Ahn
I've made this comment in ahetnor forum, but the vision of the level of understanding required for membership approved by the Board sets (IMO) an appallingly low standard for Associates. Should not the CAS expect Associates who are members and actuaries, mind you to synthesize methodologies? Exercise complex judgment? Develop practical solutions to business problems not necessarily encountered before? Clearly communicate this to ahetnor party? If not if these are expected only of Fellows then it's worth asking whether the Fellowship level exams are achieving this differential between Fellows and Associates, or if instead we're attributing some kind of value judgment to the passing of a couple of exams that don't test for these skills. I haven't taken exams in a long time, so I can't say firsthand how it currently is. But I've read the vision to current Fellowship candidates and they've laughed at the distinction. I bring it up here because I believe it's relevant to the discussion. Statistical methods are rapidly becoming basic methodology for ratemaking or at least risk classification and reserving. Like others above I believe it is inadequately addressed in the current basic education structure. It strikes me that if we are to add such material to the syllabus it should be part of the requirements for Associateship, if we are to follow the vision as articulated by the Board. I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion of the vision and its implications on the basic education structure. (It probably warrants a thread of its own.) My point is simply that current usage of statistical techniques in insurance demands that more material/evaluation be added to the basic education structure, and that the vision would suggest candidates for Associateship should demonstrate competence in it.
Ahn I've made this comment in ahetnor forum, but the vision of the level of understanding required for membership approved by the Board sets (IMO) an appallingly low standard for Associates. Should not the CAS expect Associates who are members and actuaries, mind you to synthesize methodologies? Exercise complex judgment? Develop practical solutions to business problems not necessarily encountered before? Clearly communicate this to ahetnor party? If not if these are expected only of Fellows then it's worth asking whether the Fellowship level exams are achieving this differential between Fellows and Associates, or if instead we're attributing some kind of value judgment to the passing of a couple of exams that don't test for these skills. I haven't taken exams in a long time, so I can't say firsthand how it currently is. But I've read the vision to current Fellowship candidates and they've laughed at the distinction. I bring it up here because I believe it's relevant to the discussion. Statistical methods are rapidly becoming basic methodology for ratemaking or at least risk classification and reserving. Like others above I believe it is inadequately addressed in the current basic education structure. It strikes me that if we are to add such material to the syllabus it should be part of the requirements for Associateship, if we are to follow the vision as articulated by the Board. I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion of the vision and its implications on the basic education structure. (It probably warrants a thread of its own.) My point is simply that current usage of statistical techniques in insurance demands that more material/evaluation be added to the basic education structure, and that the vision would suggest candidates for Associateship should demonstrate competence in it.