Passing exams doesn't reduce job hunt tinkering

I went to an interview and was heckled by someone who claimed people with a lot if exemptions can't do the work.

The employers don't want someone with either too good a pass rate or potential for one. But that is the nature of Act Sci, experience counts but the exams "ALSO" get you ahead. You can quaify fast and 'wait' for the three years experience. But I don't think employers like that.

 

Sounds like whichever company you have been dealing with is going about things all wrong. I wouldn't assume all companies are like that.

My employer is just as likely to hire people with or without exemptions, and they actively encourage you to get through the exams as quickly as you can. The study package is fantastic but the company only pays for your first sitting of any exam, so you are pretty much forced to try and pass first time if you don't want it to cost you lots of money in resits.

Most of the people I know in other companies tell me similar things, employers are all perfectly happy to hire those with exemptions and encourage them through the exams. You sound like you've come across an exception rather than the norm.

 

Actuarial job advertisements quite often mention CT passes, but never seem to mention exemptions. This suggests that CT passes are valued more than exemptions by employers. Also employers rarely mention postgraduate qualifications in actuarial science, mathematics or anything else in advertisements for most actuarial vacancies.

I think it is important to be clear what you are looking for in a job. Actuarial work is very finance orientated, and is not that different to a lot of other finance jobs. The element of mathematics in the work can sometimes be given too much emphasis.

If you want a job with a high maths or science emphasis then look for vacancies that specify an MSc or PhD, such as statistics or quantitative finance jobs. Even in these jobs qualifications are only part of what is required by employers. Commitment is also important.

 

Lack of exams, or a pace considered "too slow", is often used to justify offering you lower salaries.

Funny thing is, when you do have the exams, then they claim your experience doesn't quite fit in order to offer a lower salary.

And even if you do have almost all or indeed all the exams, you still get rejected from general jobs if your experience was in life or pensions say. Or if you worked in life and didn't work in solvency 2 say or used some particular piece of software say... then they'll reject you also.

This makes the whole thing look quite weird, in that you spend an awful long time passing exams then get told you don't have the 'right' experience. For some reason, years and years of doing very dull spreadsheet based work in life makes you unsuitable for a job in pensions even with 15 exams behind you.

Yes, an utter farce. They'll try anything to get your salary offer down.

 

I don't think our salaries are low at all. I'm 23 years old and I earn £40k for being in the office 4 days a week. I think actuarial students get a pretty sweet deal.

Trainee lawyers, doctors and accountants (for example) are on buttons compared to us.

 

The starting salaries are not bad. But they go up slow. And as time goes on, those lawyers and doctors get better and better pay whilst many actuaries get stuck in a rut. £40k for 23 yr old is very good but quite rare, so must wonder how it is you achieved this.

 

job hunting

I'm sure there are a few employers out there with misconceptions and bad attitudes, but I think it's pretty silly to go around saying they don't want people who are going to do well in actuarial exams, or will do anything to avoid paying you a fair salary.

Actuaries are generally intelligent and logical people, and employers ultimately want someone who they think will be good at the job.

If you don't like your job, or don't think you're being fairly remunerated, then discuss it with your employer, and/or go and get a different job. There is plenty of demand for actuaries out there, and most actuaries earn quite a lot of money from what i can tell (in london gi market). Blaming everybody else is not very healthy or productive.

If you can't get another job, its more likely to be that you need to improve your interview skills or your expectations are unrealistic.

"There is no failure. Only feedback" ~ Robert Allen

 

matt you comments are always angry and defensive, are you sure you okay, take it easy man. This is just a place where people give opinions, it's a FORUM. Everybbody has their views about staff, listen to them without being paranoid as if you the Actuarial Profession. These are the weaknesses that these people see, it's worth saying them out......CHILL BOSS



IT'S A FORUM

 

Erm

My point was pretty calm and contructive.

It was mainly directed at mr scarlets, and regular readers may have noticed he seems to have a bit of a habbit of blaming others for him troubles (e.g. see the 'who sets pass marks' thread), so I was encouraging him to be a bit more positive and constructive.
(If I was more angry than scarlets, i think my head would have exploded by now )

Anyway, I have been in the situation where I felt my employer wasn't paying me enough, so I can empathise. But complaining that empoyers have some collective masterplan to grind you down is just a bit childish and silly (in my opinion).

 

You get paid for the value you create. I have no sympathy at all for people who are trainee actuaries (getting all their tuition paid for and time out of the office to study) and have only been working a few years, who want to complain that they don't get paid enough.

You want paid more? Prove that you are useful by passing exams and making your company some money. A high salary is not a right, you need to earn it.