In case you haven’t seen it, Financial Adviser published an article yesterday about the CII’s recent policy changes relating to their study and exam options.
Here’s a link to the article: https://www.ftadviser.com/your-industry/2018/01/17/cii-under-fire-for-changes-to-exam-package/?page=1
As many of you will be aware, BTS have been commenting on the CII exam changes and the introduction of compulsory exam packages, which we feel are bad news for consumer choice and, ultimately, results and professional standards.
As you can see in the article, the CII have responded.
This is the first time most of us have seen anything in print in relation to the rationale behind these changes, so what do we think…?
If anyone from the CII is reading this, could we ask that you publish the data (that you must have, to be able to use the term ‘vast majority’) that supports this statement?
If such evidence exists, this would mean that these changes have been introduced on the back of consultation with CII members, which would in line with the CII Charter, Code of Ethics and Principles. The data would help convince the market that this has been the case.
The packaged approach puts learners in a position where they have to seriously consider the viability of using non-CII materials. Forcing all students to use CII materials, which are widely viewed as reasonable technical guides but less that universally ideal learning tools, will not help pass-rates, understanding or professional standards.
‘Not changing the component parts’ is, in itself, a worry. If no monies have been spent, nor efforts made to improve the CII study guides, they will continue to fail to meet the learning needs of their intended audiences.
One positive outcome, whether we agree with it or not, is that the CII are starting to publish their rationale for the changes – much better than the ‘quieter’ way in which the changes were made.
As always, please let us have your thoughts on the above.