I have seen that there are approx. 30 university courses accredited by IFA. Makes me wonder, who would be prefered for employment, an actuarial graduate with 8 CT exemptions or an undergraduate with 8 CTs passed through IFA.
An undergraduate with 8 CTs passed through the I&F with no work experience would be unusual and would raise eyebrows, at least in the UK. It's difficult to compare directly because experience is also important, but it's probably fair to say employers are more impressed by CT passes than the equivalent exemptions (rightly or wrongly). However, nor is it seen as a negative thing to come equipped with an Actuarial Science degree.
They quite like the idea of grinding employees' social lives away slaving every night on exams, means they can offer measly and slow pay rises. So turning up with CT series completed already doesn't suit. Because to keep the salaries down they need to keep telling you how much of a failure you are. Then once you pass them there will be some excuse about how you don't have the 'right' experience. It must be terribly important what series of dull spreadsheet you have been exposed to, clearly makes you unqualified to look at another set of dull spreadsheets.
I graduated from an accredited university course, so I had CT1-8 exemptions. There's good and bad points to hiring someone in that position. But I've never heard of any company specifically choosing to hire only people with or without exemptions, there is always a mix of both. When I was hired there was a group of 11 students who were hired at the same time, 6 with exemptions. So I don't think it will hold you back either way. Certainly, a company would be pretty stupid to decide to choose people with exemptions over those without or vice versa, since it's not really a deciding factor in how good an employee you will be. Softer things like communication skills, teamwork, problem solving ability, etc, are all much more important.
