Re: The Crucial Issue
kathy gile ( kgecorp@ix10.ix.netcom.com )
Wed, 10 Sep 1997 20:53:53 -0500
Venter, Gary wrote:
>
> The August Actuarial Review contained a number of different views about
> the relationship among actuarial societies. In trying to make sense of
> it all, a crucial issue that stands out is uniqueness. How unique is the
> FCAS? Let me propose a metric: the number of exams an FSA or FCAS should
> have to take to get the other designation. From the exchanges in the
> newsletter, it appears the CAS feels this is seven, while the SOA feels
> it is three. Call the right number N.
>
> 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.
I do not think there is a unique value of N. Exams are important, but
they are not the sole determinant of competency. For the sake of
argument, I would suggest that an FSA with no P/C experience whatsoever
should have N = 7. An FSA with a LOT (5 to 10 years?) of responsible
actuarial work in P/C might have N = 3 or less! I would suggest this
also works for the FCAS seeking FSA. A major consideration behind the
exam process is, presumably, to determine who is (or is not) suited
to the work of an actuary. Also, I presume, one who has attained FSA or
FCAS has thereby demonstrated suitability. The problem is how to
measure the value of experience. This is difficult at best, but
I think also that experience should be a major factor.
Disclosure: I am FSA with 10 years P/C experience.
Brad Gile
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.