Opinion

Strengthening the Profession

by Beth Riczko

We seem to think that we can stake out our territory by broadening the definition of our profession and changing our exam syllabus. I think it is the wrong approach. Neither the CFA program nor the actuarial exams prepare an individual to be a financial engineer, an investment analyst, or an actuary. The exams provide the basic knowledge needed to become proficient, but proficiency is not achieved by exams alone. Few people would argue this point, but our focus on the examination process, its difficulty and the time required to complete the syllabus, suggest otherwise.

By concentrating on trying to strengthen the profession through a rigorous examination process, I wonder if we have not limited our opportunities to compete in the future. People outside our profession often know of the rigors of our examination procedure, yet know little of the overall knowledge we possess. We are often viewed as myopic and ill equipped for the broader business issues. Our colleagues admire our intellectual abilities, but question our ability to help them solve daily business problems. Is this a fair criticism of our skill set or is this the result of our fascination with the difficulty of the examination process?

I am a Level 2 CFA candidate. I also have three of the four parts required for the Certified Financial Manager and Certified Management Accountant designations. I have the CPCU, AIM, AIS, ARe, and ARP designations. None of these programs has been as difficult as the actuarial exams. That does not suggest, however, that these programs are any less educational or less applicable to my professional duties. Depending on the audience, each designation is given different weight in assessing my skills and qualifications. Yet only my FCAS designation comes with the automatic reputation in some circles as identifying me as a "math nerd." I was recently involved in a discussion over which credential should be listed first on my letterhead. One individual made the comment that the CPCU designation should be listed first since I need to appear well rounded and several others in the room (insurance professionals with years of experience) agreed. I think it is a sad commentary on our profession that so many people know how hard the exams are to pass, but know so little about the breadth of knowledge covered in the process.

What can we do to strengthen our profession and improve our image?

First we should stop concentrating on the exam process and start concentrating on building skills. Do the exams really need to be as comprehensive, difficult, and time-consuming as they currently are to achieve our educational objectives? We could learn a lot from programs such as the CFA program. It is competitive, thorough, and very well managed. It certainly appears to achieve its educational objectives. Additionally, it is attracting many of our students.

Second, I think we should find ways to encourage actuaries to become qualified in another field. Can we redesign the program to encourage multifunctional learning that benefits our profession? I firmly believe that the individuals who will add the most value in the future are those operating on the edges of the traditional professions—those who can synthesize material from several distinct professions to address complex business issues. Yet, our current exam program does not encourage learning from other professional arenas. I have had several discussions with students torn by their desire to finish the exams or expand their knowledge in another professional area. Invariably, these individuals feel they must choose a single profession—how sad.

Third, we need to encourage Fellows, the ambassadors of our profession, to think about how they speak about the profession. Do we need to debate publicly whether the exams were more difficult when you took them or when I took them? Let's spend less time talking about how hard it was to get our Fellowship and more time expanding our skills. Let's encourage more Fellows to seek out additional learning opportunities.

In the long run, the letters behind our names will make little difference to the success of our profession—how we are perceived and what we deliver will define our future role.

Editor's Note: The Actuarial Review encourages the publication of opinion pieces. If you would like to respond to a published opinion or express a new one, please send your article to the CAS Office or send it by e-mail to esmith@casact.org. All submissions should be in electronic format with 500 words or less.