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.
A lot of people shared their letters with me, as I was posting them anonymously on the AO at the time. But I’m not going to post them now - it’s been 12 years, and they may have changed their minds.
I haven’t deleted any of the messages (I never delete emails), so if you sent a letter last time and want to re-send it to the SOA, feel free to email me at marypat.campbell@gmail.com.
Here is one of the letters I sent.
MPC part 1-FEM governance and implementation (1).PDF (22.6 KB)
I just want to quote myself:
Legal issues aside, there is the matter of the fragility of such a program passed through Board vote alone, which would waste the time of universities attempting to gear up to satisfy the requirements of the program. As noted above, twenty years ago, a similar FEM proposal was passed by Board vote, an amendment to rescind FEM was put forth for voting and lost, and soon after FEM was repealed by Board vote.
The fragility of the process becomes plain: that which can be enacted by Board vote, can be dissolved by Board vote.
I found two letters from Mercer, which I had posted on the AO back at the time (having been told that these were public documents).
One letter is from 2001. This relates to a rocky exam system change with the SOA (which they did fix very quickly), but also a proposed exam waiver from college courses.
The other letter is from the 2009 FEM attempt.
SOA_Letter.pdf (46.0 KB) Mercerletter2001.PDF (272.1 KB)
And now, two SOA Presidential speeches, from 1989 and 1990. This relates to the exam credit attempt from then.
So I will attach the full documents, and quote from them. I am not going to correct the OCR [right now]
1989, Address of the President, Ian M. Rolland
TSA89V413.pdf (363.8 KB)
It is in this context that I view with concern the vote on the constitutional
amendment which would have restricted the right of the Society of Actuaries Board of Governors to experiment with alternative educational
methods. The amendment did not prevail, but it was supported by 60%
of those voting. The message is clear: that the membership views with
skepticism any attempt to tamper with our system of qualification by
examination. The Task Force on the Actuary of the Future characterized
the exams as the unifying force of the profession…, and it is clear the
membership agrees. With all this said, it is my view that these attitudes
represent an unfortunate inflexibility in an area where flexibility will be
essential.
The Society’s Education and Examination committees are staffed with
actuaries who are skilled in educational methods; now we need to trust
their decisions, particularly where they involve only limited experiments
with new techniques. I would ask those who voted for the amendment
to think through what would have been the downside to permitting the
board to substitute “demonstrations for impressions” with respect to
college credit. I think some flexibility would have been to the long-term
benefit of the profession.
• Also within the area of education, continuing education represents a
challenge to our profession. The Society has an excellent tradition of
providing a variety of continuing education experiences to the membership. These involve seminars, workshops and the excellent and varied
programs at our regular meetings. However, under our system, we have
generally relied on individual actuaries to maintain their skills and have
generally avoided establishing minimum requirements or even recognition of their efforts. Exceptions are Enrolled Actuaries and those who
sign certain public documents. 1 hope our profession will carefully assess
whether this laissezfaire approach is adequate. I think there is a good
chance that the public will want more concrete assurance that actuaries
have undertaken a certain minimum level of continuing education activities to maintain their knowledge and skills.
1990, ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT, ALLAN D. AFFLECK
TSA90V423.pdf (378.4 KB)
I believe it is important to say a word or two about last year’s constitutional
amendment on whether the Society should conduct an experiment in granting
credit for college courses. While this issue has been laid to rest, I think a
few observations, with the benefit of a year’s hindsight, might be appropriate.
Thomas Jefferson once said that “A little rebellion now and then is a
good thing.” In retrospect, I view the constitutional amendment initiative
was its own little rebellion, and I think, in retrospect, that it was a very
good thing indeed. I personally was in favor of the experiment, and probably
still am, but talking to people about the issue has helped crystallize in my
mind the difference between education, where I think the experiment is of
great value, and examinations, where our members clearly want the Society
to continue to exercise complete control over our standards. Your Board
sees this distinction more clearly now and has no plans to explore college
credit.
However, I believe the impact of the constitutional amendment vote went
far beyond the educational issue. The vote helped the Board be more aware
of the importance of members’ views. It was the catalyst for more communication to members during the last year, for “Meet the Board” sessions
at all our meetings, and for more two-way dialogue at local clubs, in The
Actuary, and on other occasions.
For members, I hope it has made you realize that you can make a difference. Your views are important. Your views have influence. Your support
and encouragement are critical to the success of the profession in the future.
So, regardless of which side you were on, I think the constitutional amendment, speaking from the perspective of more than a year after the debate
itself, turned out to be constructive. I encourage you, when you think the
Board is moving in the right direction, be sure to let Board members know.
When you think the Board is moving in the wrong direction, do the same.
Working together with this type of two-way communication will be much
more effective for the profession and a lot more fun for all of us.
Thanking the person who brought the 1989/1990 speeches to my attention, I added:
As I’ve noted before, I don’t think the attitude of the membership as a whole has changed much regarding FEM. Maybe they thought twenty years was enough for people to forget, but in the internet age… nothing is forgotten [which is also why it’s tough to find the particular docs - lots to sift through]. There were also mentions in The Actuary at the time, so I’ll go back and dig those up again.
Or it could just be a miscalculation of people’s opinions; but considering that career ASAs can vote for the Board now, and we’ve got so much more of an international membership [such as in China], if anything, I would think the membership would be even more against such a thing.
Wow, pretty scathing to have the CEO of Mercer write a letter voicing concerns with how things are going
This letter is pure gold and 100% applicable to 2021 as well. Every US member of the SOA should read it.
And every SOA officer should have a framed copy on display in the place where they conduct SOA business.