Actuaries
have a running joke about the accounting CPA exam in which they claim “CPA”
stands for “Can’t-Pass-Actuarial-Exams”. As an aspiring actuary I think that
this joke has some actual weight to it, in the sense that passing actuarial
exams is a very difficult process. The actuarial exam process is the reason why
many people don’t ever consider pursuing a career in actuarial science, and why
a lot of people haven't heard of an actuary. However, I have recently heard it
wasn't always like this.
The
exams used to be a lot easier. In turn, more people passed the exams and became
credentialed actuaries. Because of this there were more and more actuaries that
didn’t really know what they were doing on the job, but had become credentialed
by memorizing a few formulas. The organizations that administer the exams have “solved”
this problem by making the exams now a days ridiculously hard. It is common
knowledge that to have a chance at passing an exam you must study 100 hours
outside of your class time for every hour of that specific exam. My knee jerk
reaction to the difficulty of the exams is to demand a change and to make these
exams easier, but recently I have realized there is a larger issue at hand.
 |
| An unfortunate dogma I've felt in the Actuarial field |
Actuaries
write these exams. There is without question somewhat of a “pride” factor that
has caused these exams to evolve into what they are today. There is a sense
that those who make up the Society of Actuaries want as few as possible to make
it to the top credential. Making the exams easier isn't going to change this
way of thought. Actuaries everywhere need to embrace those who may be slightly
less mathematically gifted but still work hard enough to become a practicing
actuary.
As the other actuarial science major in the class, I will gladly be a second witness to this. The exams are incredibly hard.
ReplyDeleteI think the larger issue here (which you touched upon) is the fact that we have it in our heads that credentials are associated with qualification. Someone who is a poor test taker might have been a very good actuary if only they had passed the exams. How someone does on a test might not be the best predictor for success in the workplace.
On the other hand, couldn't you say that the entire job of an actuary (I admit, I'm no actuary) is to predict future risk in all sorts of fields? In my mind this translates to essentially taking an exam (mathematical and statistical) every day whose results won't be known for years, even decades, and whose results can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
ReplyDeleteI'd want a pretty good test-taker taking those tests.
Obviously I'm not familiar with the culture surrounding actuaries - and perhaps there is some fear for job security there. But I don't know if limiting inclusion into a certain field based on ability is necessarily a bad thing.