Hello all, I guess this posting is very similar to the previous thread, but I'm interested in getting a better feel for what it's really like to be an actuarial student, and wanted to ask a few more specific questions. I am 29 and just finishing a doctorate in electronic systems engineering. Over the last year or so, I have been considering moving into actuary, and over the last month or so, I have begun making definite moves in that direction (applying for trainee/student positions). I've already got a load of information from the many excellent postings on this site, but I'd welcome some more insight from you folks on the front line . 1. Can you give me an idea of how study fits into your "typical" week - if such a typical week exists? I'd welcome any insight into the workload associated with taking 2 exams in a sitting/3 exams/4? Given I'm a bit older than the average Joe, I'd like to be reasonably aggressive in trying to qualify in a "short" period of time - but I don't want to end up in the Betty Ford Clinic. 2. What would you say makes the exams hard? Volume of study? Work/study balance? Technical content of the material? To the outsider the exams seem incredibly mysterious. I've been a solid exam performer up to now, but past performance doesn't seem to count for much in some of the posts I've read. I've heard anecdotally that "everybody fails at least one exam" - is that consistent with your experience? 3. On a practical note, I'm trying to figure out if I'll be able to pay the bills in the short term. My current salary is c£29k. I live in the UK, but not London. Assuming I did manage to land a role with a decent company (getting ahead of myself here) how long do you think it would be before I'd hit this salary level again? I'm assuming a starting point of c£20k. Thanks guys. ActNoobie.
I think each CT takes about 150 hours. I do 2 CT's at a time and in a "typical" week I do about 15 hours study. It is possible to do 3, but I never have because I would rather take 2 and be confident about passing than stress myself out doing 3 and risk failing them. As for doing 4, personally I think that would foolish and you would probably end up failing the lot. I think what makes them hard is the volume and trying to fit it all in around work. I don't think the content is that challenging, it's just 6 months isn't that long to learn 2 courses. I know a few people who have passed all the CT's without failing any, but I know lots more who haven't I haven't failed any yet, but then I only have 4. You should be able to start on more than £20K. But, assuming you started on £20K, and pass exams at a good rate (say 3 a year), you should be on £30K within 2 or 3 years I would think.
If you're reasonably 'aggressive', you should be able to pass 3 CT exams in April. It's not that unusual, but it does take a lot of effort. In terms of technical content, if you have a doctorate in a reasonably quantitative discipline, there's no reason why you'd find the CT exams especially difficult. They're certainly not easy, mind. But pretty much undergraduate level maths. I think you'd be able to get more than £20k starting off. And it shouldn't take you too long to get up £29k. In a London consultancy, the starting graduate slaray would be £27k+. By far the hardest thing in passing the exams is work/life balance. Even if you're good at passing exams, it can be very difficult to motivate yourself to study every evening after work.
why do you want to be an actuary? you may find it very boring compared to your research interests. if you are after $$$ and a brain stimulating job consider trying to become a quant in an investment bank. imo your phd is wasted in an actuarial career, in many ways you are better qualified already. one thing to note, actuarial work is NOT that technical on the whole. for instance, in pensions you would be doing very basic maths in your day to day work - nothing fancy that you might be led to believe by the careers people.
actuarial work challenging?? I agree with Gareth - if you are really looking for intellectual challenge in actuarial work you may be disappointed. The exams are harder than the work itself (I would say by a large margin) but I guess that's how it's meant to be - if you have passed your exams then you CAN definitely do your work. That's why there are still many job opportunities for those who decided not to finish their exams. Of course money and career wise if you can finish it's much better.
Lets think positive that you get an offer and return to your qn of bills. Do read the conditions carefully. Not all employers have the same rules regarding fee payment. With some you pay your own subscriptions, exam & course fees etc to some degree. Most cover first attempts but 2nd & subsequent support varies more. If you are going the aggressive route, you may find you want to bolster the financial support you are given. So factor this into your equation. Plus, being older may be a major hurdle to overcome. You may further your chances by being bold and actually getting membership and starting studying whilst you apply. Again, an addition to your initial invt/outgoings I'm afraid. You've obviously done your homework. It's now a qn of getting a foot on the ladder. Good luck
I dont understand your fixation with PhDs and certainly dont agree that a PhD is in any way a better qualification than the FFA/FIA. Not by a long shot. To quote a friend of mine (Fusion Physics, Oxford), This PhD malarky is really a bit of a wheeze. Don't really have to get out of bed until midday. It's a bit like being on the dole without the hassle of signing on every two weeks. My academic life, paid for by lovely tax payers like you. Thanks a million! Also, whilst pensions valuation is an example of potentially routine Actuarial work, there are plenty of very technical roles out there. Why do you belittle your own profession so often and talk up quants? They are little more than hardcore geeky programmers.
perhaps it's just a reflection of my personal disappointment with the technical level of the profession. when i began, it was under the impression that actuaries did something quite mathematical and technically difficult. after working in pensions for a few years, i nearly quit, as all i did was "back of the envelope" calcs, and used annuity tables to work out transfer values. moved into GI which is a lot more interesting, but still i think the level of statistics and maths is quite weak (perhaps in a few years once SolvencyII kicks in, we will be more advanced). no offense intended to anyone in the profession, but this is my view from what i have experienced in my work. i look at say Wilmott's monthly magazine, and read extremely techical investment articles, applying phd level maths to pricing exotic options and think perhaps for someone who loves maths, the actuarial profession might not be the right choice. i'm too far down the path to make a big change, but for someone starting out, there's a important decision to make.
You should look at some of the actuarial consultancies that do work in the field financial risk consultancy. Barrie and Hibbert for example (they have a quant vacancy just now!).
I agree with Gareth. Personally, I hope to be an FIA one day, but I don't think I could ever get a maths PhD.
I was referring to the value of the qualification in general, not your mathematical ability. There are plenty of high calibre pure maths graduates who could easily have done a PhD if they wanted to, who opt to become actuarial students. There are far fewer qualified actuaries out there than people with maths PhDs. I was offered a postgraduate research scholarship - but university research these days tends to be research merely for researchs sake. 90% of the papers churned out are comically insignificant and have no application. Of course this should come as no surprise when these days university funding is essentially based on research output.
Great replies! Thanks. Dear all, Many thanks for your informative and entertaining replies. It's really interesting to get a feel for a job without the layer of marketing rhetoric that gets added in glossy recruitment campaigns. As for the PhD Vs. FFA/FIA debate, I can see clear merits in both qualifications, and some overlap in the required skill sets - rest assured there is an awful lot of tedious, repetitive work in the research domain too......99% perspiration, 1% inspiration as the saying goes. I think a (quantitative) PhD just demonstrates an ability to apply oneself to problem solving, work accurately and communicate results and ideas effectively - I'm getting the impression that's what actuaries need to demonstrate too. I particularly enjoyed this one..... I think your friend ("A bit of a wheeze" - Bertie Wooster?) may get a shock when daddy decides it's time he/she buys their own tickets to the Moet lounge at the three day eventing. Whilst no doubt such complacency exists in academia (as in any profession), we're not all glued to Bargain Hunt. My research is funded by the private sector. If I stay in bed, I get fired. Thanks again folks. Given me plenty to think about.
