Actuarial Exams: Memorization, Theory & Stress Levels

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mag|cK
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Memorization is a significant component of actuarial exams beyond the fourth level, with a shift towards more theoretical concepts as one progresses. While some believe that mathematics becomes less central, the emphasis on memorization can be both absolute and logical. Comparatively, memorization in actuarial studies may be more challenging than in biology. Even after achieving fellowship status, actuaries remain busy, but the profession is highly regarded despite the demanding nature of the studies and potential sacrifices to social life. Salary prospects are substantial, with opportunities for significant income growth as one advances through exams and positions. Work environments can vary; some firms prioritize work-life balance, offering flexible schedules and generous vacation policies, while larger companies may demand more hours but still provide study time during work hours. The path to becoming an actuary can lead to lucrative positions, with salaries reaching up to $250,000 or more over a career span.
Mag|cK
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Hello. From the internet I have learned that memorization is the main thing in actuarial exams past the fourth exam. The more you advance, the more theoretical the actuarial studies become. Is it true? Does the mathematics slowly fade away the more you advance? For the memorization, is it like "absolute" memorization or you can memorize it logically? For the memorization, is it more challenging than in biology? Will you be still busy after you have reached fellow level? Why is it that actuary is one of the best rated job, when you have to be workaholics including in your studies and abandon your social life? Is the salary worth the cost? Is an actuary stressful? Sorry for the many questions :biggrin: thx... btw can you give your background of career or studies before answering the questions thx
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You may want to ask your question at the forums here: http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/

Note that (unless things have changed) you will need to sign up from an e-mail address other than the typical yahoo, gmail, msn, etc.
 
i don't have any email besides the ones like hotmail/ yahoo, hence i can't register. Can you post my thread to the actuarial outupost and give me the link. Thx a lot.. :smile:
 
I thought about becoming an actuary for a while and even worked as an intern actuary for around half a year after my undergrad. The job definitely was not for me but I can understand the appeal. You said that being an actuary required you to be a workaholic which is not neccessarily correct. The firm I worked for was small and they seemed much more interested in the easy life than making piles of money. They had only a 4 day/7hr work week and anything that could be considered a holiday was taken on paid leave. Also, in the 6 mo. I was there every employee took at least two weeks of paid vacation off. They received excellent benefits and comfortable salaries.
With that said, you can be a "piles of money" actuary and work for a large company. The work load is greatly increased but it does not require one to be a workaholic. Keep in mind that almost all companies allot part of the workday (1-4 hrs) for non-fellowshiped actuaries to study for the next exam. These exams are nightmarishly tough, but you get paid to study for them, and your salary increases everytime you pass a new one. Companies such as Signa also have executive spiral programs that place actuaries in top positions within the company. In the course of 20 years you can start out at the bottom rung making 30-50k and work to the top with a salary of 250k or more.(Some make vastly more than even this.)
 
What don't you like about the job?
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...

Similar threads

Back
Top