Yes and I'd say this is by design. A while back I read, on the Actuaries website I think, or maybe I googled them... some documents discussing the history of the Actuary exams and how they were going to change them to tackle low pass rates and the low student retention rates. That document was from a few decades ago and I'd say the same 'problem' is around today, so I'd say it is by design.
As for job satisfaction, there are jobs that are more challenging and intellectually simulating, hence both exciting and rewarding, than being an actuary - but often comes with more stress level. Over time, your personality and behaviour changes and what used to come to you as being stressful may become enjoyable and exciting. This will be truer as you get to know more about the world and believe that you are better than your job role. I will say that I had no confidence and aptitude for taking challenging roles when I was looking for my first job. so I've got what I'd set out to do. There is a lingering dissatisfaction about 1. cap on earning potential 2. Feeling that you are not making important decisions... There is a number of ways to tackle this e.g. move to consulting, take more demanding roles, improve your soft skills, etc, so it's only upto you to make those changes. As for the remark that the profession is restrictive - most other corporate jobs are the same in that they need corporations to hire them. Bean counters need corporations, Bankers need banks, regulators and compliance need regulated. Everyone is a specialist in some sort so I don't see it as being a bad thing as long as 1. The world doesn't need actuaries. 2. there is a great over-capacity of actuaries.
