M
Muppet
Member
Most actuarial students will not have an English A'level. Hence not a disadvantage.
I wanted to ask how disadvantageous is it not taking an English A-Level and only doing numerate subjects?
The short answer is not at all, considering that probably the majority of entrants to the Profession will not have done one.
My answer would be that improving your communication skills will never be a bad thing, and having strong writing skills in particular is valuable.
To the original poster, please do English A-Level. The Profession desparately needs good punchy writers.
I think it's misleading how the profession's website say:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/students/help_support/student_handbook/study_hours
I know a few people who have passed them all first time, but those without exemption have taken 7 to 9 sittings i.e. four to five years.
I'd be interested to see the profession's stats on how many students who have no failures, and no exemptions, actually qualify within three years. I think there might be a mis-selling scandal here
To qualify "within three years" you would need to do it in 5 sittings! I don't think that is something that it is reasonable to say "could be expected".
Hi Bystander, I like reading your informative posts... I wanted to ask you, which exam did you find the hardest to pass??Plans are good, but I'd stick with a rolling twelve month one. Remember to plot the courses in - CA2, CA3 (if after Apr 10), CT9 because there are limited number of places and people are applying up to 12 months ahead.
With the Sep exams, don't wait for results. Start at least one other subject beforehand. Any work you do on it isn't lost and you can decide to carry on with it, double up, or just do a resit. It can be very difficult to do nothing pre results then find you pass but really have to cram the next one.
Having a plan is a general reqt most employers look for, but it is right you need to balance it with good office performance too, particularly if you want a promotion.