A Partnership Between the Academic Community and the Actuarial Profession - Summary of Feedback to the White Paper

August 7, 2000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The White Paper "A Partnership between the Academic Community and the Actuarial Profession" articulated a vision for the partnership in 2005 and identified a number of initiatives to make the vision a reality. The purpose of the questionnaire attached to the White Paper was to gather feedback from readers of the document.

The questionnaire sought to measure support for existing and possible future initiatives between the academic community and actuarial profession that were described in the White Paper. The bullets below summarize the feedback to the initiatives. The numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of those that responded that indicated support for the initiative and those that indicated that they did not support the initiative, respectively. The remaining percentage of respondents represents those that indicated that they had no opinion on the initiative.

• Over two-thirds (69% / 4%) of the respondents reported that they support continuation of the CAS Academic Correspondent Program. About the same percentage (71% / 1%) support continuation of the CAS University Liaison Program.
• Over three-fourths (78% / 12%) of the respondents reported that they support continuation of meeting and seminar fee waiver for SOA academic members. Nearly the same percentage (74% / 14%) reported that they support continuation of committee and meeting participation expense reimbursement for SOA academic members.
• Nearly eight in ten respondents (79% / 8%) reported that they support continuation of the CAS/SOA Ph.D. Grants program, while over eight in ten (84% / 3%) of the respondents reported that they support continuation of the reorganized listing of academic institutions offering an actuarial science program.
• When asked if they support implementing possible new initiatives between the academic community and the actuarial profession, over eight in ten respondents (81% / 8%) indicated that they would support an initiative to directly involve individual members with academic institutions.
• Three-fourths (75% / 19%) of the respondents indicated that they support implementing an initiative to have academic faculty produce basic or continuing education material, while more than eight in ten (84% / 7%) of the respondents support implementing an initiative to increase the use of academic faculty/institutions for experience studies/tables.
• A large majority (84% / 10%) of the respondents indicated that they support implementing an initiative to develop a clearinghouse that would link faculty with business or government actuaries to work on practical actuarial projects.
• Eight in ten (80% / 15%) of the respondents indicated that they support implementing an initiative to increase the use of academic faculty and facilities for continuing education programs in partnership with the business and government community.
• About half (53% / 32%) of the respondents indicated that they support implementing an initiative to develop a program of significant financial support for the time of a highly respected academic researcher.
• Close to three-fourths (73% / 13%) of the respondents indicated that they support implementing an initiative to establish inter-disciplinary research centers at academic institutions to address major issues with an actuarial component.
• About half of the respondents (52% / 28%) indicated that they would support an initiative to provide direct corporate funding to academic institutions.
• Over half (61% / 34%) of the respondents indicated that they support implementing an initiative to have the actuarial profession construct a system of accreditation for academic actuarial science programs.
• Less than half (49% / 44%) of the respondents indicated that they support implementing an initiative to establish a comprehensive examination option to obtain credit for all jointly sponsored CAS and SOA examinations.

The questionnaire asked respondents to rank the initiatives in priority order. The bullets below highlight the results of respondent rankings.

• The initiative to have academic faculty produce basic or continuing education material was the most frequent response (17%) for top priority when respondents were asked to rank the initiatives in priority order. The initiative to directly involve individual members with academic institutions was named by the second highest percentage (15%) of respondents as top priority.
• When initiatives were assigned points based on how often they were ranked by respondents as a top-five priority, the initiative to have academic faculty produce basic or continuing education material received the highest number of cumulative ranking points.

The questionnaire also sought to measure the level of agreement with the objectives of the partnership and the proposed vision. The key findings are as follows:

• Nearly nine in ten (86%) respondents agreed that the objectives of the partnership between the academic community and the actuarial profession are reasonable.
• Nearly three-fourths (74%) of the respondents agreed that meeting the objectives of the partnership between the academic community and the actuarial profession is important to the success of the actuarial profession, while less than half (43%) of the respondents agreed that meeting the objectives is important to the success of the academic community.
• Nearly three-fourths (74%) of the respondents agreed that the characterization of basic education is desirable, while over eight in ten (82%) of the respondents agreed that the characterization of continuing education is desirable.
• Over half (57%) of the respondents agreed that characterization of Ph.D. level education is desirable.
• Nearly nine in ten (87%) of the respondents agreed that the characterization of actuarial research is desirable.
• Eight in ten (80%) of the respondents agreed that the characterization of actuarial work is desirable, while nearly the same percentage (77%) agreed that the characterization of professional activities is desirable.

QUESTIONNAIRE METHODOLOGY

Designing the Questionnaire

A two-page, 29-item self-administered questionnaire (see Appendix) was developed along with the White Paper "A Partnership Between the Academic Community and the Actuarial Profession" by the Joint CAS, CIA, SOA Task Force on Academic Relations. The Boards of Directors of the three organizations approved the White Paper and questionnaire for distribution. The questionnaire was included as a detachable sheet at the conclusion of the White Paper.

Distribution of White Paper and Questionnaire

Approximately 20,000 copies of the White Paper and questionnaire were distributed. The distribution list included members of the CAS, SOA, and CIA, and members of the academic community. The White Paper and questionnaire were mailed during late April and early

May 2000. In addition, the White Paper and questionnaire were posted on the organizations' Web Sites. Respondents were asked to return the feedback questionnaire by June 30, 2000.

Data Analysis

A total of 133 completed questionnaires were returned to the SOA Office. In addition to the completed questionnaires, eight individuals submitted written comments only. The approximate response rate was 0.71%. Responses to questionnaires were compiled, coded, and entered into a database. The responses were then analyzed using a statistical analysis software package (SPSS).

RESULTS

Membership Information

I am a member of (check all that apply):

I am member of the academic community.

A small minority (8%) of the respondents reported that they were members of the academic community.

Questions 1-16

Feedback on Initiatives

Please indicate whether or not you support continuing or implementing the following existing or possible new initiatives by checking Y(es) or N(o), or check No Opinion.

Note: The percentages reported below the tables represent the responses of those that answered the question.

Existing Initiatives

1. The CAS Academic Correspondent Program including receipt of all CAS mailings and publications and waiver of meeting/seminar fees.

   	Response	Frequency	Percent
   Yes		90	67.7
   No		5	3.8
   No opinion		36	27.1
   No response		2	1.5
   Total		133	100.0

Over two-thirds (69%) of the respondents reported that they support continuation of the CAS Academic Correspondent Program.

2. The CAS University Liaison Program aligning CAS members with Academic Correspondents to serve as 1-to-1 contacts and resources.

   	Response	Frequency	Percent
   Yes		93	69.9
   No		1	0.8
   No opinion		37	27.8
   No response		2	1.5
   Total		133	100.0

Over two-thirds (71%) of the respondents reported that they support continuation of the CAS University Liaison Program.

3. The SOA academic initiatives program of meeting and seminar fee waiver for SOA academic members.

   	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
   Yes		102	76.7
   No		15	11.3
   No opinion		13	9.8
   No response		3	2.3
   Total		133	100.0

   Over three-fourths (78%) of the respondents reported that they support continuation of the SOA academic initiatives program of meeting and seminar fee waiver for SOA academic members.

4. The SOA academic initiatives program of committee and meeting participation expense reimbursement for SOA academic members.

   	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
   Yes		96	72.2
   No		18	13.5
   No opinion		15	11.3
   No response		4	3.0
   Total		133	100.0

Nearly three-fourths (74%) of the respondents reported that they support continuation of the SOA academic initiatives program of committee and meeting participation expense reimbursement for SOA academic members.

5. The CAS/SOA Ph.D. Grants program.

   	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
   Yes		104	78.2
   No		11	8.3
   No opinion		16	12.0
   No response		2	1.5
   Total		133	100.0

Nearly eight in ten respondents (79%) reported that they support continuation of the CAS/SOA Ph.D. Grants program.

6. The reorganized listing of academic institutions offering an actuarial science program.

   	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
   Yes		110	82.7
   No		4	.0
   No opinion		17	12.8
   No response		2	1.5
   Total		133	100.0

Over eight in ten (84%) of the respondents reported that they support continuation of the reorganized listing of academic institutions offering an actuarial science program.

Possible New Initiatives

7. Direct involvement of individual members with academic institutions.

   	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
   Yes		107	80.5
   No		10	7.5
   No opinion		16	12.0
   Total		133	100.0

Over eight in ten respondents (81%) reported that they support implementing an initiative to directly involve individual members with academic institutions.

8. Academic faculty produce basic or continuing education material.

   	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
   Yes		98	73.7
   No		25	18.8
   No opinion		7	5.3
   No response		3	2.3
   Total		133	100.0

Three-fourths (75%) of the respondents reported that they support implementing an initiative to have academic faculty produce basic or continuing education material.

9. Increase use of academic faculty/institutions for experience studies/tables.

   	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
   Yes		110	82.7
   No		9	6.8
   No opinion		12	9.0
   No response		2	1.5
   Total		133	100.0

Over eight in ten (84%) of the respondents reported that they support implementing an initiative to increase the use of academic faculty/institutions for experience studies/tables.

10. Clearinghouse linking faculty and business or government actuaries to work on practical actuarial projects.

    	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
    Yes		111	83.5
    No		13	9.8
    No opinion		9	6.8
    Total		133	100.0

A large majority (84%) of the respondents reported that they support implementing an initiative to develop a clearinghouse that would link faculty with business or government actuaries to work on practical actuarial projects.

11. Increase use of academic faculty and facilities for continuing education programs in partnership with the business and government community.

    	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
    Yes		104	78.2
    No		20	15.0
    No opinion		6	4.5
    No response		3	2.3
    Total		133	100.0

Eight in ten (80%) of the respondents reported that they support implementing an initiative to increase the use of academic faculty and facilities for continuing education programs in partnership with the business and government community.

12. Program of significant financial support for time of highly respected academic researcher.

    	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
    Yes		71	53.4
    No		43	32.3
    No opinion		19	14.3
    Total		133	100

Over half (53%) of the respondents reported that they support implementing an initiative to develop a program of significant financial support for the time of a highly respected academic researcher.

13. Inter-disciplinary research centers at academic institutions to address major issues with an actuarial component.

    	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
    Yes		97	72.9
    No		17	12.8
    No opinion		19	14.3
    Total		133	100.0

Close to three-fourths (73%) of the respondents reported that they support implementing an initiative to establish inter-disciplinary research centers at academic institutions to address major issues with an actuarial component.

14. Direct corporate funding to academic institutions.

    	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
    Yes		69	51.9
    No		37	27.8
    No opinion		27	20.3
    Total		133	100.0

Over half (52%) of the respondents reported that they support implementing an initiative to provide direct corporate funding to academic institutions.

15. Actuarial profession accreditation of academic actuarial science programs.

    	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
    Yes		80	60.2
    No		45	33.8
    No opinion		7	5.3
    No response		1	0.8
    Total		133	100.0

Over half (61%) of the respondents reported that they support implementing an initiative to have the actuarial profession construct a system of accreditation for academic actuarial science programs.

16. Comprehensive examination option to obtain credit for all jointly sponsored CAS and SOA examinations.

    	Reponse	Frequency	Percent
    Yes		65	48.9
    No		58	443.6
    No opinion		9	6.8
    No response		1	0.8
    Total		133	100.0

    Less than half (49%) of the respondents reported that they support implementing an initiative to establish a comprehensive examination option to obtain credit for all jointly sponsored CAS and SOA examinations.

    Summary of Support for Initiatives

    		Percent Supporting
    Existing Initiatives
    1. The CAS Academic Correspondent Program including receipt of all CAS mailings and publications and waiver of meeting/seminar fees.		68.7
    2. The CAS University Liaison Program aligning CAS members with Academic Correspondents to serve as 1-to-1 contacts and resources.		71.0
    3. The SOA academic initiatives program of meeting and seminar fee waiver for SOA academic members		78.5
    4. The SOA academic initiatives program of committee and meeting participation expense reimbursement for SOA academic members.		74.4
    5. The CAS, SOA Ph.D. Grants program.		79.4
    6. The reorganized listing of academic institutions offering an actuarial science program.		84.0
    Possible New Initiatives
    7. Direct involvement of individual members with academic institutions.		80.5
    8. Academic faculty produce basic or continuing education material.		75.4
    9. Increase use of academic faculty/institutions for experience studies/tables.		84.0
    10. Clearinghouse linking faculty and business or government actuaries to work on practical actuarial projects.		83.5
    11. Increase use of academic faculty and facilities for continuing education programs in partnership with the business and government community.		80.0
    12. Program of significant financial support for time of highly respected academic researcher.		53.4
    13. Inter-disciplinary research centers at academic institutions to address major issues with an actuarial component.		72.9
    14. Direct corporate funding to academic institutions.		51.9
    15. Actuarial profession accreditation of academic actuarial science programs.		60.6
    16. Comprehensive examination option to obtain credit for all jointly sponsored CAS and SOA examinations.		49.2

The table above summarizes the percentages of respondents that support each initiative. The existing initiative that received the highest level of support was the reorganized listing of academic institutions offering an actuarial science program. All of the existing initiatives were supported by at least two-thirds of the respondents, with three out of six garnering the support of three-fourths of the respondents.

Four of the ten possible new initiatives were supported by over 80% of the respondents, with the initiative to increase the use of academic faculty/institutions for experience studies/tables receiving the highest level of support at 84%. The initiative to establish a comprehensive examination option to obtain credit for all jointly sponsored CAS and SOA examinations was the only initiative that was not supported by at least half of the respondents.

17. Question 17

    Priority Ranking of Initiatives

    Please rank in priority order up to five of the 16 Existing and Possible New Initiatives listed.

    (identify initiative by number): 1st Priority ___ 2nd ___ 3rd ___ 4th ___ 5th ___

    Initiatives Ranked as First Priority

    		Frequency	Percent
    1.  The CAS Academic Correspondent Program including receipt of all CAS mailings and publications and waiver of meeting/seminar fees.		5	3.8
    2. The CAS University Liaison Program aligning CAS members with Academic Correspondents to serve as 1-to-1 contacts and resources.		3	2.3
    3. The SOA academic initiatives program of meeting and seminar fee waiver for SOA academic members.		1	0.8
    4. The SOA academic initiatives program of committee and meeting participation expense reimbursement for SOA academic members.		0	0.0
    5. The CAS, SOA Ph.D. Grants program.		2	1.5
    6. The reorganized listing of academic institutions offering an actuarial science program.		4	3.0
    Possible New Initiatives
    7.  Direct involvement of individual members with academic institutions.		15	11.3
    8.  Academic faculty produce basic or continuing education material.		18	13.5
    9.  Increase use of academic faculty/institutions for experience studies/tables.		6	4.5
    10.  Clearinghouse linking faculty and business or government actuaries to work on practical actuarial projects.		9	6.8
    11.  Increase use of academic faculty and facilities for continuing education programs in partnership with the business and government community.		5	3.8
    12.  Program of significant financial support for time of highly respected academic researcher.		2	1.5
    13.  Inter-disciplinary research centers at academic institutions to address major issues with an actuarial component.		8	6.0
    14.  Direct corporate funding to academic institutions.		1	0.8
    15.  Actuarial profession accreditation of academic actuarial science programs.		11	8.3
    16.  Comprehensive examination option to obtain credit for all jointly sponsored CAS and SOA examinations.		12	9.0
    Other		1	0.8
    No Response		30	22.6
    Total		133	100.0

    The initiative to have academic faculty produce basic or continuing education material was the most frequent response (17%) for top priority when respondents were asked to rank the initiatives in priority order. The initiative to directly involve individual members with academic institutions was named by the second highest percentage (15%) of respondents as top priority. These percentages reflect only those that responded to the question.

    Question 17 (cont.)

    Cumulative Totals for Priority Ranking of Initiatives

    Initiatives were assigned points based on how often they were named among the top five priorities. The point system gave 5 points for a 1st priority rank, 4 points for a 2nd priority rank, 3 points for a 3rd priority rank, 2 points for a 4th priority rank, and 1 point for a 5th priority rank. The table below summarizes the cumulative rankings for each initiative.

    		Score
    8. Academic faculty produce basic or continuing education material.		177
    15. Actuarial profession accreditation of academic actuarial science programs.		155
    11. Increase use of academic faculty and facilities for continuing education programs in partnership with the business and government community.		153
    9. Increase use of academic faculty/institutions for experience studies/tables.		147
    10. Clearinghouse linking faculty and business or government actuaries to work on practical actuarial projects.		129
    16. Comprehensive examination option to obtain credit for all jointly sponsored CAS and SOA examinations.		124
    113. Inter-disciplinary research centers at academic institutions to address major issues with an actuarial component.		123
    7. Direct involvement of individual members with academic institutions.		122
    6. The reorganized listing of academic institutions offering an actuarial science program.		79
    2. The CAS University Liaison Program aligning CAS members with Academic Correspondents to serve as 1-to-1 contacts and resources.		52
    12. Program of significant financial support for time of highly respected academic researcher.		51
    5. The CAS, SOA Ph.D. Grants program.		46
    1. The CAS Academic Correspondent Program including receipt of all CAS mailings and publications and waiver of meeting/seminar fees.		39
    3. The SOA academic initiatives program of meeting and seminar fee waiver for SOA academic members.		33
    4. The SOA academic initiatives program of committee and meeting participation expense reimbursement for SOA academic members.		22
    14. Direct corporate funding to academic institutions.		18

The initiative to have academic faculty produce basic or continuing education material received the highest number of cumulative ranking points, followed by the initiative to have the actuarial profession construct a system of accreditation for academic actuarial science programs.

18. Question 18

    Suggestions for Other Initiatives?

    • Respondent #4: Regular seminars for practitioners that would be given by academics and that relate to current topics and questions that actuaries deal with in the real world.

    Keeping the exam syllabus up-to-date and removing materials that focus on memorization.

    Universities can sponsor week-long courses for practicing actuaries to learn new theoretical and practical concepts.

    I am not sure why academics have their fees waived. Why shouldn't they or their employers pay the fees just like practitioners?

    • Respondent #7: The SOA should have a University Liaison Program similar to the CAS.
    • Respondent #20: Increased use of suitable academic faculty to speak out on governmental initiatives on behalf of the actuarial profession.
    • Respondent #27: Overall, a very thoughtful and balanced report. I would support most of the initiatives.
    • Respondent #32: Keep all existing initiatives.
    • Respondent #45: Not able to make distinction due to lack of knowledge of SOA
    programs.
    • Respondent #47: Introductory actuarial classes at many colleges/universities.

    Attempt to continually expand number of accredited programs.

    • Respondent #52: STRONGLY OPPOSE #16!!!! (Comprehensive examination option to obtain credit for all jointly sponsored CAS and SOA examinations.)
    • Respondent #58: Encouragement of qualified (as determined by institution) actuaries teaching hands-on classes.

    A less comprehensive exam (maybe Parts 1 and 2) for those completing certain course work at non-accredited institutions. This would be most important as institutions come up for accreditation.

    • Respondent #62: Instead of dropping our requirements to meet the international lack of requirements, why not work on raising the others or making it clear that there is a different standard (ours meet theirs, theirs doesn't meet ours).
    • Respondent #74: Academics as guest speakers at regional/national meetings of actuarial organizations.
    • Respondent #77: With respect to the clearinghouse question (clearinghouse linking faculty and business or government actuaries to work on practical actuarial projects), the question of "proprietary" work product for the sponsoring entity should be addressed.
    • Respondent #81: Communication by all parties is important. Communication of the profession is the first thing to assure these initiatives happen so people know what we do and we know what other actuaries do.
    • Respondent #93: The Society/CAS/etc. need to move beyond mere accreditation to determine a limited group (because resources are limited) of select institutions with which to partner to support academic research in actuarial science. Support will need to include:
      • Money (endowed chairs, directed studies, other partnerships).
      • Commitment of time and cooperation of leading actuaries.
      • Sponsoring of colloquia, conferences, and other activities at these centers that link practice leaders, academics, and students.
    • Respondent #96: Some kind of a "collaboration ideas" bank, i.e., academics or professionals who would like to collaborate with someone on a project sends in either a project or his/her qualifications/fields of expertise and the bank would link people together. Similar to a job/resume bank.
    • Respondent #97: Develop a bank of data sets, realistic though with due regard for confidentiality, that can be used for educational and research purposes.
    • Respondent #99: Develop an initiative on foreign language skill for actuaries practicing outside their home country, if a foreign language is involved.
    • Respondent #112: Need intermediate recognition halfway to Fellowship. Academic courses should be standardized to Bachelor (or better diploma) level and recognized for limited (above) Society membership.
    • Respondent #136: Although there is mention of the need for greater awareness, I see nothing on marketing the actuarial profession/actuarial contribution, etc. If we are to survive, we need to actively increase general awareness so people request actuaries on projects, etc.
    • Respondent # 140: Implement item #16, but #15 and #16 should go together.
    • Respondent #141: I've been in practice for 18 years and I've observed a huge chasm between academic teachings and what actually happens in the workplace on a day-to-day basis. The perception clearly is this: "The academic theory is interesting but has limited practical value." Bridging this chasm, be it real or perceived, needs to be a critical objective.

Questions 19-27

Feedback on the proposed Objectives of the Partnership and the proposed Vision of the Partnership in 2005

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements using:

a = strongly agree; b = agree; c = disagree; d =strongly disagree; e= no opinion

Note: The percentages reported below the tables represent the responses of those that answered the question. The percentages reported that agree include those that agree and strongly agree.

19. The objectives of the partnership are reasonable.

    	Response	Frequency	Percent
    Strongly Agree		35	26.3
    Agree		76	57.1
    Disagree		9	6.8
    Strongly Disagree		9	6.8
    No Opinion		3	2.3
    No Response		4	3.0
    Total		133	100.0

Nearly nine in ten respondents (86%) agreed that the objectives of partnership are reasonable.

20. Meeting the objectives of the partnership between the academic community and the actuarial profession is important to the success of the actuarial profession.

    	Response	Frequency	Percent
    Strongly Agree		37	27.8
    Agree		58	43.6
    Disagree		19	14.3
    Strongly Disagree		10	7.5
    No Opinion		5	3.8
    No Response		4	3.0
    Total		133	100.0

Nearly three-fourths (74%) of the respondents agreed that meeting the objectives of the partnership between the academic community and the actuarial profession is important to the success of the actuarial profession.

21. . Meeting the objectives of the partnership between the academic community and the actuarial profession is important to the success of the academic community.

    	Response	Frequency	Percent
    Strongly Agree		15	11.3
    Agree		41	30.8
    Disagree		35	26.3
    Strongly Disagree		12	9.0
    No Opinion		27	20.3
    No Response		3	2.3
    Total		133	100.0

Less than half (43%) of the respondents agreed that meeting the objectives of the partnership between the academic community and the actuarial profession is important to the success of the academic community.

22. The characterization of basic education is desirable.

    	Response	Frequency	Percent
    Strongly Agree		29	21.8
    Agree		65	48.9
    Disagree		11	8.3
    Strongly Disagree		18	13.5
    No Opinion		4	3.0
    No Response		6	4.5
    Total		133	100.0

Nearly three-fourths (74%) of the respondents agreed that the characterization of basic education is desirable.

23. The characterization of continuing education is desirable.

    	Response	Frequency	Percent
    Strongly Agree		34	25.6
    Agree		69	51.9
    Disagree		11	8.3
    Strongly Disagree		6	4.5
    No Opinion		6	4.5
    No Response		7	5.3
    Total		133	100.0

Over eight in ten (82%) of the respondents agreed that the characterization of continuing education is desirable.

24. The characterization of Ph.D. level education is desirable.

    	Response	Frequency	Percent
    Strongly Agree		15	11.3
    Agree		58	43.6
    Disagree		15	11.3
    Strongly Disagree		9	6.8
    No Opinion		31	23.3
    No Response		5	3.8
    Total		133	100.0

Over half (57%) of the respondents agreed that characterization of Ph.D. level education is desirable.

25. The characterization of actuarial research is desirable.

    	Response	Frequency	Percent
    Strongly Agree		30	22.6
    Agree		80	60.2
    Disagree		7	5.3
    Strongly Disagree		1	0.8
    No Opinion		9	6.8
    No Response		6	4.5
    Total		133	100.0

Nearly nine in ten (87%) of the respondents agreed that the characterization of actuarial research is desirable.

26. The characterization of actuarial work is desirable.

    	Response	Frequency	Percent
    Strongly Agree		28	21.1
    Agree		74	55.6
    Disagree		10	7.5
    Strongly Disagree		4	3.0
    No Opinion		11	8.3
    No Response		6	4.5
    Total		133	100.0

Eight in ten (80%) of the respondents agreed that the characterization of actuarial work is desirable.

27. The characterization of professional activities is desirable.

    	Response	Frequency	Percent
    Strongly Agree		18	13.5
    Agree		79	59.4
    Disagree		7	5.3
    Strongly Disagree		4	3.0
    No Opinion		18	13.5
    No Response		7	5.3
    Total		133	100.0

Over three-fourths (77%) of the respondents agreed that the characterization of professional activities is desirable.