Actuarial Studies - right path for me? (3 Viewers)

[lyounamu]

Ok, here is a deal. Since Year 10, I have been looking at Actuarial Studies as my future career as I have been hearing from people that it is the best course that you can do if you like maths and commerce.

At the same time, however, I was advised that this course is only for people who are not only extremely good at maths but also for people who love it. But how good do you have to be in order to attain all the exemptions available and become an actuary? And would it be really boring for people who only perceive maths as some subject of interest?

If I am looking at around 98/99 for 3 unit and 97+ for 4 unit maths, is it enough? It's important to note that those marks are quite realistic for me in terms of my current performance but I believe that I am no way close to being naturally good at maths to some maths olympiads or other geniuses.

I am also hearing other views that actuarial studies hardly involves maths in its entirely but certain section of it. Is it true? Is Actuarial Studies some random crap that lies between maths and some other absurdly difficult discipline?

Swift reply would be really appreciated.

 

[extensorindicis]

i heard the FIAA exams are 8 hours long and insanely hard. Thats partly why it pays so much because through the exams it limits the supply of actuarys.

 

[Azamakumar]

Read that thread about doing actuarial. Most of it is true, the only maths you do is more or less the same as the maths in first year engineering (they say its different at unsw, but they just go through the 4u syllabus in the first 2 weeks then everything else follows, so its a bit rushed). Don't quote me on this, but you need 60 (min) in some uni subjects to get exemptions. You get the shit boring basic accounting subjects too. It's by no means an easy feat.

But you say you're looking at dropping 5 marks across 3 and 4u, and its not due in any part to any sort of natural talent. So if you don't mind putting that much effort in for the next 3/4 years to keep up a D average, I don't see why you shouldn't do it.

Realistically, its unlikely you'll make the distance if you don't like the material. And if you do you're only setting yourself up for a career (ie the next 40 years of your life) in an area that you can't stand. The only thing that matters is if it interests you, grades/jobs will come easy if it does.


EDIT: Flick through the uni forums/uni handbooks to see if you can get a glimpse of what you'll be doing in 2nd/3rd year, because thats where everything starts get specialised. Though I suppose none of this really means anything until you start doing it in uni.

 

[lyounamu]

i heard the FIAA exams are 8 hours long and insanely hard. Thats partly why it pays so much because through the exams it limits the supply of actuarys.

I am not too concerned about difficulty, well I am little bit...but I am more concerned about actuarial studies vs maths relationship.

I like maths but I am not sure if this means that I will like Actuarial studies too. If I haven't considered Actuarial Studies as one of my future career, I wouldn't have gone through all this to do 4 unit maths so that my 100 2 unit mark can be dropped. Gah, I don't know anymore after hearing all these people saying that maths =/= actuarial studies (more like totally separate disciplines with tiny connection)

 

[unwanted80]

nah, my friend does it.. and he absolutely aced 3/4U maths, 99.75UAI, and he tells me that you have no social life.. while other people go out.. you have to do study.. i wouldn't recommend it namu.

 

[lyounamu]

Read that thread about doing actuarial. Most of it is true, the only maths you do is more or less the same as the maths in first year engineering (they say its different at unsw, but they just go through the 4u syllabus in the first 2 weeks then everything else follows, so its a bit rushed). Don't quote me on this, but you need 60 (min) in some uni subjects to get exemptions. You get the shit boring basic accounting subjects too. It's by no means an easy feat.

I read millions of threads about Actuarial Studies and I am aware of that. But in recent times, I am being flooded with all these new threads saying that actuarial studies hardly involves maths.

BTW, what's 60? You mean 60 WAM or whatever the uni result is called?

But you say you're looking at dropping 5 marks across 3 and 4u, and its not due in any part to any sort of natural talent. So if you don't mind putting that much effort in for the next 3/4 years to keep up a D average, I don't see why you shouldn't do it.

But I will be putting great deal of effort for Mathematics Extension 1/2 to achieve those marks. Hm, I will have to review again how much time I invest in for maths.

Realistically, its unlikely you'll make the distance if you don't like the material. And if you do you're only setting yourself up for a career (ie the next 40 years of your life) in an area that you can't stand. The only thing that matters is if it interests you, grades/jobs will come easy if it does.

True. I agree. I seriously feel like stealing someone's actuarial book to see what's actually involved in actuarial studies

 

[Azamakumar]

Load of shit, means he's struggling.





I think one important thing I missed is that rote learning would be enough to get you through the degree, rather than understanding concepts like you'd need to in a pure maths degree.

EDIT: a mark of 60 for that subject. keep in mind that most unis scale marks to meet HD/D/C/P/F quotas to maintain the perceived difficulty of courses.

 

[lyounamu]

nah, my friend does it.. and he absolutely aced 3/4U maths, 99.75UAI, and he tells me that you have no social life.. while other people go out.. you have to do study.. i wouldn't recommend it namu.

But don't you think it might be worth it in the end...considering the remuneration package and other benefits?

Or do you reckon some accounting co-op/cadetship > actuarial?

 

[Azamakumar]

Pm one of the late year acst students in the macq or unsw forum, I assume they'd be much more help.

 

[lyounamu]

Pm one of the late year acst students in the macq or unsw forum, I assume they'd be much more help.

Thank you very much. I will make sure I do that. =)

 

[Affinity]

1.) almost no maths compared to engineering or maths or physics.
2.) Remuneration.. well its not bad.. not very high either.. normal job.

 

[ascentyx]

1.) almost no maths compared to engineering or maths or physics.
2.) Remuneration.. well its not bad.. not very high either.. normal job.

1) You do so many statistics units, and from my experience with statistics, so much of it overlaps with 'maths' so yeah.

2) http://www.qedactuarial.com.au/salary_survey_off/QED Aust Survey 2007 Report.pdf

Normal job is a bit of an understatement lol. Not to say the pay is ridiculously high doing working as a traditional actuary, but the actuarial degree can set you up to work in investment banking or whatever.

 

[gurmies]

!

wow namu, perhaps i'll be seeing you in lectures! This is what I want to do I think...

 

[Studentleader]

I was in this situation this time last year, I chose Quant Finance over Actuarial for a few reasons that I have assumed over reading various forums:

• Quant Finance pays more THOUGH is more risky in terms of jobs
• Acturial Sciences is not a corprately accrideted degree (won't get you anywhere up the corprate ladder)
• Alot quicker to get a PhD in maths then your FIAA
• Bankwest advert @ Curtin University in WA: "Actuary wanted!" must have engineering/mathematics/statistics/acturial sciences degree - does the FIAA really give you that much?
• The exams and course material are out of date by 30 years or so says someone on a quant finance forum

A thing you will realise really quickly is that aslong as you can do the job and do it will no one gives a shit what degree you have, Experience >>> Degree. HOWEVER not having a FIAA will mean that you won't be able to get some actuarial jobs and you probably will get paid less (employees love to cut wages on people who have a M.Sc instead of a PhD.)

I'd like to remind anyone who reads this advice and wants to critise me of something I've said wrong, I'm only a first year so read at your own risk.

Hope it helps anyway, Goodluck!

 

[§eraphim]

I was in this situation this time last year, I chose Quant Finance over Actuarial for a few reasons that I have assumed over reading various forums:

• Quant Finance pays more THOUGH is more risky in terms of jobs
• Acturial Sciences is not a corprately accrideted degree (won't get you anywhere up the corprate ladder)
• Alot quicker to get a PhD in maths then your FIAA
• Bankwest advert @ Curtin University in WA: "Actuary wanted!" must have engineering/mathematics/statistics/acturial sciences degree - does the FIAA really give you that much?
• The exams and course material are out of date by 30 years or so says someone on a quant finance forum

A thing you will realise really quickly is that aslong as you can do the job and do it will no one gives a shit what degree you have, Experience >>> Degree. HOWEVER not having a FIAA will mean that you won't be able to get some actuarial jobs and you probably will get paid less (employees love to cut wages on people who have a M.Sc instead of a PhD.)

I'd like to remind anyone who reads this advice and wants to critise me of something I've said wrong, I'm only a first year so read at your own risk.

Hope it helps anyway, Goodluck!

Yeah, don't listen to this guy..he is quite clueless.

 

[ninjapuppet]

i'm only first yr at unsw, and havent touched on any REAL actuarial subjects.

this sem, I thought i was really struggling with the maths since i hadnt done any for a decade. I didnt even do the bridging course! however, i'm suprised to find that my marks arent as bad as i expected, since the tutors really help you along.

I'm not a HD type, but i still work 25 hours/week and have birthday parties, visit my gun club and do kendo each week. dont know what next year will be like, but i know plenty of actuaries at the 25-30 year old mark. they still DOTA, warcraft, and keep active lives outside throught their studies, so i think it cant be too bad? my friends (ex friends?) in the banking industry dont seem to have lives.

best way to find out, is to actually meet some real actuaries and talk to them and see what they do. from what ive found, actuary has a very low attrition rate. eg, i read somewhere that firemen have a 22 year attrition rate, compared to paramedics who have a 6 year rate! investment banking has a very high attrition rate (wether it be stress or retirement from being rich i dont know) To me, that dont sound too good as a career. when your parents do their accounts this end financial year, go and talk to the accoutant about their career! ask around!

here is some more information
Actuaries’ Survival Guide: How to Succeed in One of the Most Desirable Professions Download Free Computer Ebooks - NET BOOKS

disclaimer:
you may only download this ebook, if you have paid for the book, and own legal title to the read the ebook. i am not responsible for misuse in any way whatsoever, and am simply directing to a page, which is freely and easily found via google.

 

[wrong_turn]

i think what most people are saying is that actuarial is not maths in the sense that you dont really touch upon it in 3u or 4u maths. however, your logical deduction is required in solving these problems, though they may be very statistics based and will require a large knowledge in financial maths (i.e. time value of money)

 

[dvse]

i think what most people are saying is that actuarial is not maths in the sense that you dont really touch upon it in 3u or 4u maths. however, your logical deduction is required in solving these problems, though they may be very statistics based and will require a large knowledge in financial maths (i.e. time value of money)

Actuarial studies has essentially no maths in the modern sense (not even linear algebra!) and introduces an assortment of poorly explained topics from statistics (time series, brownian motion, discrete markov processes, GLM etc).

HSC program has no bearing on "maths" as it is understood today either and is nothing but meaningless busywork (is there even a single proof?). Curriculum has long been hijacked by "education professionals".

 

[Studentleader]

Yeah, don't listen to this guy..he is quite clueless.

Sounds about right, I only know what I have read though.

 

[Affinity]

Another problem with many degree programs is that they spend alot of time justifying their existence and professing their importance.