I know this is an oft disucssed topic...but I had to ask. Is 25 too old to start? I recently gave CT1 and saw a lot of youngsters...just wondering if I missed the bus. BTW...I have a MS in Operations research and am currently in Insurance underwriting...(if that helps in your analysis of my situation)
I started at 28. You just have to be prepared to be a student (with all that entails) until you're 32 or 44 (oops... typo, meant 33 )
I am actually very confident that I can do it....Its just that from a career standpoint...i was just wondering if I have started a little later than an idealistic setting...
I think it depends on how you want to approach it? If you are planning to study part-time or go back to undergrad, then it might be too late, as it will could take too long to pass the exams. However, if you are going to be preparing full-time for exams only then I would say it's definitely a possibility.
No The short answer is no. I definitely don't think it's too late to start it. I think I was around 25 when I started as well. But it certainly would help if you have good idea of where you want to be with the qualification. Insurance underwriting is a good profession in its own right.
My current answer would be any age is too late to start. Run far and run fast. But that's only because I have an exam tomorrow morning 25 isn't old, I'd assume you have some knowledge of the business from your current position which is likely to help more in later exams (depends how new you are to your job I suppose...). Assuming you take up an actuarial trainee role and have a study package you can progress fairly quickly.. Working full time without any study leave would make sitting all the exams a long process I'd imagine.
much better than my situation, 31, passed 4 exams, and still looking for an entry actuarial role in Melbourne
Certainly hope not, as I was five years older than you and had no relevant experience when I started. My perspective is that being older gives you a hell of a lot more perspective than younger students. Certainly I'd value that as an employer.
I started when i was 33 so i don't think 25 is too late! I had a bit of a career detour but i figured i would still have many years of benefit from the qualification before my retirement!
There is nothing you are too old to do at 25! In terms of a career, you don't have to tell potential employers how old you are, and they'll value experiance. There is no such thing as ideal when it comes to career and life. Yes, there will always be people in the same position as you who are younger than you, and yes you'll always wish you could have acheived more in your career before having to think about the big life events. But, if you're becoming an actuary (or any other professional), then career-wise you're much better off than most people! Good luck!
25 is not too old for virtually all employers. It is a non matter. Age is mostly a matter for the person involved, a personal issue. This will involve other responsibilities e.g. a family, a mortgage which makes it harder to switch careers, taking a step down in salary and responsibility in order to switch...and the psychological baggage of experience which can hinder the positive outcome-oriented impulsiveness of youth. If you think 25 is too old then you are comparing yourself too much to other people. Don't.
Mid-30s with 2 kids when I started on a graduate scheme so 25 is definitely not too old! Oh to dream of even asking that question!
25 too old? Really...man am freaking 33, and I started 6 months ago, after working as an engineer for God knows how long. I've only managed 5 Cts so far....but I really dont care because I love it, and I was mentally prepared.
Thanks for the feedback Just one question.... something that is a bit of a detour...would you advice against it if I said I am considering quitting my job and doing the following: 1. Pursuing a Masters in actuarial science (perhaps through distance) 2. Simultaneously trying to clear CT/ST papers until I get my diploma ?? Is that a good idea? I was just thinking that I will get a lot of time to study....and I might clear papers faster than right now (where I am simultaneously working/studying)
An MSc in Actuarial Science will cover the same ground as the CT papers, so I wouldn't do them at the same time! And covering 8 CTs in a year is enough for most mortals... I would have thought with your background you should be able to get yourself in front of hiring people without having to spend a fortune and more time on studying. However, that said the masters will do no harm and demonstrate that you're serious. Remember though that employers are not especially hung up on exactly how qualified you are - they want an employee first and a student second.
Exactly....they want an employee first...wouldnt that be grounds for spending time off...writing exams...and then coming back to the corporate world? I thought of the diploma because that would show employers that I was serious about taking the time off....even if i dont clear enough papers, I would at least have something to show for the effort right?
Sorry, what I mean is that your current number of exams passed is a lot less important than (a) being able to pass exams and (b) your generic skills as an employee - communication, team-work, blah blah blah. You'll be taking time off to pass some sort of exam anyway so which one it is is not - relatively - that important.
