Sorry for the lag – I’m on vacation and am slower than usual re: emails.
Tim Rozar, one of the SOA President-Elect candidates, has responded to my email (days ago, I just got around to posting it):
Thanks so much for reaching out.
With respect to UEC, I recognize that this is a contentious issue for many. I also recognize that I may lose more votes than I gain by responding, but I think it is important to be transparent in my views. First and foremost, our primary goal should be to ensure the rigor and relevance of the FSA credential. The question is how do we achieve this goal while also responding to the evolving needs and expectations of employers, regulators, candidates, and other stakeholders? I know that there are many folks on this forum who believe that there will never be any way to satisfy this goal if university credit plays any role in the accreditation process. I respect that view, and I once held the same position - but my thinking has evolved somewhat over the past 20 years. I do now think that it is possible - and necessary - to retain quality of the credential while also retaining demand for the credential. Without prioritizing both - quality and demand - the value of the credential in the marketplace will diminish. It is easy to say “if a candidate knows the material, they should just take the exam to prove it”, but this presupposes that we have limitless demand for the credential with a pool of top quality university students queueing up around the block in the hopes of becoming actuaries. Unfortunately, this simply is no longer the case as many of the potential candidates who in the past would have gone on to be top actuaries are now taking their talents elsewhere. The number of first-time exam takers has declined for something like 7 years in a row while interest in other adjacent, high-paying fields of study have seen tremendous growth. If the current exam system itself is a primary deterrent to top talent from ever entering the actuarial pipeline in the first place, then that will water down the quality of the actuarial profession and our credential far more than incorporating UEC. As such, I support UEC as a component of a broader FSA credentialing process that also continues to incorporate many other rigorous educational components including traditional examinations, VEE, e-learning, and continuing professional development. This isn’t to say that I don’t have concerns, which I have already personally expressed to SOA staff and board leadership. First, I worry about the potential for collateral damage to non-CAE actuarial programs as the current approach could create an uneven playing field. If the UEC pathway were to reduce the number of actuarial program options available to students, this could reduce the exposure to the actuarial profession and have an unintended ripple effect on the sustainability of our candidate pipeline. Second, despite a stated intent of the program to improve the diversity of our profession, I worry that it could have the opposite effect if only CAE (or even UCAP) schools are included. I appreciate the outreach to HBCUs to try to address this, but this does not feel like a scalable solution for such an important issue.
As for the other changes to the SOA exam system, I am generally a supporter of certificate programs and micro-credentials as a way to acquire and demonstrate specific expertise beyond the ASA and FSA credential. I think this is a creative and sensible innovation that responds to the evolving needs of our stakeholders. For the broader system changes, I am not as close to the details of other syllabus changes, but I generally support the introduction of topics such as communication and business skills that may help round-out the otherwise technical syllabus. As for expanded data analytics content, it is clear that the baseline level of competence necessary for the actuary of the future has increased over the past several years, as has the demand for these skills from candidates and employers. This does not mean that actuaries should strive to become data scientists, but I do think that increasing the syllabus content in this area is a sensible evolution.
I appreciate the opportunity to connect and welcome any thoughts or feedback on these or other issues. I respect and welcome those with other ideas or opposing views on how we achieve our shared objective of delivering on our education and research mission in support of a vibrant and sustainable profession for the long-term. While we won’t always agree on every issue, I am very optimistic about the future of the SOA because of the intelligence, passion, and mutual respect that SOA members share. It is my sincere hope that each of you reviews the qualifications of each of the PE and Board candidates (Board Elections | SOA) and participates in the election process, even if you decide not to rank me as your top choice.
Warm Regards,
-Tim