25 Years Ago in The Actuarial Review

The following excerpts from the October 1974 issue (there were only three issues in 1974) illustrate that some actuarial topics never die.

From Paul Liscord's "From the President" column:

While the recent syllabus changes may have seemed precipitous to some, they have been in formative stages going back over five years. As a member of the Education Committee five years ago, I can recall spending hours discussing the many alternatives possible. In fact, we got back to the basic question whether or not written examinations were necessary. Our conclusion obviously was that they were necessary, and in spite of the fact that a few of our members may feel differently, we held this to be axiomatic of our profession.

...Finally, everyone should realize that the syllabus changes effective in May 1975 are only the latest update in the continuing process of keeping our exams in-tune-with-the-times. The latest tune-up by necessity is a compromise of future changes already contemplated within the Education Committee, i.e., the elimination of current Part 1. I'm confident that our current Education Committee will continue to press for further changes in order that the CAS properly meets the increasing actuarial demands of the business it serves.

From a news article:

The private passenger classification rating system is no longer serving the public and needs substantial revision...

Phil Stern went further and questioned the rationale of the entire classification system. He expressed the opinion that the system applies hazard characteristics of a few drivers to a whole group of motorists, using the "broad brush" approach. For example, he said, "The bureau's rationale for higher rates on cars used going to and going from work was the pressure under which such use occurs. This argument completely overlooks the fact that there are many who drive to work with complete leisure; some get there too early and some do not care whether they are on time or not."

From the editorial:

Perhaps these remarks might also be directed at accountants, but the annual statement needs revision most in those areas that reflect our business as a risk operation, and here the actuaries should take the lead.