Disapproval of FEM (Future Education Methods)

I am writing to inform the Society of my disapproval of the new FEM proposal to grant credits for preliminary exams via university courses.

I am a recent graduate from an Actuarial Science program in Simon Fraser University in Canada. The rigor of the program has more than prepared me to write—and pass—all the preliminary exams with ease. Thus, I do think that a stringent and well-designed university program can instill the mastery of the SOA syllabus that one requires to pass the preliminary exams. However, I do not think the SOA should abandon its control on the accreditation process and allow a university to decide whether a student has demonstrated sufficient knowledge in the materials of the preliminary exams. This is a slippery slope that would inevitably reduce the standards of actuarial education.

In my high school years, I studied in the International Baccalaureate program (http://www.ibo.org/). The IBO is a nonprofit educational foundation based in Geneva which allows accredited schools to teach their high-quality curriculum. In a sense, it is very much similar the current FEM proposal; it outsources the education of a syllabus to an external institution. However, there is a big difference between the two systems, and that is IB never abandons control of the final validation of the student’s knowledge of the material. Grading in IB is based on internal assessments and external assessments. Internal assessments are based on grading done in accredited schools, with a select sample that would be sent out for external review to ensure compliance with standards. External assessments, where thankfully is where the bulk of the marks reside, are examinations that every IB student has to write at the end of their courses. As the name would imply, these exams are all externally graded. My IB experience has taught me that a hands-off, behind-the-scene education can easily become a sham, despite the best intention and controls. I had teachers who did not understand the material that I was expected to understand. Some teachers had their own agenda on what should be taught and what should not be despite the specifications of the IB syllabus. I have had to self-study large sections of syllabi because those materials were never taught. The lab reports of my peers and me were scaled down after being externally reviewed because my teachers failed to convey to us the expectations of IB. Without the externally graded exams, I do not believe IB would have the reputation that it has earned today, nor my genuine appreciation of how the IB experience has molded me into the person that I am today.

No matter how stringent the CIA/SOA/CAS Accreditation Committee plans to be, cracks will inevitability develop due to the distance between the universities and the SOA. This distance is both physical and philosophical—a university’s goals may not (and probably does not) parallel those of the Society. This divergence will weaken the education standards that the Society had built. University education should be a complement to the examination system and not the examination system itself. If a candidate is competent, then he would be able to demonstrate his ability in a fairly administered examination with transparent expectations. If the goal of FEM is to reduce the barrier to entry, then the Society should allow accredited university to administer preliminary exams for free to qualifying students. The abandonment of the final bastion of actuarial education validation, and allowing an external institution to decide whether a candidate is sufficiently competent, is in no way an “advancement”, and it will certainly not “strengthen the profession in the long term”. Rather, it will certainly lead the profession down a path that it might never be able to recover.


p51dray, ASA 2008