The alternative problem does not work, the original was the over lap of married men, married women and single people. You lose the interaction adding dog ownership as a third relationship with no relationship between the old & young
Obviously not the point of the article, which I do appreciate, but the revision bothered me
Hmmm.
The original problem had married men, unmarried men, married women, unmarried women.
The revised problem has newbies with dogs, newbies without dogs, oldies with dogs, oldies without dogs.
but there is no interaction with the young & old, it is a much simpler problem adding two ratios
It would make sense as people with dogs, people without dogs, dogs with people and dogs without people, then the ratios over lap, this is a venn diagram the other is two unrelated circles
Dropping a link to a non-profit on LinkedIn that is getting some institutional support from the CAS in getting off the ground. Looking forward to seeing what they plan on doing.
SAGAA’s quarterly meeting is March 24th.
SOA Diversity report:
Some graphs (sorry for all the U.S.-centric stuff, but the bulk of the membership & data are for that group)
go asians.
that is a terrible anti-Asian sentiment, it is an epidemic
I say stay Asians
I don’t know why I’m surprised at the proportion of women…but I am, somehow. It feels like it should be higher for new members.
Also disappointed that this report is coming out in 2021 and there’s no inclusion or mention of non-binary people. Do we really simply have none?
I definitely was surprised by how little difference there was on new entrants, new members, and the whole membership with the sex split.
I sent an email to the SOA about this one:
Because all the other sex-related breakouts said they had about 96% self-reported… but this one is 66%. It seemed odd.
The CAS simply didn’t have the data when they did the diversity report to do any transgender/non binary reporting, so I expect the SOA is similar. The CAS only recently added the ability to report other genders than M/F as far as I can tell.
Yeah, I assume it’s due to lack of data. I don’t recall when/if the SOA started asking for gender by M/F/Other/Prefer not to say, but I feel like that’s a thing. How do they treat those who answer “Other”? Lump in with prefer not to say and disregard?
The last big CAS survey of membership did have some option other than M and F. Not a lot of people chose it, but some did. I looked at the data for something, and noticed that.
Let me see what I can find for the CAS demographics…
(grumble grumble, new website, can’t find anything, grumble grumble)
72% non-hispanic white
23% Asian
1% Black
2% Hispanic
2% other
31% female in 2019 (growing slowly from 29.5% in 2015)
more info on women
31% of all CAS members
35% of new members since 2010
37% of candidates
There was some more in-depth stuff about various minorities presented at some of the recent sessions on diversity in the field. The capsule summary was “we are a lot less racially diverse than other STEM fields”, but i can’t find that data right now.
Here’s the CIA stuff:
Racially, the CIA membership looks pretty close to the overall population. Sexual identity-wise, there’s 9% who identify as LGBTQ. No idea how that compares to the general population, but I’ll speculate it’s the same or higher.
Women are still underrepresented, 33% instead of closer to 50% I think in the general pop, but they note in the report it’s better than a lot of stem.
I’m surprised the split is only 1/3 women. My personal experience would be that women are well represented - at least half the actuary folks I know are women. But, maybe it’s an old-school thing where new entrants are slowly tilting the numbers over to 50-50.
That seems to line up pretty well with the STEM degree distribution, though.
These are meh charts that don’t get to the actual issue of “Why” the profession is like this.
Are we (companies hiring) doing this on purpose (that would be “bad”)? Or are we selecting from the résumé pool as best we can (not as “bad” but diversifying the pool is whose job, though?)?
So, if selecting from all “STEM” degrees (however they define that), the male/female percentage isn’t that different.
But if we compare to accountants (yes, I know we’re not accountants):
They’re about 50/50 … at least at the undergrad level.
Anyway, I am a little surprised that it’s stubbornly at about 1/3 female. Maybe we need to upgrade the shoes.
So, as is to be expected when actuarial societies try to do anything productive, the “cranky old white men” subsection of them is apparently up in arms over the CAS statement on Equity and Inclusion. The open letter has all the buzz words that you’d expect, about how they “support” equity and inclusion, but it’s political and so the CAS shouldn’t say anything about it.
Speaking as a Cranky Old White guy, I agree that there is a political line the Societies should not cross. Like porn, I can’t define it, but I’ll know it when I see it.
Equity and Diversity is NOT a political issue. It is a workplace issue, it is an industry issue. It is not a topic where people should question whether they should be addressing, it is a topic they are coming way too late to the game and should have been proactive years ago, not reactive as the issue becomes political nationally.
Agreed with all of that. I would be furious if the CAS endorsed a candidate or supported a piece of legislation without consulting this members. But announcing a policy to foster diversity isn’t a political statement. Human rights aren’t political.
