Actuarial Science PGDip or LSE MSc

So, I have a rather unconventional situation at my hands. I finished studying at UCL (Mathematics) and was looking to do 1 more year of studying before completing military service back at home. I am considering going back to study after army if I will see and feel that I need to or want to but that is some time away.
In the present, I have 2 options.

1) Leicester for Actuarial Science PGDip (9 months so that I can meet the draft back at home which is in July)
2) LSE for Quantitative Methods for Risk Management MSc (10 months so I can again meet the draft in July)

I have done some research around both and heres what I have come to .
-LSE has a big name and opens many doors
-The LSE degree equips me better for a broader spectrum of future careers
-The LSE degree is not as popular and not as good as say Financial Maths or Data Science in terms of being broad enough
-Leicester has a good reputation for Actuarial
-Leicester will tie me down to Actuarial and although I had an internship in actuarial last summer, I dont know if I should just dive into this semi degree
-Leicester is cheaper, much cheaper. So after doing that, I can and likely will reapply for another masters programme during my time in the army and apply for scholarships (was rather unorganised with it this time round as I was not sure of my grades)

What is also keeping me from Actuarial, is Brexit and how this will affect the IFoA qualification and if I will still be able to transfer my credits to EU equivalents of the IFoA. It seems like the IFoA can be uselessly complicated compared to the EU qualifications and when you combine that with the uncertainty of Brexit, I dont know if gearing myself towards the IFoA is as smart as say doing the MSc at LSE and then going for a Masters of Actuarial Science in Switzerland (for example).

So, bottom line is,
LSE = name, broader than a plain actuarial degree, expensive, not as good as some other courses offered
Leicester = good name in terms of actuarial, cheap, no actual MSc but only PGDip, putting all eggs in one basket.

For context, Im not a British Citizen, I am EU.

 

Why would you want to attain a qualification from a body with a tarnished reputation? The Actuarial career isn’t what it used to be. If you read the AAE minutes (you’ll have to ask a qualified actuary to get them for you) you’ll note that the IFoA is being challenged in court. It’s all very uncertain and I’d steer clear of the IFOA

 

Hi Matthew, one thing I'd urge you to consider a bit more is which course you think you'd enjoy studying more. Both degrees have a numeric content and, whilst the Actuarial degree is more suited to becoming an Actuary, there are a lot of jobs which don't require subject specific degrees.

In terms of Brexit, the IFoA has Mutual Recognition Arrangements with a number of bodies. I don't think there's direct mapping between subjects so it maybe that if that degree exempts you from IFoA ones then you'd have to qualify first with IFoA and then achieve qualified status through IFoA mutual recognition. I don't think these arrangements would be affected by Brexit.

From reading some posts on here, it appears that some European countries use primarily university exams then work experience as opposed to the IFoA approach. What makes you so attracted to study back in the UK? It might be worthwhile considering which degrees are open to you in your country of residence/where you want to work. The latter IFoA exams have some UK specific content which might be less relevant if you aren't UK-based.

You are correct in that the IFoA exams are very challenging. The failure rate is high, with many people deciding that the sacrifice required to pass the exams simply isn't worth it. It is a very rewarding career for a lot of people.

Null - given you seem to have an indepth knowledge of all things IFoA/AAE, do you think Mutual Recognition will be affected by Brexit?

 

Dear Matthew,

I’m giving you my honest view after working for 17 years in the profession.

It is a matter of fact that the oversight body of the IFOA will soon be closed down. They are not regulated. It is also a matter of fact that the IFOA now have a tarnished reputation since they have a ruling of discrimination as well as instructing to discriminate against them. They have made no statement despite being criticized in court that the discrimination is ongoing.

Universities including the LSE and Leicester are aware of the discrimination case and I hope that they would discontinue their association with a body that does not operate within the confines of the law and is continuing its discriminatory behaviour despite being warned by the courts.

You seem to have researched the matter well. You are probably aware that taking the examinations via the traditional route takes an extremely long time. It is another matter of fact that the IFOA have lied about qualification times. The Advertising Standards Authority made them change their messaging in qualification time which was previously “3 years”!! Now they say 3 to 6 which is still not true and they don’t tell you about the drop out rates or system changes which mean that thousands of students have to repeat exams. The director of education told me that qualification times can be 10 to 12 years for some students. The IFoA don’t tell you about the risks when you join.

The exams are easier at university (also stated by the director of education) and as you probably are aware there are courses on the continent where you can even become fully qualified and equivalent to fellowship level just by attending university. So yes IFOA exams are very challenging but as you know there are shortcuts which are not available to non British nationals and certainly not advertised by the IFoA. I did not have the benefit of this knowledge until well after I joined the IFOA.

The qualification is imposed by some employers but that is becoming less so. It is not a requirement by UK law to be an actuary apart from for a handful of roles such as signing a SAO or being the scheme actuary for a pensions scheme.

The IFOA have been lobbying to get their wasteful qualification which takes far too long to be instilled in law. The legislators have said no. For signing reserves for solvency 2 you don’t need to be qualified.

The qualification has been dwindling and this is why the IFOA has gone on many expensive holidays to Africa and India to increase student numbers. The effect is that there are too many actuaries, especially students who are a source of cheap labour. With the advent of data science and due to the fact that the IFOA exams don’t really provide you with any up to date knowledge, actuaries have been left by the wayside.

The greedy individuals that run the IFOA have spent hundreds of thousands, perhaps over a million, defending court cases by concealing information and blatantly lying in court and now due to the recent discrimination ruling which is public, their reputation is tarnished and their position exposed.

I would steer clear. They discriminate. They don’t have a complaints policy. They don’t have an Equality and Diversity policy.

 

The IFOA have stated in AAE meeting minutes that the AAE MRA will be affected by the recent discrimination cases against them. They’ve already temporarily suspended (but not fully mind) the Indian MRA without any notice. It’s nothing to do with Brexit. They’ll try to use that as an excuse. It’s due to the fact that they are discriminating and they have several court cases against them. They’re offering Europeans the fellowship when they shouldn’t even get associateship

 

I'd go for the LSE degree - it is a more prestigious institution and would probably open more doors in the future. I wouldn't overestimate the importance of getting an actuarial science degree, in my experience employers don't value it over any other quantitative degree. An actuarial science degree can give you exemptions from the earlier actuarial exams, saving you maybe a year or two in qualification time, but then it makes it more difficult to go in to other fields if you decide actuarial isn't for you.

 

It’s not true. I have worked in a leading consultancy, lloyds syndicate and international insurer. If you’ve got the exams via the university route and if your boss is a qualified actuary via the traditional route, you’ll have issues. It’s a well known joke in the industry that your qualification didn’t take as long as via the traditional route. You’re likely to have some difficulties to obtain a job. However once you’ve overcome some intitial hurdles, it doesn’t matter how you got the qualification and then you can just conveniently not mention it and it won’t inpact you anymore. You can then stop other people from qualifying by making their life a misery and forcing them to pass exams to get to your level or even fire them due to their exam performance. This is what goes on in the actuarial profession...

 

I think you've misread what I've said - that some employers don't value an actuarial degree over a quantitative degree. Your point agrees with mine.

 

I’m afraid I don’t agree. Getting the qualification via university can save you a decade of time. Some people never qualify via the traditional route. Everyone finishes their degree. It’s significantly easier at university. If you are able to study at a university abroad which is not an option for most British people, it gets even easier since you can be fully qualified in 2 years in some cases.

Employers want you to be qualified but some do distinguish if you got the exams via exemption/university or via the traditional route. It depends on the individuals in charge at the time. It is just corrupt. People who’ve struggled with the exams or those that have had it too easy just keep the floodgates closed. Policies are invented by companies and differ widely. You’ll be blocked from study support, demoted, fired in the worst case if you can’t pass exams. Therefore if you find the exams difficult, the process to qualify is made even harder for you. It’s like someone holding your head underwater.

 

I also researched an alternative which does seem to be a better course of action. That is, attend LSE and then try shoot for the CFA qualification or perhaps even the CQF. The CFA gives some nice exemptions and is not too difficult from what I heard, at least compared to IFoA. Is this a path worth considering?

 

I can only speak for the firm I work at. I wouldn't say there is any difference between those people who have qualified via a significant number of exemptions or those who have had to do the full 15 exams like myself. (Apart from the odd joke that only those who sat the full 15 exams are proper actuaries!)

There are senior people at my firm who gave up on the exams a long time ago and it hasn't stinted the progression of their careers. Indeed, some of the senior partners aren't actuaries. Like null said though, there are companies who will fire people who consistently fail exams. I've also heard of companies who won't promote people until they have passed a certain number of exams and such like.

The exams are tough and it is certainly the case that it becomes more difficult to find time to study as you find yourself increasingly busy at work. That said, with a lot of hard work and commitment (and occasionally a little bit of good luck!) qualification is acheivable. I think a lot of it is about mindset - the exams will be a part of your life but don't let them take over your life! So go on holidays, make holiday plans with your partner/friends - you can re-sit exams but can't wind the clock back to attend things you missed out on!

I would say that the study support and materials provided by ActEd are excellent, tutorials and online classroom really helped me get through the more technical, maths heavy initial exams as well as the latter subject. I always found my colleagues to be very supportive.

 

You can't resit exams, they keep changing the system and exams you pass will be rendered worthless. Qualification is not achievable. 2/3 of people drop out.

It is not 15 exams anymore, it is 17

The Acted study materials are especially online learning are not very good. They quite often don't work. What I have learnt is also generally useless.

The IFoA are going to have to face the consequences for discriminating against British students.

 

Must wonder what kind of firm that is. Usually actuary career is severely limited by giving up exams or slow progress with them.

 

CFA consists of 3 exams - a few people at my firm are CFA. I definitely wouldn't describe it as easy. Work experience is really helpful for some of the latter IFoA subjects along with the later level of CFA. Note that CFA is more focussed on the investment side of things, so might not be as useful if you are more interested in life insurance etc. Generally students will work as they go through CFA too.

 

CFA. I know many who have taken it. They earn more than me now. It’s only 3 years or more like 4 on average. Many people drop out like with the IFOA. It’s a lot of work. But at least you can’t say the Indians have an easier ride or that it’s easier to take the exams in Europe somewhere. Acted are obviously keen to still have you so they won’t delete this post. Better you waste less time on qualifications and get on with your career. You’re never going to regret not studying for some professional qualification but you will regret the thousands of hours of lost study time and not much benefit at the end of it. If you do your job well you’ll get just as far without a qualification. Look at Actuarial data scientists. They haven’t had the burden of study and now they’re taking over

 

From my experience acted written materials were good, online tutorials was invaluable for the mathematical ones but I thought next to useless for the wordy ones as essentially its just repeating what you're reading in the notes anyway. Different strokes for different folks.

Don't be put off by some of the comments, yes a fair proportion don't qualify and no the exam system isn't perfect but it is a well paid career that the majority of people I have known with mathematical degrees who are on a graduate scheme have passed. The difficulty comes if you get kicked off a graduate scheme as the exams are expensive if not funded and I think the combination of having to have failed a few already to get to that point and then it becoming a lot harder to pass more without paying big money leads to a lot of people dropping off. But no matter what a couple of people on here will tell you without a shadow of a doubt the cleverest people can pass without failing once easily and having seen a lot of people go through it you can generally tell soon if you are struggling from the early exams you will definitely struggle to get through them all.

 

It is not as well paid as it used to be and the IFoA have a lot to answer for that.

 

The majority of people quit the profession. 82% of women leave after 7 years according to Axis capital. There are no senior jobs. The reason I embarked on this course of action was because I nearly finished the exams, in fact I got to the end and passed the fellowship. I would have finished the others off with little complaint, it is the IFoA that have changed the system, moved the goal posts and are making me and a few thousands other students repeat exams we've already passed

The people that struggle are in the majority and the IFoA don't warn you about this when you start so you are well entitled to sue

A lot of people finish the CTs and then couldn't pass the last 6.5 hour exam despite many attempts. This is why the 6.5 hour exam was moved forward so that people could fail at this hurdle rather than right at the end. 1/3 of people aged 35 to 40 are not qualified and are still students, how many must have dropped out before then. What does that tell you?

The IFoA have lied about qualification times. I was certainly not properly informed about what I was getting myself into and people like Tarbuck are not giving you the whole picture now either.

 

Easier to qualify in the EU then get Fellowship in UK from IFoA after a year's work experience.

 

It does seem like the CFA is a good alternative. I dont know how the new exemptions will get re-routed given the 2019 Syllabus of the IFoA, but I still am of the opinion that the CFA will be a good option without going into actuarial head on. Perhaps I can start studying for it when I will be in the army, and by the end of that, see what I would like to do.

Can you tell me more about the CFA and peoples experiences with it? From what I have read it is broad and not in depth. And only 3 exams that take around 300hrs study per pop which is better than the IFoAs 13 exams at 300hrs study (at least).

 

In the time it takes to get a CFA you can get your Actuarial qualification abroad. That’s your best option.