How much maths?

Hi

Having embarked on CT1 I am now wondering whether I am doing the right thing. I started the study because maths was my second choice to law and yep - I do like it but could someone tell me how much maths is really involved day to day in the job? I am Midlands based so any job I do get is most likely to be in a consultancy doing pensions work. I am worried it will not give me the maths I enjoy so whilst I can happily do exams, qualifying may not be all that great. Any advice anyone?

Cheers

Exlawyer

 

Most of the maths in CT1 and the rest of the Actuary exams are not used in the actual work. It's mostly input-output spreadsheet calculations, which frankly could be done by someone with a GCSE in maths.

Most Actuaries I've met have long forgotten the maths in the exams and care even less. You may come across some formula in a spreadsheet or document that you remember from your exams, such as the CT5. You may end up coding it in a spreadsheet or Actuarial software.

There may be a small minority of jobs which make use of this stuff, maybe if you work for someone building Actuarial software or something.

Personally I have been very disappointed at the lack of maths in the Actuarial work. I have found the work to be very prescriptive where you just implement rules devised by others.

 

Thanks! I am erring on the side of going for the slow burning option of doing an OU maths degree whilst working in current field and then look at other possible mathsy careers....

 

Please don't just go on my opinions and experiences, I am just being honest. I am seriously thinking of changing career FROM actuary to something else. Main problems for me are the lack of jobs away from London/SE and the intense competition for any job that results from lack of jobs.

It is quite irresponsible how some Actuaries and indeed the Actuarial Profession have publicly alleged a shortage of Actuaries when this is clearly untrue on the ground.

 

It is still the feeling I get...also I worry that working for a consultancy might hold they same misery as lawyering (sucking up to clients, office politics, time recording and lack of promotion....)

 

I actually thought about moving from Actuary into Law

I suspect much of the above is at play in Actuary. More than once I've seen the most technically proficient people, in terms of producing calculations, programming etc. simply being kept where they are and the more 'useless' people promoted to managers.

I think Actuary initially seems like a meritocracy, in that your salary moves with years of experience and exam passes... but once you get to nearly/newly qualified then it's the same bs and lack of meritocracy as other lines of work I'd say.

You can make decent money from contracting work if you have acquired useful coding skills in Prophet, Igloo etc. but they'll only give you experience on those in perm jobs.

 

With law you can earn a lot but it takes your life away.....live in London, pay for London lifestyle...can't see much gain. You have to really love it and I simply did not....

 

Most Actuarial jobs seem to be in London but there are jobs in nicer locations such as Edinburgh or smaller nicer English locations such as York, Bristol, Norwich etc. wherever the insurance companies are based basically.

 

It does depend on area and role, but in general I would say that although you need a deep understanding of the maths which you will apply daily, you will not on the whole be sitting at your desk doing algebra.

A huge part of the job, for me at least, is thinking and reasoning about data, in all its messy, incomplete, substandard and intractable forms. If you don't much like the idea of that...

 

I am leaning more towards thinking I'd be better off as some sort of statistician IF I was to pursue a maths route....

 

If maths is what you want to be doing, quite possibly - though I'd caution that working statisticians spend just as much time focusing on data and problem domain as they do on mathematics.

The modern actuary is a pretty business-focussed creature. Forty years ago, he was the equivalent of a doctor or vet, employed to provide the company his professional judgment. Nowadays, he's a well-compensated employee.

 

Worth a look. There might be interesting work on the applied maths side too in defence or engineering.

 

One would have thought that, having got yourself through such grueling exams, that this would be respected and that prospective employers could feel confident in throwing many different tasks your way.

However, increasingly, as the job specs illustrate, they want someone who's done the exact job previously. This doesn't show much confidence in actuaries's abilities to take on anything new. Or it may illustrate a laziness on the part of employers to 'train' people. It is an irrational fear of handing someone a task they've never done before.

Of course, just because someone has done a task previously doesn't mean they were any good at it, but let's not allow that reasonable thought to interfere with the stupid mentality that so many hiring managers impress themselves with.

 

Exlawyer, I work in GI pricing and it's very mathematical and challenging from a technical point of view. I found the St8 (pricing exam) very helpful so I do think there is overlap with the exams.

I worked in pensions before and I was disappointed with the lack of technical work but I've been in pricing for 3 years now and I love it.

I'd do a bit more research before giving up on the career. The point I'm making is that there is a very wide variety of actuarial jobs so I would be confident by doing some research you will find an area that fits your requirements.

Don't let some disgruntled actuaries out there put you off - having a bad experience in one area doesn't give you the right to brand all other actuarial roles with the same negative opinion. Best of luck!

 

Thanks. I know that GI work is more mathematical however, being Midlands based (and I don't want to/can't change that) means the actual number of suitable jobs is low....