25 too old to start?

Its just that I am currently in underwriting and it looks as though I might have to clear 4/5 papers to even get into the actuarial team...

That got me thinking if there is a tradeoff (in probability of clearing papers) between working and studying and just studying

 

If you'd get any exemptions from your current degree then an MSc in Actuarial Science might not be worth it. If you add up the cost of the MSc and living expenses compared against working as an actuarial student at an insurer, earning a salary it'll probably be quite a big difference. It might take you a year longer to do the CTs but the increase in salary from doing the CTs via a course compared to doing them slower via an employer's study scheme will be negligible (maybe £2-3,000 per year to start off with).

I considered the MSc route but the cost of the course (about £10k) plus living expenses (another £10-15k) was too much. In the end I've managed to get a study package and should hopefully have passed all the CTs in one year anyway (I had 2 exemptions to begin with).

I would have thought with experience in underwriting that most insurers would jump at the chance to take you into their actuarial programme. I'd think that's probably the best way for you to go.

 

I started actuarial exams aged 25 too. I was working in something very similar beforehand but I am 28 now and sitting the fellowship in April so it's very do-able.

You just need to be 100% certain of it and be able to devote a lot of time to the exams, particularly at weekends. I would do some sort of study about 40 weekends a year. It helps if you are living with other people who have a similar lifestyle and not people who will encourage you to party etc during your free time.

I did not even consider doing a masters or diploma. I prefer for my employer to pay for my exams and not me! If you study very hard, you have a decent chance of passing exams first time and getting the whole thing done in about 4 years.

Also, my boyfriend just secured a graduate position in a different field aged 27 after getting a degree as a mature student so 25 is definitely not too old to start!

Good luck!

 

They'll be very hung up about it when it comes to pay review and you haven't got many exams. Such an easy excuse not to pay people more.

 

Communication and team-work are rather over-hyped criterias which they have no serious method of measuring. Not many people are in the extreme category of blatantly not co-operating within the team or communicating appallingly with serious spelling/grammar/attitude problem. Most are in the acceptable category. To measure people's proficiency in communication and team-work here is not a science but subjective opinion. How else can you explain the numerous examples of emails we see from the promoted ones in our glorious companies full of spelling and grammatical errors, not to mention the "let's dump the team in it to save my own skin" behaviour that so often accompanies these people's behaviour?

Hence why they place such prominence on these soft criteria nowadays so they can just reward, pass and promote whoever they want, not necessarily the right people or for the most fair reasons.

 

25 not too old

I wanted to answer the original poster – in case you need more anecdotal evidence - 25 is NOT too old to start.
I started later than you, and I know of others who started doing the exams in their 30s.

The more pertinent question may be how old is too old to continue doing the exams.

I know of people doing their exams well into their 30s – I’ve heard of one guy who was 40+ trying to finish off his last (nemesis) exam!

 

There exist prejudices in the small minds of some hiring managers regarding exams. Not necessarily the age at which you begin them but the length of time between when you sat your first exam and passed your last one. These small-minded people think that speed through the exams is a valid criteria worthy to judge people. This length of time is even considered more worthy than pass/fail record!

Most normal people would find this ridiculous. It cannot be healthy at all for a human being to do nothing but Actuarial work and exams solidly for 4 years, sacrificing worthwhile hobbies and a healthy family and social life i.e. things which bring happiness to people!

Sadly that's the mentality we often have to deal with. Much of it comes from a personal bitterness and regret by those people that they sacrificed it all for years, at a personal cost and are not seeing the rewards to justify it.

Let me quote from the Actuary profession's website "Why become an actuary":

I beg to differ, particularly when people are doing the exams.

 

It should be expected that exam success will lead to better pay, and perhaps a better chance of getting a job, but it is not always the case that exam success is the only criteria with which you will be judged by.

Career progress vs respect for your skills vs exams passed depends on what you're doing.
I work in a company where several heads / team leads are not Fellows, yet they are highly regarded and often lead a team that contains Fellows.

It's probably easier to justify favouring a person who's passed all the exams over someone who hasn't due to the nature of our profession. However, if someone's really good at their work, then in my experience, they get recognised for their behaviour/attitude/performance, irrespective of the number of exams that they've passed.

I would have thought that what I've written above was obvious.

Someone's mentioned Andrew Smith recently, so I'm going to use him as a shining example of someone who's done very well in the actuarial profession without having as much success in the exams as you might expect.


.....and I've not really heard people placing much emphasis on how long it actually took someone to do the exams. Usually it's "are you qualified?" or "how many exams do you have left?" - it's not often that I've heard someone say "Oh, errr, OK, so errr, how long have you been struggling with them then?"

Perhaps you're mixing with the wrong crowd.
Perhaps your peer group is feeding your negativity towards the profession.
Perhaps you've been very unlucky with your dealings with hiring managers.
Based on your last 20 or so comments - perhaps you need a change.

 

Design Warrior:

All that begs the question: what on earth do the exams and actuarial qualifications actually qualify you to do?

 

I've seen plenty of people who are useless at their jobs being promoted. If you're too good at your job then many employers rather like to keep you there doing it. See?

 

I think that you know the answer to this.

In all jobs, there has to be a way to determine whether or not you're suitable for the role. "Suitable" is the term I'm going to use here to encompass things like whether they're good enough, whether they can show commitment, aptitude etc etc etc.

You probably wouldn't be very happy if your company dragged someone off the street without any actuarial exams and made him/her your boss.

 

I certainly hope 25 ain't too old to start. I got CT1, CT2 and CT7 in a HDip course in Ireland and I'm now doing a 1-year taught MSc in Actuarial Science, looking to get CT3, CT4, CT5, CT6 and CT8. I'm pretty confident I can get most of them... I find CT4 hardest because it's very theoretical...

 

I certainly hope 25 ain't too old to start. I got CT1, CT2 and CT7 in a HDip course in Ireland and I'm now doing a 1-year taught MSc in Actuarial Science, looking to get CT3, CT4, CT5, CT6 and CT8. I'm pretty confident I can get most of them... I find CT4 hardest because it's very theoretical...

I'm 26 now by the way...

 

I don't disagree that there may be promotions for people who don't appear to deserve it.

I can also see the benefit to employers to keep you doing the job that you're good at.

If you feel that you're not being recognised by the powers that be, then I suppose the key then is to ensure that you let your company know that you reckon you're very good at your job, and that you want to be promoted. You'd need to provide evidence, of course, and the normal course of events will result in:
1) you carrying on as normal;
2) you getting what you want; or
3) you quit and find a company that will give you the opportunity that your current employer is denying you.

 

Let's not pretend this system is 100% fair. Everyone knows it's not and I think most people would recognise the picture you're painting here even if they don't regard it as the norm. Employers have problems of their own to solve and ultimately they never really feel they have enough information on which to base recruitment decisions.

I think that where your view departs from mine and that of several other contributors is at the point that it starts to appear rather bitterly cynical, a viewpoint that you try to back up by asserting the existence of a cartel of employers conspiring to prevent you from achieving the level of career progression you feel you deserve.

My own experience is that I had to fight quite hard to be given experience of capital modelling using Igloo. But it worked in the end, precisely because this supposed cartel doesn't exist and my current employer knew that there would be opportunities for me to do this kind of work in other companies. That's why ultimately it seemed preferable to give me capital work than lose me completely.

Don't forget, sometimes employers act in similar ways because they are faced with similar problems. It can seem unfair but it is not necessarily motivated by the kind of nefarious intentions you seem to suspect. The better you are at your job, the better the bargaining position you are in.

 

People are not promoted for being good at their job, they are promoted because they show that they would be good at the promoted job.

 

At any eviroment you will notice good things given to people that don`t derserve them but it is also a fact that if you make an effort you have more chances to achieve your goals. Nothing is completely fair because human being is not perfect therefore there are mistakes.
But again, if you work you will finally get it.