|
|
|
In My Opinion
Ease on Down the Road?
by Paul E. LackoAs I write this, the cable TV news channels are reporting that coalition forces in Iraq have gained control of the Baghdad airport. Odds are that you or someone you know has a son or a daughter over there—or some other relative, or a friend—following orders, trying to finish the job, stay alive, and return to the comforts of home. I hope they succeed. May you soon hear the words, "I'm fine and I'm coming home!"
There's just no way anymore to be a distant observer of foreign events, not even in the actuarial profession. Actuarial societies have been sprouting around the globe, like daffodils in April, in countries where the job title "actuary" didn't even exist twenty years ago. These actuarial societies have not adopted the CAS exams as the means, or even the model, for actuarial training and education. Their requirements for what we would call "full Fellowship" are less strict than those of the CAS. And, with the support of their governments, I'm sure, they will take whatever steps are necessary to nurture their domestic professional growth and assure that their members will have ample job opportunities.
The CAS has always done a pretty good job of maintaining a healthy balance between stability and responsiveness in a changing world. Maybe that's because the world always looked promising, attractive, and relatively stable in terms of the opportunities it had afforded to CAS members.
Now we find that even the CAS must adapt to sweeping geopolitical changes in the global actuarial landscape. The design and structure of the CAS enable it to adapt effectively to small or gradual changes in the environment, to evolve slowly over time. The CAS is constitutionally (literally and figuratively) incapable of responding quickly to large, sudden changes in the environment. I describe the CAS as "a representative, democratic meritocracy." We are representative, in that we elect officers and directors to grapple with the issues on behalf of all of us. We are democratic, in that forums exist—committees, publications, and Web site discussion areas—in which to argue the merits, discuss the alternatives, evaluate the criteria, and, on a good day, reach a consensus. And we are meritocratic, in that every member has to move up the ladder of responsibility one rung at a time, proving his or her capabilities at each rung before stepping up to the next rung. In sum, the pace of change is just this side of glacial.
Thus, we devote a lot of time and effort to forecasting the challenges we'll face ten or twenty years down the road, and we work hard to adapt to the futures we project. If our forecasts are accurate, then we find ourselves, years later, appropriately adapted, right on schedule. A good example is the vice president-international position, which was created just a few years ago, but had been under deliberation for a long time.
We are fortunate that the CAS now has something akin to a secretary of state. We may not call it "foreign policy," but that's what the CAS needs going forward, and that's what a vice president-international concentrates on. One proposed plank in the CAS's foreign policy platform is mutual recognition (MR).
The pros and cons of this proposal are laid out and debated in a lively roundtable discussion facilitated by AR staff member Arthur Schwartz. In one corner, arguing for the proposal, are Mary Frances Miller and Walter Wright. In the opposite corner, vigorously opposing the proposal, are Nolan Asch and Scott Bradley. Thanks to all of you for the hours and hours of time you gave to create this presentation!
We are fortunate to be able to augment the MR discussion with letters in the "From the Readers" column. Alfred Weller gave us permission to publish a letter he wrote to the CAS Board of Directors. His letter lays out extensive arguments for opposing MR, and he asks the board to reverse its decision. Following his letter is a reply from members of the board that throws considerable light on how the board came to its decision. We thank Alfred Weller and the CAS Board of Directors for allowing us to share their correspondence with our readers.