SOA -- College Credit for Exams

Copying somebody else’s reddit post, behind the spoiler

My take on UEC as someone who switched to data science

From the statement by SOA president Roy Goldman on the UEC:

In recent years, careers in data science, math, and statistics have surpassed actuarial science in popularity and career ratings. The number of first-time exam takers entering our pathway has dropped each year for the last seven years. […]

The long-term growth strategy is to increase the awareness and diversity of the profession while ensuring that actuaries remain highly sought-after professionals…

There’s been a lot of discussion about this lately. I am someone who’s been in insurance for the better part of a decade and who switched to data science during that time. I can understand the desire to “stay relevant”, but I believe this fails to address the true underlying reason for why the profession (at least by exam takers) seems to be declining in popularity, and therefore I don’t believe the UEC will help in achieving the goal that the SOA wants to achieve.

First, data science stems from the same core fundamentals as actuarial: strong statistical background, coding and modeling, business intelligence, etc. Data science is simply these skills expressed and applied to a much wider set of applications. Actuaries actually make some of the best data scientists (indeed, many top Kaggle competitors have actuarial backgrounds). In this sense, data science isn’t competition for actuarial jobs, it’s competition for actuarial skills. This is a great thing for young candidates, though perhaps not so great for the SOA. Data science offers a broader scope of opportunities for people interested in analytics and applied statistics, whereas the actuarial path is only really useful in insurance.

Second, “awareness” isn’t really the issue. Actuary has been at the top of “best careers” lists for many years. Lowering the barrier to entry may get more people in, but here’s the thing: Students are NOT choosing data science because it’s easier. Students are choosing data science because they believe the work is more exciting. Building computer vision models for Uber sounds a lot more appealing than insurance reserving. Building recommender systems for Google sounds a lot more impactful than pricing GLMs. And while most of data science isn’t as glamorous (neither is actuarial, let’s be honest), the general perception is there. Indeed, while I don’t spend my days building deep learning models, the times I did spend doing so were much more interesting and memorable than my days building insurance GLMs.

In short, the SOA/CAS cannot by themselves make the profession more appealing, especially not by loosening credentialing requirements. In order to become more appealing, the entire industry will have to address these core issues:

  1. The actuarial credential and profession has to be seen as valuable beyond just the insurance industry.
  2. The work that actuaries do must be seen as innovative, impactful, and cutting-edge.

This is not a knock on actuaries, I’ve seen lots of innovative and creative work from actuaries. But if the goal is to “stay popular” in the face of data science, I think these points shouldn’t be ignored. In the long run though, no matter how hyped up DS is, it is here to stay. So perhaps the reality is simply that there’s going to be more competition for the talent that actuaries possess going forward. And as I’ve mentioned, that may not be so great for the SOA, but is a great thing for us.

Thanks for the link. It was interesting and not surprising at all.

I just sent an email:

just watching the parade go by

Separately, I’ve got nothing new to say since the last attempt (to be explicit, 2009), but there are various people who are new to the whole brou-ha-ha.

On the GoActuary site, there’s a discussion thread on the current attempt:

SOA -- College Credit for Exams

I linked to some other threads on Reddit, just to keep things in one place.

I’ve been trying to encourage people to send letters to the SOA, as in general, I don’t expect any Board members to waste time reading discussion boards if people won’t bother to go to the trouble of writing any formal response letters.

Not that the Board asked the membership for its opinion this time.

As in the materials from my prior email, the Board tried the “not asking the members” approach for the 1989 attempt. I doubt it will be much more successful in the internet age, but we shall see.

-mpc

1 Like

It’s a bold strategy Cotton

2 Likes

Email from SOA on June 16th “Setting Expectations: The New Normal for SOA Exams” lays out going to CBT. It’s in the spoiler.

If CBT is the answer, why even consider college credit for exams?

Summary

Setting Expectations: The New Normal for SOA Exams

The Society of Actuaries (SOA) announced in June of 2020 that it was moving to a computer-based testing (CBT) approach for all examinations beginning with the fall 2020 written-answer exam administration. Employers, exam committees and candidates have long recommended the change because it allows for the use of questions and responses that are more reflective of the real tools an actuary uses daily. The need to meet the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic precipitated quick action, and our longstanding relationship with Prometric test centers facilitated the transition to CBT.

As the pandemic continued into 2021, our philosophy was that any candidate who wished to sit for exams should have the opportunity to do so. Education volunteers, staff, and exam vendors collaborated on thoughtful solutions for the myriad situations that were affecting candidates. Providing reliable technology to our global candidate pool is mission-critical to all involved in the administration and delivery of our CBT exams. As we look back now on the spring 2021 administration, our third since the pandemic began, we believe it is important to share information on the issues brought about by the pandemic as well as our move to CBT, how we have adapted and what we anticipate for the future of the SOA’s CBT exams.

Moving written-answer exams to CBT provides a better assessment experience

CBT exam administration allows for the integration of programs such as Word, Excel and RStudio which better aligns with the current working tools of actuaries.

Electronic collection of exam papers facilitates secure storage and distribution to graders.

Many candidates surveyed commented that typing in Word, rather than writing on paper, was a welcome change.

Candidates enjoyed the functionality of Excel and not needing to use a calculator.

Some exam committees commented that the CBT format allows them to construct more robust questions with the additional computing power of Excel.

Graders reported that handwriting legibility was no longer an issue, enabling them to focus exclusively on the content and quality of candidates’ responses.

The CBT format allows for the delivery of the exams in emergency situations through alternative vendors with additional seating capacity.

The use of professional testing centers supports consistency, security and access

The use of Prometric test centers supports the SOA’s goal of the equitable administration of examinations across the globe. Prometric operates worldwide and keeps current with the regulations and requirements in all jurisdictions. During the pandemic, the SOA was able to retain essential service status as a result of using Prometric as our testing vendor. This facilitated the offering of examinations that would have been otherwise cancelled in a traditional volunteer-proctored environment.

Prometric provides a consistent experience for candidates throughout their exam pathway. All centers are outfitted with the same level of computer technology ensuring that candidates receive an equitable testing environment, unencumbered by variations in bandwidth, computing power and screen size.

The use of Prometric testing centers eliminates the need to rely on volunteer proctors and employer-supplied exam sites while at the same time provides a higher level of security and proctoring.

Why the SOA won’t return to paper and pencil exams

In addition to the advantages outlined above, the pandemic demonstrated the effectiveness of CBT at professional testing centers during emergency situations. Many SOA organized centers would have had to close during the last few administrations due to local restrictions, company policies and the health and well-being of the individual proctors.

Relying on volunteer proctors and employer-supplied exam sites has become increasingly problematic due to inconsistencies at different centers and the possibility of a center suddenly being unable to operate or a proctor being unable to participate. Some examples include:

The COVID-19 mitigation measures in the Canadian province of Ontario that began on April 8 would have shuttered our traditional pencil and paper centers. Prometric centers continued operations, although with reduced capacities, providing testing opportunities for the vast majority of candidates in that region.

Malaysia implemented COVID-19 control measures just before the start of our spring exam session; our CBT exam format allowed the SOA to swiftly pivot and provide a testing opportunity for candidates displaced due to capacity restrictions.

The risks associated with the shipping of exam booklets to centers and the collection of exam papers is eliminated. Although extremely rare, we have had exam scripts go missing in transit in the past – CBT delivery eliminates that risk.

Benefits outweigh the new risks of CBT exam delivery

Despite the many benefits, CBT delivery also introduces some new risks, most of which center on potential technology issues. Reliance on technology will mean a degree of risk is always possible.

Computer, network, server or power failures will happen from time to time.

In addition, Prometric has had some issues with exams loading properly at some workstations at some centers due to computer upgrades. Regretfully, this has caused delays and rescheduling for some candidates. Prometric has a solution for this problem, and its prevalence will diminish over time. At this point, fewer than 2% of candidates have been affected by this issue. We continue to work with Prometric to eliminate it.

Why remote proctoring is not the answer: cheating, exam security, inequity

Remote proctoring systems that operate without proctors physically on site cannot currently support the integrity of the SOA examination process and provide the level of assurance that our standards, and our stakeholders, demand.

Remote proctoring comes with far greater cheating risks and perceptions of such risks, which in turn affect exam fairness for all candidates. This will undermine the ability of a credentialing organization to provide assurance that passing candidates have the requisite knowledge and skills.

Remote proctoring does not offer a fair and equal opportunity for all candidates to progress toward a designation. Hardware and internet capabilities will have a direct effect on a candidate’s ability to complete a test, leading to an unfair advantage for those with better access to higher-quality tools. Any association between access to technology and socio-economic factors could support the view that remote proctoring is inherently discriminatory.

Remote proctoring creates reputational risks to the value and integrity of the SOA’s credentials.

Remote proctoring raises privacy and security concerns. Third-party software is often installed on the candidate’s computer that allows the remote proctoring company access to content. Multiple cameras are often implemented which pose a privacy concern for candidates who are unable to secure a separate and distinct testing space.

Management of Spring 2021 CBT-related issues

72 candidates experienced a launch issue. All 72 candidates either had their exam started after a delay or were rescheduled. This is an unnecessary disruption for candidates, and we are working with Prometric to minimize these issues. The technical issue that causes the launch problem occurs at the workstation level and is difficult for Prometric to predict, but each workstation only has the issue once, so we expect this concern to be diminished significantly in the Fall 2021 exam session.

A further 29 candidates experienced a technical issue such as a power outage or loss of internet connection at a testing site, highlighting the risks of delivering exams in computer-based format. All 29 candidates were promptly rescheduled and were able to complete their exams.

We received several reports of candidates having file upload issues, and we are continuing to work on process improvements to minimize these. We have learned that, in all but for a very few cases, we can successfully recover candidates’ files after an upload issue, the only exception being a total server crash during the exam.

We expect that the Fall FSA exam administration will not be as affected by the pandemic and that many more seats will be available, particularly in Canada where test center capacities were severely restricted in Spring.

Looking to the future, we are confident that the change to CBT at professional testing centers was the right decision for the SOA exams. This modern solution provides a level playing field for all and provides the security needed for high-stakes examinations. Some risks are part of the new normal, but with experience and diligence we will continue to reduce those risks. While we may never completely eliminate technical issues in a CBT format, we will work industriously toward a low and manageable number of concerns. We look forward to continuing to enhance our assessment tools and building examinations that evaluate candidates for the industry’s current and future needs.

Ken Guthrie

Managing Director, Education

I made a thread for that separately:

Anyway, the CBT thing is an operational choice.

The UEC is more of a strategic choice.

It feels to me more like a capitalism versus socialism dichotomy rather than imperialism versus nationalism. Capitalism maintains that competition fuels innovation where as socialism promotes the good of the whole through a planned economy. Multiple societies can coexist and will be better for it… if you are a capitalist.

Organization of Latino Actuaries have a critique

I will have to take screenshots of the letter:

letter within

Let us just say, they are very negative about the UEC proposal.

reddit thread on this letter:

5 Likes

Shots fired

1 Like

I look forward to the SOA response.

2 Likes

Thanks for sharing. It’s a good letter.

2 Likes

Yes, thanks. Good perspective.

I wrote to the OLA, and in response to what they told me, I wrote the following email to key people involved at the SOA:

the email holds no surprises

Hello,

I am contacting you with respect to the letter from the Organization of Latino Actuaries, dated August 12, 2021, as published here:

Organization of Latino Actuaries on LinkedIn: OLA Statement Opposing SOA's UEC Program

I agree with the OLA’s letter.

I know that the debate over something like UEC has been going on for over 50 years in the SOA. That we keep returning to the same problems each time, and it keeps failing each time, should be a lesson to SOA leadership to build up some institutional memory.

I know after the failure of FEM in 2008/2009, there was an after-action review. One of the findings, if I remember correctly, was that the SOA should seek out opinions from a broad swath of interested parties before attempting such a large change. As you can see from the OLA letter, their views were not solicited, and they were not included in whatever process was used to develop the UEC proposal.

I assume there are other groups and interested parties who also feel excluded.

Thanks for your time,
Mary Pat Campbell, FSA, MAAA

7 Likes

I got a timely membership satisfaction survey email this week, and it was very helpful to be able to point to the OLA’s statement in my response.

5 Likes

from Nate Worrell:

1 Like

Someone pointed out to me this method for achieving ASA that was approved in 2016:

https://www.soa.org/sections/international/intl-actuarial-gen-info/

For candidates of other actuarial organizations, the SOA’s Board of Directors has adopted a policy whereby a candidate meeting the following requirements would be granted Associateship (ASA). The requirements are as follows:

  • Where an individual has obtained the highest possible actuarial qualification in his/her own country;
  • Where the only route to qualification has been not by proctored examinations but through the university education system;
  • Where an individual has received all of his/her education in that country; and
  • Where the individual has seven years of professional actuarial experience, of which at least two years have been in North America.
  • Where the individual earns credit for either Exam LTAM or Exam STAM via examination;
  • Where the individual earns credit for Fundamentals of Actuarial Practice (FAP) Modules 1-8 and the FAP Interim and Final Assessments; and
  • Where the individual attends and passes the Associateship Professionalism Course (APC).

The SOA Board of Directors (BOD) approved the addition of the FAP Course and the APC to the International ASA Waiver Policy on December 14, 2016.

The policy above is designed so that an experienced actuary coming to North America for a period of years would not have to pass all of the Associateship (ASA) examinations, but only one of Exam MLC or Exam C, FAP Modules 1-8, the FAP Interim and Final Assessments, and the APC for ASA. This is not so much a course-by-course waiver as a general recognition of education and experience in the applicant’s own country.

I am somewhat curious what countries are specifically covered by this.

Can an FCAS became an ASA?

I’m not sure about ASA, but for a while FCAS’s were granted FSA just for being FCAS. (And paying dues of course)

I’m not sure if the SOA is still doing that or not.

There are a number of people who have both FCAS and ASA.

I’m sure some of them were ASA who then became FCAS but probably some who were first FCAS & then attained ASA.

When SOA were handing out “free” FSA for any FCAS who wanted one (back in 2014-ish?), the FCAS/ASA combo was more impressive than many of the new FCAS/FSA. (sorry @ maine-iac - unfortunately it became harder to tell the difference between the “free” FSAs and people who did it the hard way)

I was definitely asking about the “free” way. thanks for the information.