If a mutual agreement could be reached on this issue, I think the other
hurdles in the way of closer association could be overcome. In fact, we
already agree in principal, it's just a quibble over N.
Some of the benefits of a closer association could include:
Professionalism in the exam process. Casualty actuaries are
professionals at actuarial work but amateurs at making up exams. Even if
this is better than ever, there is still criticism about emphasis and
consistency in the exams. Using a core group of educational
professionals, under the review of actuarial content specialists, might
be easier to achieve if closer affiliation were at hand.
International influence. The CAS is a North American body but is
offering exams at other locations. The SOA and Institute of Actuaries
are in many more countries. If the North American model including N is
the best balance professionally, then other countries would benefit if
the CAS and SOA worked together in every country. Otherwise the
Institute approach becomes the standard outside of North America.
Better access to theorists. Some of the actuaries most knowledgeable
about theory in the P&C area are actuarial professors who happen to be
FSA's. A closer affiliation would probably improve access to this group.
I'm not including having the profession speak as one voice as an
advantage, as the AAA and CIA do this well in their countries, and I'm
not sure this is needed internationally. However, there may be benefits
I haven't thought of.
gary
Visit the CAS Web Site at http://www.casact.org
===============================================
To subscribe or unsubscribe from CASNET:
Send an e-mail to caslists@lists.casact.org
Type in the body join casnet to subscribe
or leave casnet to unsubscribe.