(I may have saved some of the key threads from the AO… but it will take time for me to dig out original docs)
1 Like
FEM (Future Education Methods) was announced as a concept by the SOA and CAS back in August 2009:
Attached as files
fem-faq from August 2009.pdf (105.2 KB) FEMletter from CIA CAS SOA August 2009.pdf (109.1 KB)
You can read the details from that to see how it differs from the current proposal.
You can see there was a similar proposal back in 1970, and there was something the Board of the SOA passed in the late 1980s… and there was a petition by SOA members against it, with a constitutional amendment for vote to rescind the 1980s program. “Only” 59% voted for the amendment, but the next Board rescinded the program anyway.
Then we have the 2009 situation.
The CIA implemented their own approach, which the SOA & CAS has handled in different ways so far.
The SOA has been sub-rosa accepting college credit for exams for some time, for people who had credit that way in the UK system.
1 Like
This forum software gets a bit bitchy if one person posts too many things in a row, so I will just be dropping this last thing here, from the late 1980s version of this program, which failed, as noted in the narrative above.
Attached as PDF, just in case. It’s the complete November 1988 issue of The Actuary.
act8811.pdf (2.6 MB)
1 Like
I didn’t go too deep into this thread. Is the part where the actuarial student thoroughly explained why FEM was a terrible idea included ?
1 Like
I’m not sure which of the many explanations you are referring to.
The original one, from 1970, by Kellison is excerpted above. Pretty much all the core objections he had still apply.
Okay, I found a timeline about the last full-fledged attempt in 2008-2009
(it’s good to keep notes) - no, there are no links to the original public announcements, and some I would have to dig up from the wayback machine. I may or may not have old AO posts, but we’ll drop that for now.
Future Education Methods Timeline: A Look Back
Developed 12.2009
2006
The CIA formed a ‘Task Force to Recommend A Future Education Method/Model’ for their organization.
2008
February 2008: CIA Task Force Issues Report
The CIA task force recommends the CIA adopt a university exam waiver and accreditation model as an alternative to the preliminary education portion of the current qualification process used by the CIA, CAS and SOA.
Early 2008: CAS/SOA task force formed
The CAS and SOA form a joint task force to consider implications of the CIA’s report and to make recommendations to their respective Boards about the report.
June: SOA Board of Directors Meeting
The SOA Board asked the CIA to delay implementation of their proposal. The SOA also asked the CIA inform their members about this idea and seek input.
October 18-19: SOA Board of Directors Meeting
The Board received an update on the CIA’s FEM concept. The update included the CIA’s decision to create a task force to form an accreditation committee. The CIA also authorized these groups to enter into a joint relationship with the CAS and SOA to seek participation in this project.
December: CIA Forms Accreditation Committee
The CIA forms the committee to develop a detailed workable model for FEM for use in Canada. The committee consisted of practitioners and academics from Canada. The CAS and SOA were invited to appoint representatives from each organization to this committee as observers.
December: Presidents Establish Joint Working Group
The working group is comprised of representatives from the CIA, CAS and SOA. Each organization has assigned two representatives. The working group’s charge is to examine and attempt to resolve issues that the CAS and SOA may have in relation to the CIA’s plan for a FEM concept/option.
December 23: Joint Working Group Conference Call
Following the conference call, CAS and SOA observers were asked to compile a short report outlining their organization’s concerns in advance of a January 9, 2009 face to face meeting.
In addition, the SOA and CAS have each assigned observer representatives to The CIA’s University Accreditation Committee.
2009
January 9: Joint Working Group In-Person Meeting
The SOA and CAS observers share their concerns with the Joint Working Group.
March 16-17: SOA Board of Directors Meeting
The Joint Working Group gave an interim report at this meeting. The SOA BOD asked that the SOA observers become full members of the Joint Working Group.
Board motion: While no decisions were requested of the Board at this time, it provides the occasion for Board members to discuss and clarify any issues or concerns with the project and to provide a sense of direction to SOA representatives.
April: Joint Working Group Receives CIA Accreditation Committee draft proposal
The working group reviews the proposal and recommends to the three presidents to further explore the proposal. This includes the creation of a Joint Steering Committee to facilitate and coordinate member communication, establish a project plan, communicate with the three Boards and decide on the recommendation of the Accreditation Committee.
June: SOA Board of Directors Meeting
The Board endorsed SOA participation on the JSC to address the CIA’s FEM concept proposal. The JSC was charged with facilitating a coordinated joint communications effort. In addition the Board asked for the Accreditation Committee to be restructured to provide equal representation among the CAS, CIA and SOA and provide a balanced number of U.S. and Canadian Academics.
The Board asked the JSC to implement a communications effort as soon as possible to describe the proposal and provide opportunities for feedback. The Board would review a draft implementation plan and subsequent member feedback before making a final decision on the proposal.
June: Changes to Working Group; New Accreditation Committee Established
The Joint Working Group was disbanded and replaced with the Joint Steering Committee (JSC). The Joint Accreditation Committee (JAC) was established to formulate specifics of the FEM concept that would be workable in both the US and Canada.
The JAC is not bound by the specific details by the CIA’s Accreditation Committee.
July: SOA Member Announcement – June BOD Meeting Summary
SOA members were notified of the Board’s decision.
July 31: SOA Leadership Team Call
A SOA LT member asks that the JSC hold off on any communication about the FEM concept until after SOA Board elections are closed on Monday August 24. The elections open on August 3 and the SOA LT agrees to do this.
August 2: Actuarial Outpost
A SOA Board/LT member initiates dialogue on this discussion forum about the FEM concept prior to any official communication from the JSC or any of the organizations involved.
August 14: CAS, CIA and SOA Presidents Joint Communication issued – Communication to All Members
The three Presidents jointly issue the formal news of and request member feedback on a proposed FEM concept. The concept is explained, the proposed accreditation process is explained and member feedback is requested. All members are asked to submit feedback to a jointly shared email box. The comment period will close on September 10 in order to gather feedback for the organizations’ respective fall Board meetings. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) are also published in response to questions raised on the Actuarial Outpost discussion forum, (Signatories are Bykerk, Kollar and Howard)
Mid August: SOA News Today (August issue #2)
The above Presidents’ communication and FAQs are included in this issue.
September 3: JSC Communication and Additional FAQs – Communication to All Members
The JSC issues a blast email to members of all three organizations as a follow up to the August 14 Presidential Communication and also post an additional set of FAQs. This communication and FAQs are also posted on SOA.org.
Early September: SOA News Today (September issue #1)
The above JSC communication and additional FAQs are included in this issue.
September 10: Comment Period Closes
While the comment period has closed, the organizations are still collecting member, candidate and employer feedback.
September 18: JSC Update on FEM – Communication to All Members
CAS/CIA/SOA members are notified that the comment period has closed however feedback is still welcomed. Members are informed of next steps: Upcoming Fall Board meetings, JSC continues to meet, JAC will hold initial meeting and information will continue to be shared with the members.
September 22: SOA President Elect Communication to SOA members
McLaughlin sends a blast email to members thanking members for feedback, restates that the concept is in the exploration phase, explains the work of the JAC, references the upcoming SOA Board meeting, asks for continued feedback and announces the opportunity to discuss FEM at the SOA Annual Meeting.
October 1: The Actuary – Letter from the President, October/November issue
Bykerk’s final article as president makes a mention that the SOA is looking at ways to better use our academic partners including the controversial FEM. He notes that nothing has been decided and we will collect member feedback based upon factual information on the proposal. (Column written and submitted in August 2009)
October 24-25: SOA Board of Directors Meeting
The BOD agreed not to continue with the FEM concept in its current form. The Board asked the JSC/JAC to consider alternatives to the current concept. A task force was appointed to recommend enhanced communications with members on this subject.
October 25: SOA Member Announcement – October BOD Meeting Summary
SOA members were notified of the Board’s decision.
Late October: SOA News Today
The October issue #2 included the above announcement.
October 26: SOA Annual Meeting General Session Address (C. Bykerk)
Bykerk’s member address informed members on the outcome of the October BOD meeting.
October 27: SOA Annual Meeting 2010 Presidential Address (M. McLaughlin)
McLaughlin’s presidential address restated the outcome of the October BOD meeting.
October 28: Conversation with the 2010 President
McLaughlin’s presentation included slides that referenced the October BOD meeting decision on FEM and also provided opportunity for question and answer.
November 9: FEM Summary to Members
SOA members were provided with a summary of member, candidate and employer comments.
That was the timeline.
Here is the summary of comments:
Attached as PDF
fem-summary-110909.pdf (179.8 KB)
It’s only 6 pages, but here are some excerpts:
“This proposal would create an uneven playing field benefiting those who happen to
attend these accredited universities and those who could not. It would also remove
objective measures in place of subjective measures, which seems to be in direct
conflict with the very motto of the SOA: The work of science is to substitute facts for
appearances and demonstrations for impressions Ruskin. Due to the subjective
nature, the credential would be devalued as consistency could not be assured. For
these reasons, I urge you to not pass the August 14th, 2009 proposal regarding
Future Educational Methods.”…
- The current exam system is the most fair
Elements of fairness often cited were that the testing environment is controlled, grading is blind, and most important, every candidate takes essentially the same exam with the same grading and same pass mark. Each university exam will be different and it will be difficult to create an environment in which there is no pressure brought to bear on the instructor to give a passing grade.
…
3. The proposal will devalue the credentialThere are several different ways in which this theme was explained. One is that there will be many more ASAs and that alone will lower the value because there will not be sufficient demand for the increased numbers. Another is that ASAs will not be equipped to pass the FSA exams, creating more career ASAs of lesser accomplishments. Without more exams, employers will have a harder time discriminating between applicants, and thus end up hiring many who will not be successful. A final view is that the ASA will be viewed as a minor addon to the university degree and not as a credential that formerly implied practical experience.
There is often an assumption in this theme that those receiving exemptions will be inferior to those who have passed exams and thus the profession will be confronted by job seekers with more exams but lower abilities.
…
6. If the university course is good enough for an exemption, students can pass the exam anywayParticularly with the increased frequency of exam administrations, there should be little delay between when a top student completes the course and passes the exam. Universities should stick to their role of preparing students to succeed.
…
Comments from EmployersThere were some responses from employers representing the views of their firms.
Employer comments were consistent with those from members, including concerns
about consistency, maintenance of rigor, diminishment of value of the credential, no need to reduce travel time, and confusion of education and accreditation. One employer expressed the view there might be some benefit to the proposal, but they believed it should be applied very narrowly (top 10% of students), and preferred that a standard SOA exam be given (and the SOA grade that exam) to an examination created by a classroom professor.
2 Likes
It was GosuJohn that had the pretty thorough takedown discussing a European cheating scandal.
So is this a done deal? Can we vote in new leadership and get rid of this?
I recall being severely chastised, by the way, for declaring on AO that I wouldn’t vote for anyone who was a supporter of FEM.
Looks like I was correct to be concerned.
Alas, I didn’t grab that info when I was backing up AO threads.
Well, it was a “done deal” in 1988.
There are multiple ways any of this can be undone. I can share what was attempted in 1988.
1 Like
Chastised by whom?
Sorry, but you cannot bring up something like that without context.
In any case, there’s all sorts of critiques I can make for them AGAIN doing the exact same thing without actually checking what sort of reaction they may get.
Maybe it will be different this time, but if not, can we make a deal that they won’t try this particular thing again for 20 years? Please? I mean, it’s only been 50 years of the same objections. I think a 20-year break seems reasonable.
1 Like
I’m trying to recall. A supporter of a candidate who had previously backed FEM.
SOA elections have consequences.
2 Likes
I feel like a Canadian
Given this announcement, I have to ask: Do they, really?
2 Likes
I’ve been digging through my email, to see if I have a copy of some of the employer-based letters on FEM that were publicly shared, and I came across things I wrote in response to some people:
I am intrigued with the idea of non-actuarial review of curricular materials. I think that’s a very good idea, and will help with the intellectual insularity we often have.
Also, I like the CAE program, and think it a good idea to strengthen the academic actuarial science programs out there.
I also think that academics can help us a great deal in improving our syllabuses and the quality of our exams. I do not argue with that. I am also interested in having more bridges at the senior practitioner level in industry and academia.
I was given some public documents based on the 1988/1989 version, let me describe these two docs.
This was a letter distributed on an SOA amendment, January 1989
Amendment Petition Jan 1989.pdf (268.0 KB)
This was the final form of the petition amendment
Final Amendment April 1989.pdf (476.0 KB)
This amendment was voted on, and it failed to pass (I think there needed to be a 2/3 vote to pass, and it came in something like 60% for the amendment) – and the next SOA Board dissolved the program, so nothing happened.