Hi, I'm planning a career move from being a Biostatistician (also called Medical Statistician) to becoming an Actuary. I've been working as Biostatistician for over 10 years with an Msc in biostatistics. From your experience or knowledge, is it worth doing a Msc in Actuaries first (by distance) before taking the qualification exams to become member of the IFoA? Is it realistic to go straight to the membership exams? I would appreciate any advice, suggestions, or comments. Thanks.
If you've been using your stats you will be able to cope easily enough with the exams - most are at the undergraduate level, though slightly different in tone. The main advantage of the MSc in Act Sci would be demonstrating you're serious to prospective employers, and to my mind there are cheaper ways of doing that!
Thank you Calum for your reply. Yes I've been using stats to a good extent. Would you please mention some of the cheaper ways you have in mind? Thanks.
You can sit the first exam in the CT series without shelling out for membership, subscribe to the Actuary magazine, attend open industry events, talk to recruiters, that kind of thing.
Any advice on moving the other direction? I miss science. Presumably it's only possible with a very expensive masters?
I think the advices below are also valid for a move in the other direction. Familiarity with epidemiology and clinical trials methodology added to strong experience in actuarial statistics can convince recruiters, even without a master in medical statistics.
Agree very much with this. A degree provides a clean break with your past. Employers view you foremost as an Act Sci Student , as opposed to a Bioscientist.
