few questions on acturial studies (1 Viewer)

[Pwnage101]

pwnage101 i like your style. hope to see you at uni next year =)

thx, 'younis dahber yu' is still on the plate

Gosh i hate decisions...

 

[hollyy.]

I hate to put anyone down, but I think it's worse to give people false hope. I wouldn't pick actuarial studies if I were you, since 39 is a really low mark for actuarial studies and 3U maths in comparison is VERY straightforward.

i know, but exams fucked me up . maybe ill play it safe and stick with accounting.

So, I'm seeing things here that Actuarial Studies is generally a difficult course. So let's say after a year (or less), you are finding it too difficult, is it easy to switch to another major eg. Finance or Accounting?

can someone plz answer this?

 

[keithmoon]

So, I'm seeing things here that Actuarial Studies is generally a difficult course. So let's say after a year (or less), you are finding it too difficult, is it easy to switch to another major eg. Finance or Accounting?

FOR UNSW ONLY:

The problem with answering this question is that you don't really start your actuarial subjects until second year.

If you decide to do actuarial studies (or at least...give it your best shot), then you will cover an introductory course in the second semester of first year.

Having done this subject will give you a fair good "overview" of the topics covered in your future actuarial studies courses, assuming you'd like to pursue it further.

It is a fairly difficult course (depending on who writes your exams).

The course is a "decent" guide to how you will perform in subsequent actuarial studies courses

Generally speaking, anything less than 65 (credit), you should seriously consider about whether the pathway is the right one for you. Having said that, I got less 65 in that introductory course, but...I decided to stick with it, and I'm glad I did.

At the end of the day, it comes down to
1. if you have the potential to do well
2. how badly do you want it?

So to answer the original question...you haven't really done any of actuarial studies after first year...and if you decide to change your major after first year, that will be quite easy...but then, will you really be making an informed decision based on that one introductory subject (unless you absolutely hated it). What if, like me, you did bad in that subject but are still interested in pursuing further studies in the faith that you will stay on course?

However, if you do intend to stay the course, then you will have to endure...well...the second and third year actuarial courses...and I'll let you know, unless you are genius (which Pwnage seems to be)...then you'll be constantly asking yourself "WHY THE FUCK DID I PICK THIS SUBJECT?!". In which case, you must ask yourself..."Can I really be bothered?"

It's a huge dilemma. Ha!!

 

[dvse]

I hate to put anyone down, but I think it's worse to give people false hope. I wouldn't pick actuarial studies if I were you, since 39 is a really low mark for actuarial studies and 3U maths in comparison is VERY straightforward.

While I'm not sure what cut-off to suggest, there is some merit to this since there is a lot of similarity between actl and ext 1 / ext 2 hsc maths in the approach one needs to take to do well. Most of it boils down to extensive practice on past papers with hardly any thought given to what is taught or why (the answers are too often 'rubbish' and 'no one knows') - if you haven't shown the ability to do this for the hsc, actl indeed is not looking so good.

Speaking from students' perspective (i.e. an aspiring actuary-to-be), job opportunities are readily available to those who are able and capable. The mediocre would have more trouble finding a relevant role, and the rest...they wouldn't have a chance. I guess it's the same like most other careers....very competitive.

Interview process is incredibly random, so as long as the marks are okay (DN+) and the resume doesn't look too retarded (tone down the superlatives) one should have a reasonable chance. Looking presentable, being able to speak English and not coming across as a severe case of Aspergers help too.

Of course, there is a very significant overproduction of grads (we are talking 100+ applicants for one advertised grad position last year), so be prepared to go into related areas.

For a double degree of Comm/Sci, there are two ways to gain entry to (and hopefully exemption from) Part II subjects.
1. Get all your part I exemptions
2. Get most of your part I exemptions with a maximum of 1 part I subject remaining, with 3 months of relevant work experience such as in an actuarial analyst role.

You can also do them at mq non-award - from what I hear, assessment is marginally more predictable.

I'm doing comm/sci, this year my 4th. I obtained all my part I exemptions and am doing Part II this year. How I find the courses?

Well...I am so glad my part I's are over! It's very rewarding once you get it out of the way. Part II's should be okay. I am dreading part IIIs.

And how exactly are Part I subjects rewarding? One learns neither theory nor virtually anything of use in practice. Several courses are spent on such worthwhile tasks as discounting cashflows and calculating expectations by hand (can be done in seconds from first principles in a spreadsheet). Then there are stochastic processes that the students don't have the maths background to do anything interesting with (a linear algebra course would help here). This leaves assorted brain damaged techniques like 'graduation' or 'chain ladder' and things like GLM that people come to regard as a magical black box. Perhaps financial economics is okay, encompassing most of the stuff in the finance major, but this is more of a reflection on the latter.


The best advice for Part III is to forget doing things from first principles (i.e. actually trying to understand) and study past exam solutions - every question is on a particular topic, so compile a list of points that are potentially relevant to each topic beforehand and write them down in the exam. Try doing investments this year - will look good on the resume and doesn't require a lot of effort.

 

[keithmoon]

Interview process is incredibly random, so as long as the marks are okay (DN+) and the resume doesn't look too retarded (tone down the superlatives) one should have a reasonable chance. Looking presentable, being able to speak English and not coming across as a severe case of Aspergers help too.

Of course, there is a very significant overproduction of grads (we are talking 100+ applicants for one advertised grad position last year), so be prepared to go into related areas.

If by random, you mean that it depends on a bit of luck…and by a bit of luck…I mean sometimes it depends on a lot of luck…depending on who your interviewer(s) are and how much of a bitch they are or whether they burnt their tongue from the coffee in the morning…then yes…it is “incredibly random”.

Having said that, a DN+, a decent resume, ability to speak English, looking presentable and being “decent” alone does not give one a reasonable chance at a “decent” position. Like you said, given the amount of applicants per offer (let’s say for arguments sake that at least 10 out of 100+ of them are “decent” as described above) and the few positions available…many of them would indeed be quite disappointed that their “decency” isn’t reflected in the end result of being offered a “decent” position.

And how exactly are Part I subjects rewarding? One learns neither theory nor virtually anything of use in practice. Several courses are spent on such worthwhile tasks as discounting cashflows and calculating expectations by hand (can be done in seconds from first principles in a spreadsheet). Then there are stochastic processes that the students don't have the maths background to do anything interesting with (a linear algebra course would help here). This leaves assorted brain damaged techniques like 'graduation' or 'chain ladder' and things like GLM that people come to regard as a magical black box. Perhaps financial economics is okay, encompassing most of the stuff in the finance major, but this is more of a reflection on the latter.

They are rewarding in the sense that I don’t have to do them anymore and that I got all the required grades, and they are also rewarding in the sense that most others aspiring to be an actuary will still have to endure the pain and torture. That’s what makes it rewarding…that I got through it and some people haven’t. =)

The best advice for Part III is to forget doing things from first principles (i.e. actually trying to understand) and study past exam solutions - every question is on a particular topic, so compile a list of points that are potentially relevant to each topic beforehand and write them down in the exam. Try doing investments this year - will look good on the resume and doesn't require a lot of effort.

Why investments this year? (2009?) Investments is compulsory…and wouldn’t look any less/more impressive than the other courses I reckon.

 

[Pwnage101]

FOR UNSW ONLY:

The problem with answering this question is that you don't really start your actuarial subjects until second year.

If you decide to do actuarial studies (or at least...give it your best shot), then you will cover an introductory course in the second semester of first year.

Having done this subject will give you a fair good "overview" of the topics covered in your future actuarial studies courses, assuming you'd like to pursue it further.

It is a fairly difficult course (depending on who writes your exams).

The course is a "decent" guide to how you will perform in subsequent actuarial studies courses

Generally speaking, anything less than 65 (credit), you should seriously consider about whether the pathway is the right one for you. Having said that, I got less 65 in that introductory course, but...I decided to stick with it, and I'm glad I did.

At the end of the day, it comes down to
1. if you have the potential to do well
2. how badly do you want it?

So to answer the original question...you haven't really done any of actuarial studies after first year...and if you decide to change your major after first year, that will be quite easy...but then, will you really be making an informed decision based on that one introductory subject (unless you absolutely hated it). What if, like me, you did bad in that subject but are still interested in pursuing further studies in the faith that you will stay on course?

However, if you do intend to stay the course, then you will have to endure...well...the second and third year actuarial courses...and I'll let you know, unless you are genius (which Pwnage seems to be)...then you'll be constantly asking yourself "WHY THE FUCK DID I PICK THIS SUBJECT?!". In which case, you must ask yourself..."Can I really be bothered?"

It's a huge dilemma. Ha!!

lol thx for the compliment
(although i don't consider myself a genius, i just worked hard)

PS: Going to all the uni info days today confused me (with regards to UNSW vs MACQ)

such a tough choice...

 

[dvse]

If by random, you mean that it depends on a bit of luck…and by a bit of luck…I mean sometimes it depends on a lot of luck…depending on who your interviewer(s) are and how much of a bitch they are or whether they burnt their tongue from the coffee in the morning…then yes…it is “incredibly random”.

Having said that, a DN+, a decent resume, ability to speak English, looking presentable and being “decent” alone does not give one a reasonable chance at a “decent” position. Like you said, given the amount of applicants per offer (let’s say for arguments sake that at least 10 out of 100+ of them are “decent” as described above) and the few positions available…many of them would indeed be quite disappointed that their “decency” isn’t reflected in the end result of being offered a “decent” position.

Pretty much what I meant, yes. Getting any particular position is purely luck, but the chances of getting something after 5 or so interviews are good. The ongoing consolidation in the market isn't helping though.

They are rewarding in the sense that I don’t have to do them anymore and that I got all the required grades, and they are also rewarding in the sense that most others aspiring to be an actuary will still have to endure the pain and torture. That’s what makes it rewarding…that I got through it and some people haven’t. =)

Indeed, making people to give up is pretty much the only point of Part I.

Why investments this year? (2009?) Investments is compulsory…and wouldn’t look any less/more impressive than the other courses I reckon.

If you are still in uni (4th year?) it will make you stand from the others applying for grad positions.

 

[keithmoon]

If you are still in uni (4th year?) it will make you stand from the others applying for grad positions.

Are you allowed to do a subject of Part III while concurrently doing Part II? In any case, I have enough subjects to worry about for now haha won't be doing Part III until I start grad jobs.

 

[dvse]

Are you allowed to do a subject of Part III while concurrently doing Part II? In any case, I have enough subjects to worry about for now haha won't be doing Part III until I start grad jobs.

I'm pretty sure you can do them before you finished Parts I/II.

 

[uraleech]

The best advice for Part III is to forget doing things from first principles (i.e. actually trying to understand) and study past exam solutions - every question is on a particular topic, so compile a list of points that are potentially relevant to each topic beforehand and write them down in the exam. Try doing investments this year - will look good on the resume and doesn't require a lot of effort.

dvse - just wondering, did you attempt this while you were at uni (i.e doing investments in addition to a full load of uni subjects)? I've been getting mixed messages from friends who have received advice from colleagues at work regarding this.

 

[dvse]

dvse - just wondering, did you attempt this while you were at uni (i.e doing investments in addition to a full load of uni subjects)? I've been getting mixed messages from friends who have received advice from colleagues at work regarding this.

No, I didn't do an actl degree, so was taking a bunch of UK CT exams + part II at MQ in my second last year on top of regular 4 subjects / session. Really depends on how demanding is your degree - mine was such a bludge that I actually did the honours year while working full-time (easily 45+ hrs/wk).

Anything to stand out from a pile of applicants is good in the current market (and taking into account massive overproduction of grads). One possible downside is that for some corporate (as opposed to consulting) positions people may want someone who won't qualify too quickly, so that he doesn't leave for a while and is not as expensive as an FIAA (oh and can be given the most boring work no one else wants to do) - but these are best avoided anyway.