I studied in the UK and got several exemptions. I still got lots of interviews and a good job. The starting salary was the same as for a student with no exemptions, but once I had applied with the Institution for the exemptions I did get a substantial pay rise. However, I didn't get the full pay rise that I would have got had I passed the exams directly with the Institute - apparently I will get the full benefit of this when I qualify. The reason is, I believe, that employers value experience much more than they do the exams. It isn't fair that a student with only 3 months experience and 6 exemptions is paid the same as someone with 2 years experience who has passed 6 exams.
Generally, there seems to be a belief among actuaries that getting exemptions from university is the easy route. I think this view is undermining of the hard work that students put into their degree courses to obtain the exemptions. It isn't an easy route - just a different route that wasn't available to the elder generations of actuaries. The standard that is needed to get exemptions is the same as that needed to pass an actuarial exam directly. Also, you have chosen to obtain exam exemptions, which shows that you are dedicated to a career as an actuary - which is important to employers. Word of warning - do not underestimate how difficult the later exams are, especially without having any work experience.
A good employer will be looking for a student who has the skills and capabilities to quickly learn on the job, complete the work required by the business and has the potential to qualify as an actuary. Having exemptions shows that you have the capability to study and pass exams but do not demonstrate that you can actually do the job. Your job prospects will depend much more on your skills (communication, teamwork etc) and personality. So study hard, get as many exemptions as you can and focus on building the skills that employers are looking for.