Why don't company hire undergraduates even if they have passed 2-3 exams of actuary?

They will hire graduates with even 2 exams cleared easily then why do
they avoid undergraduates even if they have cleared many exams?
What's the difference between a graduate and an undergraduate really?
Its just the difference of some documents of degree in hand. Really
speaking, its easily possible in today's society for an undergraduate
to have much more knowledge and skills than a so-called graduate.

 

It comes down to who has greater potential... Someone who has completed a degree has demonstrated they have the maturity to see something through from start to finish. Someone without a degree who has passed a few exams has not yet shown that ability. It’s possible for someone who hasn’t even set foot in a classroom to be more knowledgeable than a graduate but on average it’s not the case.

 

Do you really believe that?!

I studied maths and physics at uni, and, to be honest, its been of very little direct use as an actuary, but it (hopefully) proves I have a good mathmatical/problem solving/logical way of thinking, as well as the wider softer skills of ability to learn, manage workload, commitment over 3-4 years etc. (I may have had some of those abilities before university, but alot of them were learned and improved by 4 years of university study).

If I was an employer i'd have a lot more confidence in a candidate's potential if they have a good relevant degree behind them, compared to a candidate that doesn't. It's just less of a risk I suppose. An employer looking for an entry level actuarial trainee will surely be much more interested in ability as opposed to directly relevant knowledge (i.e. they're more interested in your medium-long term potential than what you can do on day 1).

That said, any candidate for an entry level acturial position having two or three CTs behind them should be taken seriously I would say. There was a thread on this forum a couple of months ago speculating that major actuarial employers may start employing more non-grads, as a consequence of the increased uni fees etc. It would seems pretty sensible to me, but surely any such employer would be taking more of a risk if they chose to take on less "proven" employees.

 

Also, wouldn't a degree be a better way to determine this? Since it comes with a fully documented academic record including Fails, withdrawals and a proper grade? Passing the IoA's exams reveals almost nothing. No grade, no info on how many attempts etc. just a pass.

 

Hello Raju,

I joined an actuarial company (albeit a small one) as a first year undergraduate. I have to say I was very lucky and not many (any?) large consultancies would be willing to go down this route.

From an employers perspective employing an undergraduate has a number of problems, the main one being lack of availability (i.e. the work needs to be managed around lectures).

I have found that just because someone has passed a few exams does not necessarily make them "more knowledgeable". On-the-job experience counts for an awful lot.

If you can show that you can pass exams AND can do the job then you stand a fighting chance.

 

My bet is it's not exactly that graduates are "better" than undergraduates. It's just there are so many applicants for each place. Where they can pick and choose, HR will naturally pick a 1st class over a 2.1, and a graduate over someone without a degree. Getting more for the same price so to speak. Add in a couple of extra years of life experience and maturity and maybe the average graduate does have a slight edge over the average school-leaver.

It's not going to be perfect, but it is simple, and it is HR!

 

Which CT exams should be passed for entry into the job market

Guys,
I have given the CT1 exam and awaiting results.
could you please let me know which CT exams should I give so that I can get started in the actuarial field?

Thanks,
Warrior