How long should I wait to 'use' my degree

Hi, I recently finished up a degree in actuarial studies, but my problem is that I don't want to go straight into work as an actuary. I'd prefer to go abroad for a year or 2 maybe teaching English as a foreign language. My question is, would looking for an actuary job a full 2 years after graduating go against me? I've read in some places that a degree is rendered practically useless after a certain amount of time, just wondering how long that would be.

 

It shouldn't make much difference. The degree is only enough to get you an interview, it's all the other "competency based" answers and group work that you do in assessment centres which will get you a job. Your technical knowledge is useful, but it's not the primary factor in getting a job. Employers care much more about the softer skills such as the ability to communicate well and work in teams.

 

One thing worth mentioning - if you have exemptions for actuarial exams achieved through your degree I believe there is a limited time in which you can claim these? Possibly someone could confirm or refute that?

Otherwise I don't think employers would have a problem with you going getting some life experience, if anything it'll probably stand to you.

 

Everyone works in a team. That is the biggest bs criteria around.

 

If everyone works in teams, then it seems like a good idea to test your ability to do so. Some people are awful team players.

 

So define for us a good team player and an awful team player. What they mean by a good team player is a mug who will take on all the awful work that won't do anything for his/her personal prospects down the line.

 

By awful team player I meant someone who is domineering, doesn't let others get their opinions across or is obstructive, etc.

A good team player brings out opinions in others and helps the team get to decisions quickly and prioritise their actions.

 

I successfully applied for exemptions 3 years after I graduated from my degree (which was not specifically an actuarial science degree).

 

So the consensus is that there is not really a time limit for when I have to use my degree in order to get a job as a trainee actuary? To be honest, it could be 3 or 4 years before I attempt to get one. I'm seriously considering teaching abroad for a year in asia, then going on the working holiday visa down under.

 

When screening candidates, employers will often not like 'gaps' in a CV, or unexplained changes in direction. e.g. in your case, 'what have they been doing for the last 3 years?' or 'they were teaching in asia and now want to be an actuarial trainee, why?'
If it all looks like part of some master plan, then it can be an advantage.

 

Why would a good team player bring out opinions in others? Maybe the team is better off without some people spouting their opinions. You get to the decisions more quickly without going around everyone consulting their opinions.

 

It's very difficult for them to hammer people for gaps in CV nowadays or a change in direction when there are so few Actuarial jobs around. People will have gaps on CV because of the economy.

I suggest for any gaps on CV you state something like you were working on some business ideas, that you are unable to disclose to the company. They shouldn't whine, if they do say well it would be foolish for me to give away such a good business idea for it to be stolen by others.

Although the problem with that answer is that insurance companies don't actually want people who really have a brain who could survive without their employment, they prefer unremarkable clones.

 

You definitely get to decisions quicker if you don't ask people for their opinions. But that doesn't mean you end up with the best result.

 

By team player they really mean be a total little lapdog for every idea, clever or stupid, your team leader comes up with. Surrender any independent thought or criticism (emanating from your years of education), even if for the benefit of the team or to avoid catastrophe, since stroking the team leader's ego is the most important thing. Otherwise you are accused of being some kind of trouble maker, with devious intentions of making your supervisor look stupid, even if they have said or done something really stupid -oh the crime!

It also means if you are bursting inside wanting to question something such as a figure that looks completely wrong, you must express yourself in the most wimpy subservient grovelling manner, with an introductory paragraph paying some huge tribute and never saying anything is wrong. For example saying something "looks only ever so slightly odd, but it may be my misunderstanding, in fact it must be my misunderstanding as I am so thick compared to you, my superior, not to mention unworthy! (looking at them with those 'please give me a promotion one day for all this grovelling' eyes!)" when it is as plain as day to primary school children that the figure is actually miles out etc.

 

Seriously, seek out another profession if you are so miserable. You're clearly isolated in your opinions. Almost all of the actuaries I know are both happy with their jobs and feel they are paid fairly.

And for somneone who is so dissatisfied with the profession you spend an awful amount of time on this forum. The effort would be better spent focussing on alternative career paths then spouting ridiculous conspiracy theories. What are you trying to achieve by all this?

 

While I have sympathy with your view, Entact, I have worked under dreadful managers - happily, not as an actuary - and I know just how miserable it can be. This may be part of what's going on. Hard to say, though!

 

My criticisms of the whole 'team player' stuff are not exclusive to Actuary. Nor, to be fair, is Actuary the origin of that pretentious mentality.

It seems that sound logic and robust thinking being trumped by petty "let's be sensitive of people's feelings" and spin to cover up right and wrong, which we see more and more of in education and the workplace.

 

I definitely see a lack of accountability in parts of my workplace, not sure if it's the same elsewhere though. Sometimes the only reason people want to do things in teams is so they can't be individually blamed when it goes wrong. But the teams I work in do work together very well, I don't see any of the problems with domineering leaders, etc, which mpyan1 talks about. Perhaps I'm lucky.

However, people are sometimes overly concerned with covering their backs instead of just getting the work done.

I don't just mean actuaries, I mean across my whole company. I asked for one of the lawyers to draft a legal document for me last week and they sent it through saying "can you please ensure you are 100% happy with the wording before sending it to the client?". In other words, if it happens to be wrong, it's not the legal expert's fault for drafting it wrong, but my fault for not spotting the mistake before sending it.

But I'm almost certain this will be the case across most offices, it's just part of the office politics that comes with the job. And I can definitely put up with it because I enjoy my work so much.

 

cjno1, that's a good example. Sadly, what I've seen in many places is that those who get rewarded more due to being in jobs with most responsibility, are often the ones who go out of their way to take no responsibility for anything, except things which go right and blame everyone else when there are any comebacks or for things that go wrong.

Dumping others in it, playing cover ups, 'networking' (i.e. making fake friendships or colluding with the 'right' people for the sole purpose of self-gain at a later date) is sadly how some people have got where they are, not because they have some great intellect, logic, skill, qualifications or anything.

 

Happiness in an imperfect world is never easy! It will come as no surprise that I recognise the picture that cjno1 and mpyan1 are painting. One of my favourite political commentators at the moment is Janan Ganesh and a recent article by him talks about how the misfortunes of young people today have come about because of bad luck and not political conspiracy.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d38f48e-749a-11e3-9125-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk

While not directly relevant to this conversation, I mention it because I get the distinct impression that mpyan1 has been grossly unlucky in many ways and that on several occasions this is mistaken for conspiracy. Now don’t get me wrong; I know there are those who would use underhand tactics to gain an advantage or safeguard their positions. But I think, for example, that some of the recruitment practices that mpyan1 has written about in such damning terms may have more practical (as opposed to sinister) explanations.

mpyan1’s bad luck might normally be cause for sympathy except that I, and others it seems, tire of the endless accusations that are thrown around against the Profession as a whole. I suspect it makes many of the regular forum posters who are making the transition into senior positions, and are therefore regularly on the other side of the fence on the recruitment issue, feel like they personally stand accused.

Many of the posters who start threads on the forum are looking for genuine advice on the way forward and are probably not helped by the barrage of ranting they get from mpyan1. We must remember that there are many variables in play and no one person’s experience necessarily typifies the experience of others. It therefore seems inappropriate that such threads should be so unduly dominated by the misfortunes of one individual.

mpyan1, from your previous posts I believe that you are not London-based. I think this could make some difference, since the larger and more dynamic nature of the London market means that there are more ways for those who are genuinely adding value to progress and it’s harder for any company acting alone to stop them.

mpyan1, I think you’ve been unlucky but I hope there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. Good luck!

 

td290 - I am simply sharing some experiences and thoughts.

In my view people should get to hear both sides of the fence always, then decide for themselves.

Apparently Actuaries should pride themselves on understanding risk, which requires information. I agree with that, therefore once in a while I might come on here and share some info, bust some myths and expose some disingenuous tactics or doublespeak I come across.

I think you'll find many of my criticisms are of the workplace, particularly the office workplace, in general rather than just for Actuary.