Enquiry on Work Experience

[Ryan]

For an introduction, I'm currently a student studying full time at home. A few days ago,I read through several topics in this forum, and I remember vaguely that some one mentioned about the case where one passed all required papers, but was still not able to tranfer to a fellowship class. I have concerns as my plan is to finish all required papers in roughly 2 years time before I start working.

So my question is,
Must I have some work experience when I finish all the required papers in order to be able to attain the fellowship? ( all CT & CA + 2 x ST + 1 x SA)

Any suggestions/comments are most welcome. Thank you all in advance.

 

[Gareth]

wow, i wish i had the opportunity to do the exams full time at home!

well with IOA you need 2 yrs work experience to be an actuary. So i guess you will need to get a job as a trainee when you finish, and after 2 yrs you will be able to call yourself an actuary. besides, with no work experience you will not be able to work as an actuary, so it's probably for the best!

alternatively, if you join the faculty of actuaries, the work experience is not a requirement, so you can be an actuary straight away...whether anyone will employ you as an "actuary" is another matter altogether.

 

[Cardano]

I joined the Faculty for that very reason

 

[avanbuiten]

Who will employ you?

Passing all the exams without any actuarial work experience is likely to make you unemployable.

 

[Ryan]

Well first let me thank those ppl who bothered enough to leave me something. =)

I'm not expecting to be employed as an actuary straight away. I merely hope that having done the required papers it could help me get promoted faster, along the 2-3 years of my work as a trainee/junior executive I could get a CFA or something.

I could sense a bit of hatred in the last message, if not it must be me and I'ld like to apologize. I wasn't asking about how (un)reasonable my decision might seem, I asked if there would be any problems at all for me to finish the SA/ST papers before I get a job and later transfer to a fellowship class. My concern arises after I read this(in red) :

I echo Ekla. You have to talk with your 'er. 2 days is about industry average for CII but you have little chance of qualifying (<10%?) with that level of support. It would take years and years. You'd burn out I think.

Do you really want to be an actuary? You mentioned the mathematical challenge. When you move to ST/SA subjects that almost vanishes. Its all about methodology, and the actuarial control cycle of design/valuation/monitoring etc. I think you need industry experience there. There's nothing to stop you just doing the CT subjects but is it worth it?

On a different tack, how are you coping with the worklogs etc? It'll be harder to get experience validated working in 'other/wider' fields and without an actuary as supervisor. Most people study mainstream then move wider. The last thing you want is to get all the exams then find you can't convert to fellowship due to lack of experience. I'd talk to the Institute around this.
Have you told your employer of your need to do BAM?

End of the day it's your decision. Maybe see how you fair in Junes pass list and then choose.

Good luck (and get some sleep!)

Having said all that, I want to say that I'm not pissed at all, I didn't take offense over your "Who will employ you?" . Just want to say that it might seem unwise or even a stupid move to you, I have reasons to make such a decision. I appreciate that you said what you had on your mind. On a side note, thanks, Gareth for giving constructive reply.

 

[avanbuiten]

I could sense a bit of hatred in the last message, if not it must be me and I'ld like to apologize.

Apology accepted.

I only said what I did because better for you to hear it now - I don't like to just stand by & watch someone make (what I consider a serious) mistake.

I hope I am wrong & it works out for you.

Of course if you have some serious problem that prevents you from working right now - then maybe that'd be taken into account, in which case your idea sounds more plausible.

Why not call a couple of actuarial recruitment agencies and ask their opinion? I have no idea what they'll tell you but you may find it useful, and they are probably the most knowledgable about such things.

Best of luck.

 

[Gareth]

i actually dont think it's a stupid plan, if you have the financial resources to do this.

There are plenty of people being farmed out of City with BSC + MSC in actuarial science, and are just needing to do the SA paper to qualify. Personally, it this I have an issue with, I've seen the papers they sit, and it's without doubt easier than the IOA/FOA exams. Plus their lecturers will be giving hints in the weeks before the exams and in lectures of what to revise...

At least you plan to sit the proper exams, which will make you more of an honest actuary in my mind.

(...waiting for City flames...)

 

[veeko]

This is what I think - you will almost possibly be able to find employment as an actuary here in the UK, but however you decide to job hunt, be it by contacting employers directly or by recruitment agencies, make sure that the employer knows that it is not the salary that you are too fussed about, but the work experience. From what I've seen, there are a number of companies who will be in favour of your position (i.e. having passed all exams before finding work experience), but you should be aware that they wouldn't be willing to pay you the going salary of a qualified actuary. From my point of view (well from anyone's, just imagine yourself as an employer), the employer would see it as fair as only being able to pay you the same amount as a qualified actuary once you have the experience of a qualified actuary. After all, its the work that counts - employers want you to get the job done well. Speak to a qualified actuary with many years experience, they will almost certainly tell you that they only use 10%-15% of their education from the exams (unless, of course you work for an institution that provides actuarial education).

 

[avanbuiten]

All exams written by City Students (not that I've ever been one) have to be first approved by the Institute/Faculty. Then once the papers are marked it is an independent examiner from the Institute/Faculty who will set the pass mark on the paper. This mark is generally selected so that the proportion of students passing any given exam is similar to the equivalent pass rate on the IOA/FOA exam.

Also, although you may see students from places like City, UKC, & Herriot Watt getting good actuarial jobs relatively quickly - what you may not appreciate is a significant number of them don't - It is not uncommon for some of them to still be unemployed 12 months after finishing their course. It is not uncommon for some actuarial employers to actively discriminate against applicants who have passed exams via MSC because they do not know what to do with them and the other students currently employed do not always like them (read your own comments Gareth for proof of this).

Yet these studnts pay about 10K of their own money to do these courses, lose at least a years wages - and have no guarantee, even if they do pass some of the exams of getting a job at the end of it. I salute their dedication.

 

[Ryan]

After reading pages 43-49 of Student Handbook 2005/2006, I still cannot tell the difference between the work-based skills requirement (applies to students joining from 1 july 2004) and the experience requirement (applies to students joining before 1 july 2004).

 

[Gareth]

All exams written by City Students (not that I've ever been one) have to be first approved by the Institute/Faculty. Then once the papers are marked it is an independent examiner from the Institute/Faculty who will set the pass mark on the paper. This mark is generally selected so that the proportion of students passing any given exam is similar to the equivalent pass rate on the IOA/FOA exam.

Also, although you may see students from places like City, UKC, & Herriot Watt getting good actuarial jobs relatively quickly - what you may not appreciate is a significant number of them don't - It is not uncommon for some of them to still be unemployed 12 months after finishing their course. It is not uncommon for some actuarial employers to actively discriminate against applicants who have passed exams via MSC because they do not know what to do with them and the other students currently employed do not always like them (read your own comments Gareth for proof of this).

Yet these studnts pay about 10K of their own money to do these courses, lose at least a years wages - and have no guarantee, even if they do pass some of the exams of getting a job at the end of it. I salute their dedication.

ok, now tell me this. how come I know 4 people who got stuck on the 300 series for many years, not passing an exam in about 10 sittings, yet come to city, pay £10K and walk out 8 months later with the 300 series all exempt?

i seriously doubt that it's the quality of full time education that makes the difference. I even know one guy who told me that he was effectively buying his FIA as he couldnt pass the Institute exams.

Maybe my sample data is by chance the exception, but i seriously doubt it.

 

[Ryan]

Well...there're around 40+ actuaries in my country and some of these are foreigners. The work environment here is not very desirable to me(rarely any study support), plus I simply do not like my country at all.(Don't want to go into details on the government/politics/economics/education system/crime rates in my country + my past experience.)

So I'm considering of migrating, passing most of the papers seems to be an option for me to increase my chance of being employed(ignoring the salary) overseas within the shortest time.(relative to qualifying as an actuary after 8 yrs. 8 yrs is the average in my country.)

I was afraid that if I started working here it would be harder for me to leave. What do I say to my children in the future when they ask me about the unfairness/corruption in the country?

 

[avanbuiten]

ok, now tell me this. how come I know 4 people who got stuck on the 300 series for many years, not passing an exam in about 10 sittings, yet come to city, pay £10K and walk out 8 months later with the 300 series all exempt?

i seriously doubt that it's the quality of full time education that makes the difference. I even know one guy who told me that he was effectively buying his FIA as he couldnt pass the Institute exams.

Example 2 - I had to supervise a new graduate from City a while back who was exempt from 101-109, yet could not even calculate an simple compound interest function, yet alone a single life annuity.

Maybe my sample data is by chance the exception, but i seriously doubt it.

People do better because they are trained 5 days a week (8 hours a day) for nine month by lecturers who are at the forefront of actuarial research and training. Outside of this time they will also be studiying at home, completing assignmnents, etc - no wonder they do better!

Also take into account that these people have forked out 10K of their own money (not your employers) and I'd say that they have a bigger incentive to pass than someone who is working at same time as studying. They have much more to lose from not pasing than an actuarial student in employment.

Perhaps the graduate you talk about was unable to think clearly because he was being affected by negative vibes fom his supervisor? Anyway, I could tell you of a graduate with a similar qualification who has demonstrated surperb technical knowledge. Picking on specific cases isn't really representative.

 

[Cardano]

I taught some CT4 to a Warwick MORSE course undergraduate last year. There did appear to be a significant difference in what was required for their exemption.

Also in my previous, all be it brief career as a university lecturer I just know there will be room for political manoevre when the Universities negotiate with the Institute's representatives

 

[Gareth]

ok, but consider someone who has sat all the 300 series exams many times and failed, i can't see that it's simply that they didn't know the material after so many sittings.

also what is the pass rate at city for the msc? I bet it's a lot better than about 30% of candidate as we see with IOA/FOA...otherwise they'd have to close down the course, who would pay £10K if there's a 70% chance of failure!

Look at actuarial exams, what's the chance you manage to pass all four 300 series exams in a single sitting? Even full time I think it would be down to the gods, especially if your past record was 100% failure for 4 years.

If the City MSc people sat the same exams as the IOA/FOA it would be much fairer, and they would actually be respected within the profession.

Right now, the general impression is that this is a free ride to FIA (less £10K).

 

[avanbuiten]

Students who the ct1, ct2, ct3 exams on an actuarial degree, how old are they?
I'd guess 18? Have they the benefit of having completed a whole degree yet? My guess is that they haven't even completed 1 year - first time away fom home for many of them.

How old are most people doing ct1, ct2, ct3 in employement?
I'd say 26. So that's 8 years older.
Will they have had the benefit of a 3 year degree behind them? Yes.

 

[avanbuiten]

If the City MSc people sat the same exams as the IOA/FOA it would be much fairer, and they would actually be respected within the profession.

The courses will be different. As a University - City will want to lecture on the latest most up to date methods & theories. Some of these may not have even gone mainstream, but as an educator and research institution that is their job. Therefore, the exams will be different.

As for your friends who do this - they'll have to put that on their cv & explain it everytime they go to an interview. You can't hide the fact you didn't work for a year. But generally, if it teaches them something that they couldn't of learnt otherwise I really don't see the problem in it. These type of people will probably make up a minority of those on an MSC.

It's not just 10k. It's 10k + one years salary.

 

[Gareth]

well i bet that most still couldn't pass the Institute exams after their MSc.

 

[avanbuiten]

I bet a lot of them could.

 

[Gareth]

well if that's the case, then City must be doing something pretty special.

I just take a realistic view, that if the majority of MSc students there have been failing the 300 series for many years, then it seems unlikely a one year crash course will suddenly show them the way.

It could be an exam question.

Exams are taken twice a year and each exam has a pass rate of 30%.
If 10 students have failed the exams for the last 3 years with 100% failure rate, what is the probability that under full time study, 8 out of 10 will all pass this year in a single sitting? (assume that under full time study the pass rate is improved to 60%).

Certainly a Bayesian estimate would not look favourably given the prior distribution!

[edit] Ryan - sorry that your thread has been hijacked somewhat! I think your plan sounds a good one in your circumstances. It certainly should help your work prospects going for trainee positions, relative to others.

 

[Mike Lewry]

Work experience requirement

well with IOA you need 2 yrs work experience to be an actuary.

Alternatively, if you join the faculty of actuaries, the work experience is not a requirement, so you can be an actuary straight away.

Ryan, I don't suppose it makes any difference to you, but this 2-year figure above doesn't tie up with the profession's website, which says:

"All members joining the Institute on or after 9 June 1975 are required to have at least three years' experience of actuarial work before being admitted to the Fellowship."

See http://www.actuaries.org.uk/Display_Page.cgi?url=/students/become_student.html for the source of this information.