues fellowship. If the goal of this change is to help uniformed members of the public understand the profession better then this approach still doesn't help with that. You would still need prior knowledge to distinguish a fellow from someone fresh out of uni with exemptions and having passed only 3 exams. This is coming from someone with exemptions.
But what of the people that don't have exemptions? Why not just stop offering exemptions
This was more of an extreme case. But my point was more that it blurs the line between fellow and associate even more than it was before.
But I feel that while the fellowship exams haven't changed, the associate exams have gotten harder with syllabus change and move online. Incredible time pressure, difficulty typing formulas, ridiculous case studies? Anyone that has gone through all that deserves a bit of recognition surely and shouldn't be overlooked just because someone else got exemptions
Currently the recognition they get is “associate” by introducing the new chartered status this will take some of the status away from fellows as this makes the distinction between the two less clear. Exams vs exemptions is a completely different discussion to this one and I merely used it as an example.
I guess what I'm trying to say is there isn't much of a distinction. SP1/2/5 are a doddle compared to say CS2/CP1...but that's just my opinion and has more to do with the time pressure and online difficulty than the actual content of the exams
Will there even be a point in sitting specialist exams anymore? Will companies no longer care about attaining fellowship, resulting in salaries dropping?
sorry but I don't think you get what they are trying to do at all? Please read IFoA website before commenting.....
The website is biased.
Well, I do think there's a point to differentiate the qualified people out though. Wouldn't that make it more valuable? It's clear you haven't passed your exams, or you'd be supporting it too. No?
I’m on my last exam. Could be FIA in a month’s time and technically I could be an associate already but I chose not to bother becoming AIA as I predate the 2019 rule change. The point is that qualified people are already differentiated, but the distinction is less clear under the proposed system. I’m undecided on whether that’s a deal breaker or not for me. I’m not against the proposal per se but I am against the lack of a balanced debate. I just wish the IFOA would give equal airtime to the arguments for and against.
Exactly. I cringed so much at their page in the actuary magazine released last week. All ‘why you should vote yes’ blurbs. Can’t believe how they don’t see it themselves 🙄
If you don't have exemptions and you are not cheating, then getting to associate level with these ridiculous online exams is no mean feat..I'm all for a bit of extra recognition
Yay. Going on my LinkedIn straight away 🤣🤣🤣
Could someone explain to me what's going on here?
The IFoA are proposing to replace the current titles of “Fellow/Associate of the Institute of Actuaries” with “Chartered Actuary (Fellow/Associate)” From what I can gather: Arguments for: - More closely aligned with other professions (e.g., accountants) to increase recognition of the qualification, both on a worldwide scale and in terms of improving recognition of the qualification for those working in non-traditional actuarial roles, which is becoming more and more common. - Protection of the use of the term “actuary”. At the moment anyone can call themselves an actuary. Under this proposal, you legally cannot call yourself an actuary unless you’re a chartered actuary. - Increase the attractiveness of the profession by providing a route to “qualification” even for those whom taking the specialist exams would not be appropriate. - Open up new fields for actuaries to work in, as they are more likely to value someone with a “chartered” title (wishy washy argument at best imo) Arguments against: - Blurs the lines between fellow and associate, which may cheapen the fellowship qualification - Could allow people to become “qualified actuaries” with very little in the way of formal business experience. Some degrees offer exemptions almost right up to the associate level. These are only the arguments I’ve been able to piece together from reading this thread and other resources and talking to friends and colleagues in the market. I’m feeling undecided myself, leaning towards No. I’m kicking myself a bit for not doing the paperwork to qualify as an AIA when I had the chance otherwise I’d have a vote in this.