CURRENT STATE OF THE PROFESSION
We asked you what you felt about people's general perceptions of actuaries.
The majority of you believed the general public had little or no understanding of what an actuary was, and there was a misconception that it had something to do with accountancy. This issue has become worse as the profession has broadened into non-traditional areas.
Most of you felt you were only known and recognised within the financial services sector. In fact, some of the people in the focus groups expressed their concern that even some of their work colleagues weren't exactly clear about what an actuary does.
We asked how you'd like to be perceived in the future.
You want to be seen as reliable and professional experts; specialists in your field who operate with integrity and high ethical standards. You felt you could achieve this by defining your skills more clearly, and demonstrating your value in broader areas.
You also said that actuaries should be both innovators and more consultative. You felt actuaries should take the initiative, and be seen to be 'getting out there'. According to the survey respondents, one way to do this could be to get more involved with public debate, becoming better communicators – as individuals and, perhaps more importantly, as a profession.
We asked what you considered to be the strengths or weaknesses of having two separate membership bodies in the UK.
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
It ensures that we don’t become too London focused |
It’s confusing to outsiders, including the media, and dilutes our image |
It preserves the history, heritage and tradition attributed to Edinburgh |
The profession is too small to sustain two sets of overheads and accounts. |
There are two views on all matters – encouraging healthy debate |
It means two Presidents, and double the expenses |
It avoids monopolistic behaviour and encourages balance |
There are too many council members, inevitably leading to wastes of time and effort |
It presents two bodies on the international stage |
It’s too country focused, and creates a barrier between regions |
It’s pro-devolution, providing Scotland with a voice on actuarial matters |
As it stands, Faculty membership will continue to dwindle |
Most of you felt there were no clear benefits in having two separate bodies in the future. Everything is branded 'The Actuarial Profession', and joint communications are increasingly common. Many of you mentioned that if it were possible to start from scratch today, it would be more likely that one single body would be developed in the UK.
Those of you who saw the strengths in having two separate bodies cited historical and financial reasons, arguing that the cost of change could be prohibitive. There was a strong feeling from all members in the UK that if there were just one body, it must not become too London-centric.
The Actuarial Profession:
the future
Breakdown of results by membership and by residence location
"Trying to become modern and innovative, but still very traditional in some areas."
"Mixed – mainly progressive and trying to be forward looking, but occasionally held back by some longer serving members."
"Professional. Ethical. Serving."
"Not modern – bound by tradition, but not in a good way."
"Far too focused on the scientific and academic. Completely detached from the consumer; i.e. normal people."
"Bureaucratic, inflexible, inefficient."
"We are almost entirely inward focussed."