Small Piece of Paper: Big Problems

This video wraps up some of my thoughts on the perception that future actuaries need to go through the same process that the preceding generations went through to become certified.  Although this is a very specific topic to my field of study I hope that you can't take away some of the highlights to some of the more general dogmas with regards to credentialing. (Some of the other students in our class have done their videos/blog posts about this topic.)

(Hopefully this video updates soon so that it doesn't look as raw as it currently does. Either way, Enjoy!)

Don't Tell An Actuary He's "Too Smart"

            I never back down from a challenge. As expected I have received a lot of pushback to my new ideas surrounding the certification of actuaries from a couple of actuaries who have been around the block a few times. As I previously discussed in my last post, I feel that actuaries in general have a mentality about them that is almost unavoidable in feeling “smarter” than others. I have felt this in myself from time to time as I tirelessly work and sacrifice my time to pass actuarial exams. When I do pass them. I too can sometimes become “big-headed”. It is a vicious cycle that needs to be stopped.

            This semester I have had the opportunity to take a class from a visiting Actuary. His class is amazing and his insights are great, as there aren't any fellowship actuaries currently teaching at BYU. I asked him what he thought about the exams, and if this dogma of being “smarter” than others existed, and was leading to the difficulty of the exams. He quickly shot me down, and stated that the exams are not a product of a better-than-the-world mentality, and that they have to be difficult to ensure actuaries know what they are doing. A response I expected as Joe’s comment suggested.

            I also messaged an actuary on LinkedIn who is in a group with me titled, The Entry Level Actuary. He responded almost identically to my teacher, saying that no such dogma existed among professional actuaries, and that the exams should be harder if anything else.

            So was I completely wrong? Perhaps. But I think it is also fair to suggest that those I talked with about this issue have a skewed frame of reference in which they would be unlikely to respond in any other manner than in which the one they already have. These were two men who had sacrificed many hours to take 8-10 actuarial exams, sacrificing time from family, friends, work, and school work to accomplish professional goals. They aren't about to say that the exams they sacrificed over are too hard, and especially that they are hard because of some kind of poor mentality among actuaries.

            The world is changing, and because of this there are more people out there that could be actuaries but can't because of an outdated thought about the requirements. Actuaries of the future need to change their frame of reference and see that more can be done to allow those who are able to be actuaries to become certified. 

To Be Politically Correct...

We live in a day and age when it is imperative to always be "politically correct." There are instances when an individual steps out of bounds in what they say, like with Justine Sacco who got fired for being racist. In fact, at least once a week I see a story on Facebook entitled something like, "You Won't Believe What ________ Said." With the accessibility of the internet, it is easy to get yourself in trouble for something that you post for the whole world to see.

This ultra-correct ideology to me is an example of tolerance, but tolerance taken too far. Now, there are times and places to say things and to not say things, like with Justine Sacco. But, on the other hand, if I were to publicly broadcast that I do not believe gay marriage is right, I would probably get shamed by my online peers. For me to say something that I believe or don't believe, I am called a bigot, judgmental, and un-Christian.

This idea of tolerance reminds me of frames of reference, a principle of the Enlightenment. To me, dogma of political correctness is based on frames of reference. For me to say my beliefs about gay marriage to my LDS friends would not get me in trouble, because they share a similar frame of reference with me. But to step out of that frame of reference would be to step into a war zone where I am bound to get shot down.

The problem with being "politically correct" is that it at times takes away a bit of our freedom of speech. (Again, keep in mind that I acknowledge there are some things that are absolutely inappropriate to say.) To have to be politically correct is to have to alter the way I say things to make it appear as though I agree with the rest of what society says, or risk being called on the carpet. To claim a belief because of my religion or just as an opinion is labeled as narrow-minded and ignorant. I can't have beliefs unless those beliefs line up with the frame of reference of everyone else. I mean, I can, but maybe I'll end up like Justine Sacco.