Kudos for the New Design
Dear Editor:
Congratulations! This is a very good-looking piece of work. The editorial team of AR deserves lots of thanks for what must have been an enormous effort to produce such a beautiful layout. Of course, technology does tend to lessen the burden a bit. I remember the last time AR got a facelift-and it was a mighty effort. Also, not to be overlooked, the content seemed to be getting continuously punchier. As a former editor of AR I am especially appreciative of all that the AR team has been doing. As for an electronic version only, I would strongly urge that members be given the option of getting a printed copy, much like the option we have on other publications. Keep up the good work.
C. K. "Stan" Khury, FCAS

Why Not Be An Actuary?
Dear Editor:
Professor Stephen P. D'Arcy's article ("From the President", AR February 2005) reminds me of the first time I met him in his narrow, out-of-order, corner office in Champaign. That talk in his pigeon-nest office changed my whole life. When the meeting was close to an end, Steve asked me, "Why not be an actuary with your background?" I was not sure at that moment if it was a serious question, but this professor was pretty sagacious and impressive (but not that "dashingly handsome"). He picked up the phone and called someone, then rushed around the pigeon nest, grabbed a crumpled campus map, and directed me to another actuarial professor to find out more about what's an actuary. I didn't hear clearly whether the person he wanted me to see was a man or woman, but I decided to take Steve's advice and enjoyed a very polite but lovely talk with Professor Esther Portnoy, who is a Fellow of the Society of Actuaries. After this, I flew to Philadelphia to continue my official trip. On the flight, I still tried to differentiate the word "actuarial" from "actual." What is it? To be a pure "numbers guy?" Forget it!

After spending two months attending an executive training program in the United States, I eagerly flew back to Beijing. I digested my talk with Steve on my 16-hour flight on my way back, and found that I was touched pretty much by the pride, energy, and enthusiasm I experienced from the talks with these two distinguished professors and Fellows.

Two months later, I met Steve again in his office, this time as his research assistant!

I spent two years with him in the pigeon nest with his research and teaching. Oh, also including carrying two equipment cases and one big box to a classroom to set the online course in a shabby classroom with only one electrical outlet. (Steve always carried a power extension cord with him. One outlet! I could hardly believe this. The university has one of the country's best engineering schools, and it owns one of the National Super-Computing Centers.) Steve never complained. He just recorded and delivered his class to many online students, many of whom already have their CAS Fellowships. Steve loves to teach, and he loves to talk about the actuarial profession, and he treats teaching more seriously than anything. I took all the courses Steve taught. I worked for classes he taught. I read the papers he wrote, and I worked with him on papers. Steve is always a legend to his students…I shaped my own vision about this profession from my days working with him, from the classrooms in which he yelled, energetically and in a gentlemanly style.

After I finished my master's degree in actuarial science in Champaign, I gave up continuing my Ph.D. study in another distinguished university and chose to be a consulting actuary. I think Steve could give me a check plus now for my answer to the question he asked when we first met: "Actuary? What is it? I can try if it's interesting." I tried it. I love it.
Jeffrey H. Xia

Dear Editor:
I enjoyed reading Steve D'Arcy's recent article ("From the President," AR February 2005) regarding his experiences in the teaching profession. I am writing to share my perspectives on this topic.

I had a successful 25-year career as an actuary and operating executive in a corporate setting. I retired from this career several years ago, and decided to try my hand at the teaching profession. I obtained a position as an adjunct instructor of business and mathematics at a local college. I discovered that I love teaching!

I have experienced many of the rewards articulated in Steve's article, including:

• Countless instances of positive feedback from students.
• Ratings from student evaluations that are consistently among the highest at the college.
• Sincere expressions of appreciation from students for helping them grasp and/or master concepts they had previously believed they were incapable of learning.
• An ever-growing inventory of "e-mail correspondence relationships" with former students who write to apprise me of their situations and to thank me for the significant impact I have had on their lives.
• I have also received nominations for my college's annual award for teaching excellence.

The intangible rewards associated with the teaching profession have been enormous to me. I have no regrets about my corporate career, but I strongly agree with the sentiments expressed in Steve's article. Teaching has been a very rewarding experience, and I have found that the skills required to excel as a teacher are a natural extension of the competencies I utilized during my corporate career.

In Steve's article, he noted his willingness to provide assistance to actuaries considering a teaching career. After reading the article, I contacted Steve. I have found him to be a thoughtful and considerate mentor. He has provided me with valuable advice, and has already helped me expand my network of actuaries in the teaching profession. I strongly recommend contacting Steve if you want to learn more about being a professor. I would also be glad to discuss my experiences with anyone who is interested.
Robert V. DeLiberato, FCAS

Support for FRC Designation and Then Some
Dear Editor:
My immediate response to Arthur Schwartz's proposal for a new Fellows in Risk Contingencies (FRC) designation ("In My Opinion," AR November 2004) is a resounding "Yes!"

Being a recent CAS member in a country where nearly all actuaries have qualifications from the SOA, the U.K. Institute/Faculty of Actuaries or Institute of Actuaries of Australia (IoAA), it is indeed a challenging experience. Malaysia can be considered relatively advanced in its life actuarial work, but is only in its early developmental stages with regards to non-life actuarial science. Here, the few actuaries practicing in non-life insurance have either the FIA or FIAA qualification (but not FSA, the reason being obvious). This is made possible, as pointed out by Mr. Schwartz, because there are no separate designations for life and non-life actuaries from these organizations: the Institute/Faculty and IoAA have exams covering both sides of life and non-life actuarial science, and these are taken by every one of their students.

My adventure in the actuarial world started off in life insurance, hence my initial choice of following the SOA path. It was not until a couple of years later when I switched to non-life work that I decided to jump on board the CAS track upon completion of the first four joint CAS/SOA exams. Perhaps what bothers me is that I am unable to switch back to the life side, if ever I would like to, unless I revisit the SOA syllabus…and why would I want to even think of doing that, you may ask? Well, consider this: FIAs and FIAAs can work and sign actuarial statements in both the life and non-life sides, unlike FCASs or FSAs. Their syllabi may not be as in-depth as the CAS in non-life insurance or the SOA in life insurance, but they are deemed sufficient to qualify actuaries to sign reports and to carry out this work. And this is not just the case in Malaysia, but is also practiced internationally. So my concluding thoughts are these: A combined designation between the CAS and SOA would be ideal for (1) Actuaries who want the liberty to practice in either the life or non-life side, (2) Aspiring actuaries and new students who may at present find that Institute/Faculty and IoAA exams provide broader career options, and (3) Both the CAS and SOA, in further enlarging their influence globally. Of course, as Mr. Schwartz points out, the full FCAS and FSA qualifications should remain untouched, whilst the new FRC title allows actuaries to have their feet on both sides of the actuarial world, if they wanted to. The FRC designation could be awarded to actuaries who have attained both ACAS and ASA, but perhaps something less demanding would be more reasonable and practical, e.g., FRC = Joint exams 1 to 4 + CAS Exams 5 and 6 + Two relevant SOA exams.
Gary Hoo, ACAS (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

Dear Editor:
I was particularly interested in Arthur Schwartz's proposed Fellow in Risk Contingencies designation.

Might I suggest that "we" go one small step further? Instead of a joint SOA/CAS designation, why not have a joint designation with all of the actuarial bodies of the world that offer their own professional examinations (versus those based in universities)? This covers the U.K. Institute/Faculty, the SOA/CAS/CIA, and the Australian Institute (although the latter uses their own exams in a much more limited manner and relies on the four local university programs more broadly).

We respect the end-result actuaries from these bodies so much that our Societies are now signing mutual recognition agreements with them all. If you study the four sets of examination requirements, we all cover the same basic materials. What differs can be seen to be limited to matters of regulation, taxation, and legislation. These matters could be relegated to a part of each of the advanced exams (say 10 percent) or to a final "finishing" exam (which should probably be run by the AAA as the credentialing body in the United States).

This is not a new idea. In the period 1999-2001, preliminary work was done to discover how much all of these professional bodies had in common and what was truly different with respect to education. The former overwhelmed the latter. What was proposed in this period was a lower "common-denominator" designation called QRA, which stood for quantitative risk analyst. This would have included examinations 1-4 in North America and the equivalent exams 1-9 in the U.K.

But why not bite off the whole tamale? Let's introduce an international syllabus. Each professional body can then specialize in certain areas. Maybe the SOA could specialize in Exams 1-4. Canada could take the lead for Exam 5. The Aussies could take Exam 6, and so on. Where necessary, the local bodies would cover necessary "nation-specific" material (about 10 percent of any exam syllabus after the preliminary examinations). The CAS could specialize in the P&C advance materials. Think of the efficiency.

Now about two-thirds of all actuaries qualify under one of the above listed syllabi (e.g., most South African actuaries qualify under the U.K. system plus a final qualifying examination). The rest tend to come from European university programs. The International Actuarial Association has instituted educational guidelines that establish a minimum educational requirement for any actuarial body that wants full membership in the IAA. But, why not go all the way? Let's establish once and for all an international actuarial syllabus and an international actuarial designation.
Let's just do it.
Rob Brown, ACAS

Arthur Schwartz responds:
I would like to applaud Gary Hoo and Rob Brown for their thoughtful comments! Gary observes that for a foreign actuarial student, the U.K. or Australian credentials is an attractive career option as it allows practice in life or non-life areas. In comparison, pursuit of either SOA or CAS credentials is limiting in terms of employment opportunities. I agree with Gary that the exam requirements for a new designation should be set somewhat less than the current requirements to achieve an ASA and an ACAS. Rob Brown takes things a step farther by considering the possibility of a single joint international designation. Conceptually this makes sense however the obstacles may be a tad greater than only mastering the intricacies of "regulation, taxation and legislation." The CAS syllabus has advanced topics in non-life contingencies that are not on any other international syllabus. The SOA syllabus likewise has many advanced topics on health, life, and pensions that are not on other syllabi. I believe a single international designation would make sense if there continue to be "higher" designations that demonstrate a mastery of advanced actuarial topics. The single designation though could serve as a "currency" whose value would be respected worldwide and could be used for employment worldwide. I appreciate Gary and Rob's opinions and invite anyone else to write up their opinions and submit a "Letter to the Editor."