While more readers responded that psychology should not be included as part of adviser education, this accounted for only 54 per cent of respondents (956 respondents), with 46 per cent (811 respondents) saying it should be included as part of advisers’ education.
Treysta Financial Life Management executive director Mark Nagle, who’s practice requires its advisers to receive a psychology degree, told ifa that while there was less support for psychology’s inclusion in education than there was opposition, the 45 per cent supporter figure shows interest in psychology is growing.
“If you’d asked that question three years ago the people that said yes would have been 10 or 15 per cent if you were lucky,” he said.
“To have that number move to 45 per cent is a really encouraging result.”
Mr Nagle said it was unsurprising that more people opposed the idea than supported it, but that if the same question is asked in another three years’ time, the split will likely be closer to 80 per cent for and 20 per cent against.
“The 55 per cent who opposed it, well, there’s always going to be luddites and probably some people that are yet to be convinced, but there’s unstoppable momentum now,” he said.
Mr Nagle said even industry bodies appeared to be coming around to the idea of including psychology into their material, noting that University of Sydney Business School researcher Dr Helen Parker was one of the speakers at the FPA Professionals Congress in Tasmania earlier this year.
“That’s a significant step forward,” Mr Nagle said.
“That’s a fairly stagnant industry body that’s now seemingly embracing psychology in the content that advisers are consuming.”
What next should we study? hmmm, after satisfy FAESA and getting my psychology degree maybe I then need an accounting degree and a law degree. Bunch of academics – I’ve seen advisers who have all the qualifications and no interpersonal skills – they fail miserably at dealing with people because they are not engaging, caring or empathetic towards others. But their advice is sound and they are intelligent. I have a degree don’t get me wrong but this is over the top.
It can be argued that Advisers have to deal with people everyday. With that, Psychology and the ability to communicate effectively may be seen as far more relevant than some other degrees on the FASEA acceptable list. Either way, the unintended consequences of this requirement will be significant.
Well it’s a problem isn’t it when FASEA comes out with a list of acceptable qualifications to stay in the job and none of them involve a degree outside financial planning 101. So who are the luddites here? Thousands of advisers out there with degrees in sociology, science, psychology, applied finance, engineering etc…all written off by FASEA as not relevant. ,
Well said Gerry. FASEA is certainly doing the best it can to make it unattractive to stay in the industry to any risk adviser who was looking at retirement within the next 10 years AND to any new entrants. Those in the middle are just having life made harder (no pun intended). I’ve made the decision to get out – I would have stayed for another 10 at least only LIF with 2 year clawback and $multi-thousand+ inordinate time to get these wholly unnecessary qualifications for a lifewriter have made the sad decision to leave my clients somewhat easier than it would have been without this FASEA idiocy. The whole thing is decrepit and too sad for words. They’ve truly stuffed the life industry but with their self-interested blinkers fastened tightly around their tiny heads they won’t see it clearly until all the good advisers have gone and it will be too late for either life companies or clients to be saved.