Suddenly Questioning the Actuarial Profession

[Noob]

Reasons

*offshoring/outsourcing likely to continue
*looking at job postings equating FSA to CFA
*smallness of this profession

[CtrlAltDelete]

:pdftt:

[MasterChief]

i think he is just asking for help or some reassurance that this career doesnt tank i dont think there is anything wrong with that.

[dabears32]

:pdftt:

I dont agree with this. Many of us who are having trouble getting jobs while being qualified are starting to question this. I believe the profession will be fine but it is a legitimate question.

[Sloop John B]

The careers subforum has become a bit depressing lately. I've been turning more to the light-hearted shenanigans of NAT.

[studentnel]

I dont agree with this. Many of us who are having trouble getting jobs while being qualified are starting to question this. I believe the profession will be fine but it is a legitimate question.

I've been questioning actuarial... honestly, I'm thinking of getting out of it.

Is it a profession I will enjoy doing long term? Yes.
Is it a profession I'm willing to a lot of my life and get stressed out just TRYING to get in? No.

If I had to put insane amounts of effort into just getting ENTRY, I'd rather go into banking :D
Banking = crazy hard to get into, harder than actuarial for us IMO, but it's still kick-butt enough to justify the effort.

[dabears32]

I've been questioning actuarial... honestly, I'm thinking of getting out of it.

Is it a profession I will enjoy doing long term? Yes.
Is it a profession I'm willing to a lot of my life and get stressed out just TRYING to get in? No.

If I had to put insane amounts of effort into just getting ENTRY, I'd rather go into banking :D
Banking = crazy hard to get into, harder than actuarial for us IMO, but it's still kick-butt enough to justify the effort.

I still want to do actuarial but since I graduated I am open to anything. Being poor is not fun.

Any ideas?

[vtek]

how much would it suck if after busting your balls to just get in and sacrificing years of your youth to write those exams you found that it's an unsatisfying, mindnumbing, dull corporate-drone job?

[dukelampard]

Feel free to get out. I think we'll be fine with or without you.

[EaglesFan]

Feel free to get out. I think we'll be fine with or without you.

I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment. One of the reasons for gien for increasing frequency of the prelims was that we were losing too many potentially good actuaries. How many potentially good actuaries are we losing because they went through the process of actually passing exams and can't find any opportunities. As noted in another thread, we're even less willing to offer unpaid internships than the banking field.

[bdschobel]

I hope that the current job situation is temporary. We are in a major recession, obviously. Taking a longer-term view, actuarial employment has always been very good, with high compensation and very low unemployment. I don't know if the current situation is a blip or a trend, and distinguishing those is always difficult.

Bruce

[fomoz]

Feel free to get out. I think we'll be fine with or without you.
:iatp:

[DudeMan]

I dont agree with this. Many of us who are having trouble getting jobs while being qualified are starting to question this. I believe the profession will be fine but it is a legitimate question.

yeah this must suck major butt. you spend significant extra time while in college to pass some exams and meet all other entry-level requirements, and in the end get screwed over on getting a job. all that wasted time and effort....i'd be pissed

[EaglesFan]

I don't know if the current situation is a blip or a trend, and distinguishing those is always difficult.

Bruce

I think you hit the nail on the head, we DON'T know which is why I think the more dialogue and more data points we have the better. From lunching with FSAs, hiring managers and chief actuaries in NY, it appears the supply is growing exponentially as the demand is shrinking. The recession may be responsible for making a bad situation worse but it doesn't look like it's totally responsible for the bad situation to begin with.

One chief actuary told me that they hire virtually all of the entry-levels out of the intern class and they had (I believe) 300+ applicants who had passed at least one exam for 15 intern spots and are probably only going to be able to hire 3-4 of the 15 interns. Even in this economy those are REAL bad odds.

And to make matters worse, its been discussed on this board that we are overly reluctant to let people work for free to get experience (and somehow that's a good thing). When I was an executive in another profession, we loved giving people the opportunity to show what they could do and, if they did well, we often looked to put them on payroll as soon as it was possible. As noted in another thread, even the banking profession seems willing to give people that opportunity...but the actuarial profession won't.

[Anonymouse]

One chief actuary told me that they hire virtually all of the entry-levels out of the intern class and they had (I believe) 300+ applicants who had passed at least one exam for 15 intern spots and are probably only going to be able to hire 3-4 of the 15 interns. Even in this economy those are REAL bad odds.

We receive over 1,000 resumes for internships, and probably close to half have passed at least one exam.

[ConfusedNY]

I think you hit the nail on the head, we DON'T know which is why I think the more dialogue and more data points we have the better. From lunching with FSAs, hiring managers and chief actuaries in NY, it appears the supply is growing exponentially as the demand is shrinking. The recession may be responsible for making a bad situation worse but it doesn't look like it's totally responsible for the bad situation to begin with.

One chief actuary told me that they hire virtually all of the entry-levels out of the intern class and they had (I believe) 300+ applicants who had passed at least one exam for 15 intern spots and are probably only going to be able to hire 3-4 of the 15 interns. Even in this economy those are REAL bad odds.

And to make matters worse, its been discussed on this board that we are overly reluctant to let people work for free to get experience (and somehow that's a good thing). When I was an executive in another profession, we loved giving people the opportunity to show what they could do and, if they did well, we often looked to put them on payroll as soon as it was possible. As noted in another thread, even the banking profession seems willing to give people that opportunity...but the actuarial profession won't.

I think this is related to many non-citizens jumping into the profession.

[dukelampard]

I think this is related to many non-citizens jumping into the profession.

Then we should stop hiring non-citizens. Problem solved

[the BS method]

as for CFA vs actuary

traditionally actuaries manage liabilities vs CFAs manage assets.

i think the soa may be pushing for actuaries to do both. it's questionable, but if it's working then it's probably a good thing to see FSAs in the mix for asset management.

[the BS method]

I don't know if the current situation is a blip or a trend, and distinguishing those is always difficult.

Bruce

eh, what profession isn't struggling right now?

[EaglesFan]

I think this is related to many non-citizens jumping into the profession.

I'm a citizen and a lot (most?) of those in my position, whom I've met both on and off of AO, are as well.

[bdschobel]

eh, what profession isn't struggling right now?That's not my point. I was saying that the current bad situation may be just a blip or an indication of long-term decline in actuarial employment. We just can't tell right now, but I'm betting it's a blip.

Bruce

[Dr T Non-Fan]

That's not my point. I was saying that the current bad situation may be just a blip or an indication of long-term decline in actuarial employment. We just can't tell right now, but I'm betting it's a blip.

Bruce
Aren't actuaries supposed to be excellent forecasters?

[bdschobel]

:lol:

[ConfusedNY]

I'm a citizen and a lot (most?) of those in my position, whom I've met both on and off of AO, are as well.

What I saw at the Columbia career fair was mostly non citizens. I am not saying it is bad. I am making the point this was not the way it was in college for engineering but it was heavily weighted in the actuarial profession.

[ConfusedNY]

That's not my point. I was saying that the current bad situation may be just a blip or an indication of long-term decline in actuarial employment. We just can't tell right now, but I'm betting it's a blip.

Bruce

I believe this was trend pre - recession. Caused by more supply from non-citizens.

[Cheezy]

eh, what profession isn't struggling right now?

Divorce lawyers and repo men, doctors, the guy at the fed signing cheques, and IMO actuaries. We have it far better than most of the workforce. There are jobs out there. Sure it's not as good as it used to be but it's a recession...

@ OP - if you found the test material interesting and if you were at a school with an actuarial program and found the material interesting I will guarantee you that when you do find a position you will like the work. If you're lucky you may even get to work on something really exciting and new or you could just end up doing reserves or pricing for 5-10 years until you can grab a management spot. Either way you'll be making considerable income in those years.

[EaglesFan]

What I saw at the Columbia career fair was mostly non citizens.

I was also at the Columbia fair and of the 25+ people I met that day, the overwhelming majority were citizens with at least 1-2 exams passed. That seems consistent with what hiring managers have told me as well.

[ker8]

i think ppl are too dramatic on this forum. I got my first job offer less than 1 year after I passed my first exam, abt 9 months later. And that's really abt all I've put into getting into this profession. I did not major in it in college, and really didn't give it much thought.

Out of 3 in-person interviews I had 2 offers. Perhaps I was lucky, but I doubt it. For those who are qualified I don't think it's really that hard to get a job out there. Maybe it is if you're only looking at the top companies, unwilling to move, or are a terrible interviewer (like you argue w/the chief actuary, ala, myself at company #3, ;) ).

Seriously though, everyone on here needs to stop being so dramatic. It's discouraging to those looking for a job. And IMHO, completely unnecessary and over-the-top.

[CtrlAltDelete]

i think ppl are too dramatic on this forum. I got my first job offer less than 1 year after I passed my first exam, abt 9 months later. And that's really abt all I've put into getting into this profession. I did not major in it in college, and really didn't give it much thought.

Out of 3 in-person interviews I had 2 offers. Perhaps I was lucky, but I doubt it. For those who are qualified I don't think it's really that hard to get a job out there. Maybe it is if you're only looking at the top companies, unwilling to move, or are a terrible interviewer (like you argue w/the chief actuary, ala, myself at company #3, ;) ).

Seriously though, everyone on here needs to stop being so dramatic. It's discouraging to those looking for a job. And IMHO, completely unnecessary and over-the-top.

:yellowcard:

[Agadefe]

I definitely think it's not as bad as a lot of people on this forum seem to believe.

I was a pretty average candidate when I got my offer, and I know people worse than/equal to/and better than me that also go offers. I also know people worse than/equal to/and better than me that did not get offers. The point is, a lot of it is being in the right place at the right time, luck, personal skills, etc.

The people who are talking about it on here are typically those that did not get a job. It doesn't mean other didn't.

Plus remember, it doesn't matter how many times you get rejected, you only need to get accepted once. A good strategy to take with women also

[dukelampard]

i think ppl are too dramatic on this forum. I got my first job offer less than 1 year after I passed my first exam, abt 9 months later. And that's really abt all I've put into getting into this profession. I did not major in it in college, and really didn't give it much thought.

Out of 3 in-person interviews I had 2 offers. Perhaps I was lucky, but I doubt it. For those who are qualified I don't think it's really that hard to get a job out there. Maybe it is if you're only looking at the top companies, unwilling to move, or are a terrible interviewer (like you argue w/the chief actuary, ala, myself at company #3, ;) ).

Seriously though, everyone on here needs to stop being so dramatic. It's discouraging to those looking for a job. And IMHO, completely unnecessary and over-the-top.

:iatp: We recently interviewed candidates for an entry level spot, and the candidates we got were so awful that we had to reconsider a candidate we interviewed several months ago who wasn't as bad. Jobs are out there. Granted, you need to be in the right spot at the right time, and jobs may be in not so desirable locations, but the negativity and pessimism on this forum are just exagerated IMO.

[EaglesFan]

:iatp: We recently interviewed candidates for an entry level spot, and the candidates we got were so awful that we had to reconsider a candidate we interviewed several months ago who wasn't as bad. Jobs are out there. Granted, you need to be in the right spot at the right time, and jobs may be in not so desirable locations, but the negativity and pessimism on this forum are just exagerated IMO.

Then maybe we need to hear from more companies that are actually hiring. It's hard not be pessimistic when you're speaking to employers large and small and they all seem to be indicating that they're not hiring, haven't been hiring for awhile and, when they do hire, they're predicting as many as 100 applicants for 1 spot.

As I've noted before, I can't seem to find anybody in NY even willing to let me work for free!

[no]

And to make matters worse, its been discussed on this board that we are overly reluctant to let people work for free to get experience (and somehow that's a good thing). When I was an executive in another profession, we loved giving people the opportunity to show what they could do and, if they did well, we often looked to put them on payroll as soon as it was possible. As noted in another thread, even the banking profession seems willing to give people that opportunity...but the actuarial profession won't.
In Canada, I've seen students going for unpaid internships. It happened
during the last recession too. So I guess it is up to the people to explore it!

But it is a very sad situation; here is a hyperbole: its all our fault, we ask higher returns
for our investments.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Then maybe we need to hear from more companies that are actually hiring. It's hard not be pessimistic when you're speaking to employers large and small and they all seem to be indicating that they're not hiring, haven't been hiring for awhile and, when they do hire, they're predicting as many as 100 applicants for 1 spot.

As I've noted before, I can't seem to find anybody in NY even willing to let me work for free!
Next step: paying them for you to work??

I think employers are not ready for the onslaught of resumes they'd get if they disclosed here that they had an opening or two at entry-level. I think they like it the way it is, with candidates looking for them.

[laviniu]

That's not my point. I was saying that the current bad situation may be just a blip or an indication of long-term decline in actuarial employment. We just can't tell right now, but I'm betting it's a blip.

Bruce

Blip vs. trend? I'd love to see the results. I'll bet on trend, but I'm just a noob :-)

[Dumbdumb]

Blip vs. trend? I'd love to see the results. I'll bet on trend, but I'm just a noob :-)

I'm pretty sure that actuaries who've been in the field for many years have seen this cycle numerous times before. I can recall at least one time previously where actuaries were crowing about 100% placement, and one time many years ago when everyone was complaining about no entry level jobs.

I conjecture that this goes up and down every 10 years.

I further conjecture that it's primarily in the entry level arena. Credentialled and experienced, likely much less of a problem. And in both instances, far less of an issue than most other careers.

[justkay]

Do you know how many accountants I know that just graduated and can't find a job? Why do you think the grass is any greener anywhere else? Your entire class is kind of screwed...not just your actuarial class.

[dukelampard]

Then maybe we need to hear from more companies that are actually hiring

I think it is in your best interest to find them on your own.



As I've noted before, I can't seem to find anybody in NY even willing to let me work for free!

You sincerely think this is a result of a trend in the profession?

I have read and appreciated your prior posts about the need for the societies to furnish more pertinent data about the employment market for actuaries, but I do believe you're exagerating a bit. I know it's tough to be a competent candidate and still be unable to land that job, but please don't blame it all on the profession.

[EaglesFan]

You sincerely think this is a result of a trend in the profession?




Actually, I would hope it's not a trend but apparently people in the "To new actuarial career hopefuls" thread suggested yesterday that they believe it is a trend in out profession and a POSITIVE trend at that.

[Agadefe]

You sincerely think this is a result of a trend in the profession?

I have read and appreciated your prior posts about the need for the societies to furnish more pertinent data about the employment market for actuaries, but I do believe you're exagerating a bit. I know it's tough to be a competent candidate and still be unable to land that job, but please don't blame it all on the profession.

:iatp:

[the BS method]

That's not my point. I was saying that the current bad situation may be just a blip or an indication of long-term decline in actuarial employment. We just can't tell right now, but I'm betting it's a blip.

Bruce

my point is that the entire country is suffering from this recession.

it would be far more surprising if, as the country recovers, the actuarial job market does not.

[jprep]

my point is that the entire country is suffering from this recession.

it would be far more surprising if, as the country recovers, the actuarial job market does not.

Exactly. It wouldn't be too surprising at entry-level, if the number of exam-passers continues to increase at the same rate that it has. Let's hope that it's just a blip.

[ADoubleDot]

I hope that the current job situation is temporary. We are in a major recession, obviously. Taking a longer-term view, actuarial employment has always been very good, with high compensation and very low unemployment. I don't know if the current situation is a blip or a trend, and distinguishing those is always difficult.

Bruce

yeah, if only we knew an actuary...

[deathfrombelow]

yeah, if only we knew an actuary...

I see what you did there.

[studentnel]

when they do hire, they're predicting as many as 100 applicants for 1 spot.

That's pretty good odds.

Goldman Sachs SF, Deutche NY, JP Morgan NY... these get thousands of apps... without really advertising :)

[Blue Bird]

Reasons

*offshoring/outsourcing likely to continue
*looking at job postings equating FSA to CFA
*smallness of this profession

Question the outsourcing of all jobs. America is in decline due to liberal politics.

If you want job security go overseas.

[Blue Bird]

my point is that the entire country is suffering from this recession.

it would be far more surprising if, as the country recovers, the actuarial job market does not.

Recovery, if any, will be slow. Obama's policies prolong the recession, jobless rates over 10%. Dems still control House, Senate and executive branch. MA voters realize our peril but too little too late.

[jprep]

Recovery, if any, will be slow. Obama's policies prolong the recession, jobless rates over 10%. Dems still control House, Senate and executive branch. MA voters realize our peril but too little too late.

I predict that at some point, the number of entry-level actuarial positions being created will be at (or greater than) 2007 levels, probably by, say, 2012. The problem is that there will be many more 2+ and even 3+ exam candidates than ever before (as it seems to be increasing, not that I know the data that well).

Thus, even if the number of entry-level jobs goes back to normal, our situation will still be pretty bad. But that's a function of this being a great profession to get into. Of course something great is going to be competitive. :)

[Sommelier]

I'm pretty sure that actuaries who've been in the field for many years have seen this cycle numerous times before. I can recall at least one time previously where actuaries were crowing about 100% placement, and one time many years ago when everyone was complaining about no entry level jobs.


:iatp:

I first started sitting for exams right after the dot-com bust. And there were lots of other people saying a lot of the same things I'm reading on this forum. I think they all survived.

[Omikron]

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_BESTJOBS2010_20100105.html

You're welcome to consider jobs ranked 2 through 200.

[jprep]

:iatp:

I first started sitting for exams right after the dot-com bust. And there were lots of other people saying a lot of the same things I'm reading on this forum. I think they all survived.

True, but the number of people passing exams probably wasn't increasing as sharply as it is now (hopefully I am wrong about that). That is what's different about today's entry-level market. The recession just made this problem visible sooner. If there hadn't been a recession, then the actuarial entry-level job market probably would have gotten filled by 2015 anyhow (or some year in the near future). The main thing is that the number of exam-passing candidates keeps increasing faster than job creation.

[GooseyGoose]

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_BESTJOBS2010_20100105.html

You're welcome to consider jobs ranked 2 through 200.

:burn:

[studentnel]

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_BESTJOBS2010_20100105.html

You're welcome to consider jobs ranked 2 through 200.

Why isn't Investment Banker or Equity Researcher listed? :-O

[Sommelier]

True, but the number of people passing exams probably wasn't increasing as sharply as it is now (hopefully I am wrong about that). That is what's different about today's entry-level market. The recession just made this problem visible sooner. If there hadn't been a recession, then the actuarial entry-level job market probably would have gotten filled by 2015 anyhow (or some year in the near future). The main thing is that the number of exam-passing candidates keeps increasing faster than job creation.

Recent college grads can't get jobs, film at 11? The point was that this is nothing new. It's hard to get a job in bad economic times. I don't know why anyone thinks this profession is any worse off than any other profession right now.

[vtek]

Why isn't Investment Banker or Equity Researcher listed? :-O

they probably score really poorly on stress and work hours, so in order to overcome this, you'd need to come up with a formula that gives 100% weight to compensation, but then you would be creating a list of best-paying jobs.

[ditkaworshipper]

That's pretty good odds.

Goldman Sachs SF, Deutche NY, JP Morgan NY... these get thousands of apps... without really advertising :)

Um, they actually have pretty good career sites. Also, if you are at a target school for one of these firms, I bet they have a lot of giveaways.

[jprep]

Recent college grads can't get jobs, film at 11? The point was that this is nothing new. It's hard to get a job in bad economic times. I don't know why anyone thinks this profession is any worse off than any other profession right now.

:lol:

Actually, I misrepresented myself (doh). You're right in that the actuarial profession is not worse off at the moment. We're probably doing much better than many other professions in terms of entry-level openings, and I am certainly thankful for that.

I'm talking about 2012 or whenever, if and when the economy totally recovers, and every other profession goes back to normal (like 2005). There's a chance that the number of people passing exams continues to increase at the pace at which it has for the last several years. If that is true, and even if the number of new entry-level jobs per year becomes greater than 2005 levels, there would still be way more exam-passers than jobs.

That's only true if the increase in the number of exam-passers continues to outweigh the increase in actuarial job creation at entry-level. I hope with all of my heart that this is not true, so please prove me wrong. :D

[campbell]

Btw, one of the popular articles at the NYT right now has to do with Law school grads having a hell of a time of it.

That is, grads from =top= law schools. Grads from lower tier schools have always had a hard time.

Here ya go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/fashion/17lawyer.html?em

Why it's in the fashion section, beats me.

[jprep]

Btw, one of the popular articles at the NYT right now has to do with Law school grads having a hell of a time of it.

That is, grads from =top= law schools. Grads from lower tier schools have always had a hard time.

Here ya go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/fashion/17lawyer.html?em

Why it's in the fashion section, beats me.

Very enlightening. I am very glad that I chose the actuarial profession, even if it seems a little hard right to break into right now (if open geographically).

[vtek]

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/recent-graduates-teens-hit-hard-in.html

here is an article about how difficult it is for young people in general to find work

[campbell]

Very enlightening. I am very glad that I chose the actuarial profession, even if it seems a little hard right to break into right now (if open geographically).

When I got into the profession, it wasn't bad as it is now, but it was still pretty bad [at least, in NYC].

That said, the amount of money to sink into entering was much lower than many other options. I had already wasted spent 6 years in grad school not making money, but at least I wasn't paying for the privilege. I needed something else that had low costs in terms of $$.

[Beach Bum]

When I started in the field over 4 years ago a mentor at the time said I made the right decision by going into P&C, getting my FCAS was the way to go and that's what I did over the next few years. He said some FSAs and many ASAs were in competition for jobs with CFAs. And not the jobs CFAs traditionally held but some of the jobs actuaries previously held.

That was 4 years ago so it sounds like it still applies. I handle a lot of recruiting and see many new grads these days give their whole story of wanting to be an actuary yet they keep saying they want to be in the Investment field. So most are pursuing ASA>FSA with hope of working in the investment field. Well if this is the case then you are definitely going to be in competition with CFAs.

[EaglesFan]

Btw, one of the popular articles at the NYT right now has to do with Law school grads having a hell of a time of it.

That is, grads from =top= law schools. Grads from lower tier schools have always had a hard time.

Here ya go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/fashion/17lawyer.html?em

Why it's in the fashion section, beats me.

The article is old news. If you want to keep up with cutting-edge trends in the legal profession read Above The Law: www.abovethelaw.com (which is actually referenced in the article). And in comparing notes between our career fairs and lawyers looking for work...I wouldn't necessarily assume we have it easier. Remember this article was about the difficulty of getting a legal job at a TOP-TIER LAW FIRM.

Most lawyers in NY I've spoken to (even from second- and third-tiers) are getting SOME work even if it's not their 1st choice or temporary/per diem. There are many of us on AO who can't even find someone to let us work for free.

[EaglesFan]

When I got into the profession, it wasn't bad as it is now, but it was still pretty bad [at least, in NYC].


Mary Pat, correct me if I'm wrong, but would it be fair to say that at the time you got in to the profession (which you refer to not "as bad as it now, but..still pretty bad") that the job market for other professions was better?

I think jprep has a good point that we can't assume that when the economy gets better that all our problems will be fixed. If we had a supply/demand issue before the recession (when you entered), then we'll probably still have one afterward and probably more so since the number of people taking exams are increasing. The solution is for The SOA to look for ways to increase demand. The alternatives are to cut supply (which The SOA has indicated they don't want to do) or accept that we're going to have a profession where it is only going to get harder to land a job and where our jobs will be less secure (which I don't think any of us want).

[campbell]

Mary Pat, correct me if I'm wrong, but would it be fair to say that at the time you got in to the profession (which you refer to not "as bad as it now, but..still pretty bad") that the job market for other professions was better?

I think jprep has a good point that we can't assume that when the economy gets better that all our problems will be fixed. If we had a supply/demand issue before the recession (when you entered), then we'll probably still have one afterward and probably more so since the number of people taking exams are increasing. The solution is for The SOA to look for ways to increase demand. The alternatives are to cut supply (which The SOA has indicated they don't want to do) or accept that we're going to have a profession where it is only going to get harder to land a job and where our jobs will be less secure (which I don't think any of us want).

Oh, it sucked all over in NYC at the time. I wasn't trying to enter only the actuarial profession at the time. No reason to restrict myself - I was making a change from academia, and was looking for something appropriate.

I do agree that we shouldn't assume that it will get better at entry-level when the economy improves.

[_BullDog_]

Mary Pat, correct me if I'm wrong, but would it be fair to say that at the time you got in to the profession (which you refer to not "as bad as it now, but..still pretty bad") that the job market for other professions was better?

I think jprep has a good point that we can't assume that when the economy gets better that all our problems will be fixed. If we had a supply/demand issue before the recession (when you entered), then we'll probably still have one afterward and probably more so since the number of people taking exams are increasing. The solution is for The SOA to look for ways to increase demand. The alternatives are to cut supply (which The SOA has indicated they don't want to do) or accept that we're going to have a profession where it is only going to get harder to land a job and where our jobs will be less secure (which I don't think any of us want).
If you wait for the SOA to get out there and convine an employer that actuaries are good for other jobs, you may be waiting to long. The people looking for jobs need to be applying to non-traditional roles as well to so those employers what skill sets we have and how those skills will benefit them.

[jprep]

Oh, it sucked all over in NYC at the time. I wasn't trying to enter only the actuarial profession at the time. No reason to restrict myself - I was making a change from academia, and was looking for something appropriate.

We're all glad you did break in (especially those taking AFE). I always like your comparisons between the actuarial profession (earn while you learn) and academia (where you waste spend time doing research and teaching while barely getting by).


I do agree that we shouldn't assume that it will get better at entry-level when the economy improves.

Finally, VINDICATION! I have 2 people now that agree with me that this might be a possibility. Maybe, maybe not.

THE END IS NIGH

That should be my new mission, spreading the word that the end is nigh, at least for career changers. It probably isn't, and I'm sorry to anyone reading who thinks the actuarial profession might not be worth breaking into - it is worth it.

[campbell]

Yes, well, my END IS NIGH warning was for something else entirely...

[and thanks for the kind words]

Yes, I mean entry level may be easier than it is right now, but I can still see there being a glut of entrants, especially in specific geographical locations. It's not likely to be as in ye olden tymes.

[bdschobel]

Three people! I've been with you all along. It's a legitimate concern. We all kind of assume that things will get better, but they may not. We've been worried for years about shrinkage in traditional areas of actuarial employment. If the efforts to break into new areas don't succeed -- and I see precious little evidence to date -- then we're going to have a real problem.

Bruce

[MasterChief]

I thought you said our current situation is a blip rather than a long term decline. But wow if a former SOA president is pessimistic about our profession, that doesn't sound too comforting for prospective actuaries.

[_BullDog_]

what would you expect? More univ. are offering act science degree paths and the number of employers don't seem to be increasing (as fast).

[MasterChief]

I wonder why BLS has such a positive outlook on the long term future of our profession.

[bdschobel]

I thought you said our current situation is a blip rather than a long term decline. But wow if a former SOA president is pessimistic about our profession, that doesn't sound too comforting for prospective actuaries.I said that it's very difficult distinguishing a blip from a trend. I'm hoping that it's a blip, but I share the concern that it's a trend. We just don't know right now. Nobody does. Being concerned is prudent.

Bruce

[PhildeTruth]

I thought you said our current situation is a blip rather than a long term decline. But wow if a former SOA president is pessimistic about our profession, that doesn't sound too comforting for prospective actuaries.

Dear MasterChief,

If I was a prospective actuary, I wouldn't touch the SOA with a 10 foot pole.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos041.htm#outlook


Employment is expected to grow much faster than the average for all occupations. Competition for jobs will be keen as the number of qualified candidates is expected to exceed the number of positions available.


Nonetheless, growth may be, to a degree, offset by corporate downsizing and consolidation of the insurance industry—the largest employer of actuaries. Life insurance companies, for example, are expected to increasingly shed high level actuarial positions as companies merge and streamline operations. Pension actuaries will also experience declining demand. This is largely due to the decline of defined benefit plans, which required review by an actuary, in favor of investment-based retirement funds, such as 401ks.

Regards,

PhildeTruth

[sweetiepie]

Reasons

*offshoring/outsourcing likely to continue
*looking at job postings equating FSA to CFA
*smallness of this profession

1. Some actuaries are numbers guys, some are business leaders. The business leaders will never be outsourced. The numbers guys, like those in every office profession, will be.
2. Job postings are a bad measure. Visit OPM sometime and check how the gov implicitly equates PHD to Masters+1yr to BS w/2.8 avg+2yrs...
3. Small means fragile, not weak.

[Dismal Science]

3. Small means fragile, not weak.

¿Qué?

[Genre]

If you want to know how things will shape up in the future for you guys in the United States, look to Canada (more specifically Quebec).

At the moment, in order to land a *good* job in Montreal, you need about 4 exams completed by the end of your College years and a GPA above 3.5 (out of 4.3 here). It's not that that demand diminished, but supply increased.

Someone with the above qualifications will enter the job market with an average pay of $50,000 a year (roughly). As for the rest, they will fill the ranks of consulting firms as defined benefit plan administrators, change carreer or work in an unrelated job.

[Jasper07734]

Employment is expected to grow much faster than the average for all occupations.

:lolup:

[campbell]

OT: I love Jasper's current avatar.

[Paradox]

If you want to know how things will shape up in the future for you guys in the United States, look to Canada (more specifically Quebec).

At the moment, in order to land a *good* job in Montreal, you need about 4 exams completed by the end of your College years and a GPA above 3.5 (out of 4.3 here). It's not that that demand diminished, but supply increased.

Someone with the above qualifications will enter the job market with an average pay of $50,000 a year (roughly). As for the rest, they will fill the ranks of consulting firms as defined benefit plan administrators, change carreer or work in an unrelated job.

Sad but true...

I doubt I could pull off a GPA >3.6 @ University of Toronto with all their crazy bell curves and foreign asian kids setting the bar even higher, but I'm still considering entering the field. I think theres huge potential in applying actuarial concepts to other areas of business that exist beyond the horizons of insurance, but all it takes is employers being aware of the potential actuaries have to offer. I don't want to pursue the cliche business or econ degree that most people undertake. If high school economics taught me anything, its that rewards are proportional to scarcity and risk. An actuarial science degree is without doubt a really scarce one, and there's an underlying risk that I won't be able to get that stellar GPA or pass exams, surprisingly, making the career highly rewarding compared to other alternatives.

Recovery, if any, will be slow. Obama's policies prolong the recession, jobless rates over 10%. Dems still control House, Senate and executive branch. MA voters realize our peril but too little too late.

Question the outsourcing of all jobs. America is in decline due to liberal politics.

If you want job security go overseas.

You remind me of Peter Schiff in just about every way.

[Baron Von Raschke]

Maybe we need to drop entry level salaries about 25% and see what happens.

[Dismal Science]

Maybe we need to drop entry level salaries about 25% and see what happens.

It would certainly take care of the supply...

[EaglesFan]

Maybe we need to drop entry level salaries about 25% and see what happens.

I personally would vote for NOT offering prelims 6x a year but The SOA disagrees.

[The President]

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_BESTJOBS2010_20100105.html

You're welcome to consider jobs ranked 2 through 200.
And if you really can't get anywhere in this field, it might be time to question not the profession itself, but perhaps the profession as a fit for you. Passing P and FM does not necessarily mean you are meant to be an actuary. More exams? Maybe - at least to an employer. Or coming off really well in an interview with just 2 exams, or having that hard to describe trait that gives a hiring manager confidence and can't just be BS'd through an interview.

The days of automatically being given jobs are over for now, and might be for good, but from what I have seen as part of our own recruiting - we are still struggling to get the top talent (25%) in the door because of competition, or even the next 25%. I am guessing it is only the bottom 25% that are having difficulties finding jobs which might be new for us in the last few years, but is still a lot better than just about any other profession out there.

None of this means there is doom and gloom for the profession, or the exam system is broken. It is actually a good thing for the profession if we have enough people who want to be actuaries that we don't have to hire the marginal candidates just to fill openings. Not so good for someone who just graduated, but again, there needs to be a reality check if you really feel that pessimistic about things.

[EaglesFan]

And if you really can't get anywhere in this field, it might be time to question not the profession itself, but perhaps the profession as a fit for you. Passing P and FM does not necessarily mean you are meant to be an actuary. More exams? Maybe - at least to an employer. Or coming off really well in an interview with just 2 exams, or having that hard to describe trait that gives a hiring manager confidence and can't just be BS'd through an interview.

The days of automatically being given jobs are over for now, and might be for good, but from what I have seen as part of our own recruiting - we are still struggling to get the top talent (25%) in the door because of competition, or even the next 25%. I am guessing it is only the bottom 25% that are having difficulties finding jobs which might be new for us in the last few years, but is still a lot better than just about any other profession out there.




So who is the "Top 25%" that YOU struggle to attract?

The Top 25% who have passed the most exams?

The Top 25% by GPA (if so, do you even look at career-changers)?

The Top 25% who give the best interviews (and if so, how are these people selected for interviews)?

If those of us who are struggling are in "The Bottom 25%" that you posit then fine...but we'd at least like to know the criteria are for the assessment.

[jprep]

Three people! I've been with you all along. It's a legitimate concern. We all kind of assume that things will get better, but they may not. We've been worried for years about shrinkage in traditional areas of actuarial employment. If the efforts to break into new areas don't succeed -- and I see precious little evidence to date -- then we're going to have a real problem.

Bruce

Thank you Bruce, you've confirmed my greatest fear. Eventually, "the best and the brightest" will realize this and choose another profession. It won't be long until we see many 3+ exam candidates (who are open geographically) who cannot land employment (or get (m)any phone interviews).

If anything, it's fun to converse with a former SOA president and a teacher of upper-level exam material. In what other profession can a newbie do that? :)

[UFCindy03]

The top 25% are the best candidates overall. They are the best communicators,the best workers, good exam progress, good with computers, and someone that a hiring manager sees as being a good contributor to the company.

[EaglesFan]

The top 25% are the best candidates overall. They are the best communicators,the best workers, good exam progress, good with computers, and someone that a hiring manager sees as being a good contributor to the company.

Thanks Cindy and, as someone who has hired in the past, I agree that that's a good baseline. I went back to some of your past posts and it appears that your company does a lot of recruiting on campus and looks for people with a greater than 3.7 GPA.

So my question is, does your company look at a lot of career-changers? Especially when they have a demonstrated track-record in the areas that you defined above as putting them in the Top 25%?

[The President]

So who is the "Top 25%" that YOU struggle to attract?

The Top 25% who have passed the most exams?

The Top 25% by GPA (if so, do you even look at career-changers)?

The Top 25% who give the best interviews (and if so, how are these people selected for interviews)?

If those of us who are struggling are in "The Bottom 25%" that you posit then fine...but we'd at least like to know the criteria are for the assessment.
Top 25% are those who have the most exams (3-4) by this time when they are graduating this spring, come off as likeable, motivated, and interested in the career (not just expecting a job because they are an AcSci major), and have a decent GPA (least important factor IMO).

[The President]

Eventually, "the best and the brightest" will realize this and choose another profession.
I am confident that the "best and the brightest" will continue to be very successful in this profession. Note: "best" also implies they picked the correct profession to be the brightest in.

[EaglesFan]

Top 25% are those who have the most exams (3-4) by this time when they are graduating this spring, come off as likeable, motivated, and interested in the career (not just expecting a job because they are an AcSci major), and have a decent GPA (least important factor IMO).

Good answer. Let me reask the question...does your company seriously consider career-changers? From your answer it appears that you primarily look at graduating seniors.

[The President]

Good answer. Let me reask the question...does your company seriously consider career-changers? From your answer it appears that you primarily look at graduating seniors.
Yes, as we have hired at least a couple in the past few years, but graduating seniors are still the bulk of the supply of entry level candidates.

[EaglesFan]

graduating seniors are still the bulk of the supply of entry level candidates.

I'm wondering if SOA has some data on this but in, The USA at least, I'm not so sure that that's still true. Perhaps it also depends on our definition of "bulk." I can safely tell you that there are some great career-changers out there (and no I'm just talking about me) with multiple exams passed and a proven track record of accomplishments who seem to be getting ignored by actuarial employers.

Perhaps they're all just bad interviewers/resume writers but then it's hard to explain how they succeeded in their first career.

[Kenny]

I'm wondering if SOA has some data on this but in, The USA at least, I'm not so sure that that's still true. Perhaps it also depends on our definition of "bulk." I can safely tell you that there are some great career-changers out there (and no I'm just talking about me) with multiple exams passed and a proven track record of accomplishments who seem to be getting ignored by actuarial employers.

Perhaps they're all just bad interviewers/resume writers but then it's hard to explain how they succeeded in their first career.

Breaking in as a career changer is frequently more difficult than as "standard" straight out of school entry level, one because the bolded is often not the primary assumption when viewing the resume. Frequently it will actually be the opposite, so you have to prove yourself even more. It is also very dependant upon what career you are moving from.

I imagine it is even more prevalent in the actuarial field since Actuaries in general tend to be risk averse and are likely to go with what they know (i.e. fits the mold) as opposed to taking a risk on someone changing from an unrelated field.

[jraven]

So my question is, does your company look at a lot of career-changers? Especially when they have a demonstrated track-record in the areas that you defined above as putting them in the Top 25%?

The problem is that if a company is already getting plenty of high-quality candidates through internships and on-campus recruiting then there's no incentive to put in the extra effort to screen career-changers. This is especially true if your resume is going in through HR. You need to be a whole lot better than (not just equal to) the competition to make the cut. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

A career-changer needs to by-pass the usual application process and get their resume in front of an actuary. Some folks on the forums encourage blasting the actuarial directory with resumes. That may have worked in the past, but a lot more people are doing it -- which means a lot more of the recipients are deleting them unread.

You're far better off exploiting personal connections -- if you're cousin's fiancee's mother has a friend in the accounting department at XYZ Insurance, then ask them if they could pass your resume along to the actuarial department. You'd be surprised how much of a difference that makes in how your resume is treated, even if you've never met your cousin's fiancee's mother (let alone her friend). When I switched from academia to actuarial work a few years ago almost all of my interviews came from networking. Unless you're really well-connected you may not get a lot of interviews this way, but it only takes one to get a job.

On the plus side, based on the number of openings that I'm getting spammed with (one of the joys of becoming credentialed) the actuarial job market seems to be opening up a bit.

[EaglesFan]

The problem is that if a company is already getting plenty of high-quality candidates through internships and on-campus recruiting then there's no incentive to put in the extra effort to screen career-changers. This is especially true if your resume is going in through HR. You need to be a whole lot better than (not just equal to) the competition to make the cut. It sucks, but that's the way it is.


I don't disagree and my strategy has mimicked much of what you described. I was merely pointing out that those companies that say they are struggling to attract good candidates might want to look more at career-changers with multiple exams passed, especially if those career-changers have proven themselves in many of the areas that the recruiting companies deem important.

[ebeebs]

What do you call the people between fresh grads and career changers?

They ones that graduated looking for actuarial work without a job and never really got a different "career." Are they still seen as career changers? How long after graduation until they are?

[Darkness Falls]

What do you call the people between fresh grads and career changers?

They ones that graduated looking for actuarial work without a job and never really got a different "career." Are they still seen as career changers? How long after graduation until they are?

If you don't have professional experience in another field you'll likely be seen equivalent to a fresh graduate.

[banpeikun]

I'm wondering if SOA has some data on this but in, The USA at least, I'm not so sure that that's still true. Perhaps it also depends on our definition of "bulk." I can safely tell you that there are some great career-changers out there (and no I'm just talking about me) with multiple exams passed and a proven track record of accomplishments who seem to be getting ignored by actuarial employers.

Perhaps they're all just bad interviewers/resume writers but then it's hard to explain how they succeeded in their first career.I can safely tell you that the great career-changers out there with multiple exams passed and a proven track record of accomplishments are getting hired by actuarial employers.

[EaglesFan]

I can safely tell you that the great career-changers out there with multiple exams passed and a proven track record of accomplishments are getting hired by actuarial employers.

Just out of curiosity, how can you "safely" tell us that?

[The President]

I have a friend who blames society for his decade long failure at courtship, and greedy bosses for his decade long failure at keeping a job for any extended period of time. I predict he will continue to fail at both for another decade if he continues to do the same thing he has been doing. I really have no idea why he is having so many issues with both types of relationships, but given the repeated failures at both I am fairly certain that it has more to do with him and something he doesn't realize he is doing than any external force, because he seems to be trying really hard.

I mention this because he has a much higher view of himself and what he has to offer than can actually be demonstrated, and as a result is just blaming others. I can't help but see a similarity to someone who claims to be an great interviewer with a strong resume who can't find a job. You are either not as good of a candidate as those who are getting jobs, or you have no idea that you are actually doing a lot of things wrong in your job searching process from resume to interview.

[EaglesFan]

I mention this because he has a much higher view of himself and what he has to offer than can actually be demonstrated, and as a result is just blaming others. I can't help but see a similarity to someone who claims to be an great interviewer with a strong resume who can't find a job.


Nobody here is blaming anybody for not finding a job. Most of the people in this thread seem to be suggesting that we've found jobs in other fields and are finding it way trickier in the actuarial profession and therefore suggesting that the actuarial profession is harder to land a job in than other professions...especially for career-changers.

Most seem to agree with that assessment, but a few seem to be finding that assessment very disturbing and it's unclear to me as to why. I have a friend who (at least in my opinion) is a much more talented musician than many you hear on the radio. He doesn't BLAME the music industry that others sell more more records than him, but he would feel an obligation to correct others if they suggested that getting radio airplay is easy for every talented pianist.

[JMO]

Statistically speaking, I think there is some confounding of variables here. Comparing the job search for actuarial positions now with the search for other kinds of positions in the past. Why focus on whether it's actuarial or not, when we know that the unemployment data now is much worse than it has been in the past?

[EaglesFan]

Statistically speaking, I think there is some confounding of variables here. Comparing the job search for actuarial positions now with the search for other kinds of positions in the past. Why focus on whether it's actuarial or not, when we know that the unemployment data now is much worse than it has been in the past?

Thanks Carol. I think that's been jprep's question all along. Is this a blip merely tied into economy or are there are other factors in play including an increase in supply and decrease in demand? If you scan the thread, you can see the opinions of some of us (including Bruce and myself) who share some of jprep's concerns.

[JMO]

Seems to me that the slope due to supply/demand factors would be fairly gradual, while the economic environment was more of a crash landing. I dunno if that helps. . .

[EaglesFan]

Seems to me that the slope due to supply/demand factors would be fairly gradual, while the economic environment was more of a crash landing. I dunno if that helps. . .

That make perfect sense from an economic theory standpoint. But is that model a good fit for our current data?

[apk123]

Nobody here is blaming anybody for not finding a job. Most of the people in this thread seem to be suggesting that we've found jobs in other fields and are finding it way trickier in the actuarial profession and therefore suggesting that the actuarial profession is harder to land a job in than other professions...especially for career-changers.

Most seem to agree with that assessment, but a few seem to be finding that assessment very disturbing and it's unclear to me as to why. I have a friend who (at least in my opinion) is a much more talented musician than many you hear on the radio. He doesn't BLAME the music industry that others sell more more records than him, but he would feel an obligation to correct others if they suggested that getting radio airplay is easy for every talented pianist.

May I add that you frequently post your stats for illustration purposes, but somehow forget to mention the "minor" detail that you only look at NYC (or has it changed?). In this, you remind me of another eagles guy.

[thunderlips]

...you only look at NYC

ORLY?? That changes everything. I thought he was applying everywhere. That makes total sense now why he's having such a hard time (and will probably continue doing so).

[EaglesFan]

May I add that you frequently post your stats for illustration purposes, but somehow forget to mention the "minor" detail that you only look at NYC (or has it changed?). In this, you remind me of another eagles guy.

Nobody's forgetting to mention anything, I mention a lot that I am looking primarily in NY...but this isn't about me. Plenty of others have PMed me and/or posted on AO about having similar or more difficult issues in Canada, Iowa, California and elsewhere. Besides, NY has the highest concentration of acturial job in North America (25-33% I believe) so it shouldn't be that much of a limitation.

Moreover, there's been a whole other discussion (which I haven't really participated much in) in which the conclusion SEEMED to be that companies usually look to hire local talent. So if that's true then being in NY should be the best-case scenario. And if you disagree with that, then please make your voice heard on that thread.

[dukelampard]

Nobody's forgetting to mention anything, I mention a lot that I am looking primarily in NY...but this isn't about me. Plenty of others have PMed me and/or posted on AO about having similar or more difficult issues in Canada, Iowa, California and elsewhere. Besides, NY has the highest concentration of acturial job in North America (25-33% I believe) so it shouldn't be that much of a limitation.

Moreover, there's been a whole other discussion (which I haven't really participated much in) in which the conclusion SEEMED to be that companies usually look to hire local talent. So if that's true then being in NY should be the best-case scenario. And if you disagree with that, then please make your voice heard on that thread.


Yes to the bolded part. In the past 13 months, I got two offers for entry-level jobs that involved moving > 700 miles, so I don't think being local is all that important. It's definitely a plus, but given the choice between an "excellent" candidate who will require relocation and a "good" or "just ok" local candidate, most companies will take a chance on the excellent one.

[EaglesFan]

Yes to the bolded part. In the past 13 months, I got two offers for entry-level jobs that involved moving > 700 miles, so I don't think being local is all that important. It's definitely a plus, but given the choice between an "excellent" candidate who will require relocation and a "good" or "just ok" local candidate, most companies will take a chance on the excellent one.

Thanks dukelampard. My opinion...I think it'd be real cool if you reposted that in the thread where people are debating the value of relocation which is about 2-3 below this one.

[jprep]

I'm going to try to use DTNF's advice here... I would think that NY (NYC area?) would have a large concentration of firms that try to hire "the best and the brightest", i.e. people with internships as well as exams.

For people who are able to expand their search, they are able to look at places in the midwest, detroit, etc. that may not offer as much pay or perks, and as such, aren't bombarded as much with resumes.

I just read an article in the local paper about the fact that many people are not able to move to new jobs because they are upside-down in their mortgages. Apparently it's making unemployment 1% higher than what it usually would be (though that's a difficult statistic to quantify).

[jprep]

Thanks Carol. I think that's been jprep's question all along. Is this a blip merely tied into economy or are there are other factors in play including an increase in supply and decrease in demand? If you scan the thread, you can see the opinions of some of us (including Bruce and myself) who share some of jprep's concerns.

Seems to me that the slope due to supply/demand factors would be fairly gradual, while the economic environment was more of a crash landing. I dunno if that helps. . .

JMO you said it quite well. Our supply/demand problem is going to be changing gradually, not all at once.

The number of exam passers per year will continue to slowly increase every year, and the number of actuarial jobs might slowly decrease (after it gets back up to 2007 levels, perhaps). It will be gradual, but our entry-level job situation will get worse every year (except if a recovery happens soon, but then the entry-level market would slowly get more oversupplied afterward).

Unless of course, strangely enough, the number of exam passers stays constant or starts to decrease.

[EaglesFan]

I'm going to try to use DTNF's advice here... I would think that NY (NYC area?) would have a large concentration of firms that try to hire "the best and the brightest", i.e. people with internships as well as exams.




Maybe, but I've also found that NY companies also seem to be more concerned about their competition since they have 10-15 "rival" employers in their city (more if you count the small companies).

[dukelampard]

Thanks dukelampard. My opinion...I think it'd be real cool if you reposted that in the thread where people are debating the value of relocation which is about 2-3 below this one.

Done :tup:

[banpeikun]

Just out of curiosity, how can you "safely" tell us that?Because we've hired several?

[apk123]

I would think that NY (NYC area?) would have a large concentration of firms that try to hire "the best and the brightest", i.e. people with internships as well as exams.


That's what I meant. NYC is very competitive at the entry level, so limiting yourself to that area is a big obstacle.

[EaglesFan]

Maybe I'm slow here but I don't follow.

You made the statement that "I can safely tell you that the great career-changers out there with multiple exams passed and a proven track record of accomplishments are getting hired by actuarial employers."

I asked how you can "safely" tell us that and you responded:

Because we've hired several?

How does the fact that you've hired "several" good career-changers lead to the statement that all good career-changers are being hired (or even considered)?

[Blue Bird]

Maybe I'm slow here but I don't follow.

You made the statement that "I can safely tell you that the great career-changers out there with multiple exams passed and a proven track record of accomplishments are getting hired by actuarial employers."

I asked how you can "safely" tell us that and you responded:



How does the fact that you've hired "several" good career-changers lead to the statement that all good career-changers are being hired (or even considered)?

:roll:

[banpeikun]

Maybe I'm slow here but I don't follow.

You made the statement that "I can safely tell you that the great career-changers out there with multiple exams passed and a proven track record of accomplishments are getting hired by actuarial employers."

I asked how you can "safely" tell us that and you responded:



How does the fact that you've hired "several" good career-changers lead to the statement that all good career-changers are being hired (or even considered)?I see what you did there, changing "the great career changers" to "all good career changers".

To answer your question,

1. There are several career changers that were hired at my company.
2. There are also several career changers I know about that were hired at other companies. I didn't mention this detail earlier. It might be some kind of secret that there are career changers getting jobs.
3. Let's assume the career changers that get jobs are the great ones. Is this reasonable? I don't think my company and all other actuarial companies are ignoring great career changers in order to hire worse ones.
4. This means the great ones are not being ignored. They are getting hired.

Maybe this isn't true in NYC, and it's only true at my company and the ones I have personal knowledge of. So maybe we can instead say that the great career changers that actually apply to my company and the ones I have personal knowledge of get considered.

[jprep]

Maybe I'm slow here but I don't follow.

You made the statement that "I can safely tell you that the great career-changers out there with multiple exams passed and a proven track record of accomplishments are getting hired by actuarial employers."

I asked how you can "safely" tell us that and you responded:



How does the fact that you've hired "several" good career-changers lead to the statement that all good career-changers are being hired (or even considered)?

I think what banpeikun is trying to convey is something you already know - if you expanded your search across all of the USA, you would be juggling job offers with your qualifications. Sure, one company might not provide much proof, but it does provide hope, and I bet he's not in NYC. That area seems super-tight to me (though I am a newbie).

[apk123]

Nobody's forgetting to mention anything, I mention a lot that I am looking primarily in NY...but this isn't about me. Plenty of others have PMed me and/or posted on AO about having similar or more difficult issues in Canada, Iowa, California and elsewhere. Besides, NY has the highest concentration of acturial job in North America (25-33% I believe) so it shouldn't be that much of a limitation.

Moreover, there's been a whole other discussion (which I haven't really participated much in) in which the conclusion SEEMED to be that companies usually look to hire local talent. So if that's true then being in NY should be the best-case scenario. And if you disagree with that, then please make your voice heard on that thread.

I disagree. NY is a bad location to search for an entry level job. Plenty of candidates in the area and plenty top candidates who want to move there. Not that many fresh grad positions proportionally. High competition.

[EaglesFan]

I see what you did there, changing "the great career changers" to "all good career changers".

To answer your question,

1. There are several career changers that were hired at my company.
2. There are also several career changers I know about that were hired at other companies. I didn't mention this detail earlier. It might be some kind of secret that there are career changers getting jobs.
3. Let's assume the career changers that get jobs are the great ones. Is this reasonable? I don't think my company and all other actuarial companies are ignoring great career changers in order to hire worse ones.
4. This means the great ones are not being ignored. They are getting hired.

Maybe this isn't true in NYC, and it's only true at my company and the ones I have personal knowledge of. So maybe we can instead say that the great career changers that actually apply to my company and the ones I have personal knowledge of get considered.


That's better and I actually hope you're right. If you don't mind me asking, how many career-changers that you know of got hired for actuarial jobs in the last year...both at your company and at others.

[jprep]

I disagree. NY is a bad location to search for an entry level job. Plenty of candidates in the area and plenty top candidates who want to move there.

Let's clarify something: When everyone says NY, they mean New York City and the surrounding area, correct? Not upsate New York, right?

We all know that the Buffalo/Rochester/Syracuse/Albany entry-level actuarial job markets are very small.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I'm going to try to use DTNF's advice here... .
Can't go wrong with that approach.

[jprep]

Can't go wrong with that approach.

:) It's not just you that I heard that advice from. If I'm not that marketable (as a career changer), then why would I try the larger(better?) firms first?

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I disagree. NY is a bad location to search for an entry level job. Plenty of candidates in the area and plenty top candidates who want to move there. Not that many fresh grad positions proportionally. High competition.
It's great for the candidates who do get those jobs.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

:) It's not just you that I heard that advice from. If I'm not that marketable (as a career changer), then why would I try the larger(better?) firms first?
They all heard it from me, so....

[apk123]

Let's clarify something: When everyone says NY, they mean New York City and the surrounding area, correct? Not upsate New York, right?



Right, otherwise I would say "upstate" or "albany"

[jprep]

They all heard it from me, so....

What I meant was that great minds think alike. I'm not surprised that most advice I hear comes from more than one person.

To reiterate to readers of this post looking for a job: Perhaps try some less-desirable cities and some less-desirable companies, since you hold a better chance of getting a job there. Especially if you have a GPA screen issue and have exhausted any contacts (I'm very fortunate that my GPA happened to be above 3.5).

Right, otherwise I would say "upstate" or "albany"

lol. Upstate always gets shafted. Oh well. :)

[banpeikun]

That's better and I actually hope you're right. If you don't mind me asking, how many career-changers that you know of got hired for actuarial jobs in the last year...both at your company and at others.We have 2 career changers that started in the past year. We only hire about 2-3 each year. Additionally, I have two friends that I talked to about the profession that found jobs locally. And there are many more that are interviewed and some that are extended offers that ultimately end up elsewhere.

[EaglesFan]

To reiterate to readers of this post looking for a job: Perhaps try some less-desirable cities and some less-desirable companies, since you hold a better chance of getting a job there. Especially if you have a GPA screen issue and have exhausted any contacts (I'm very fortunate that my GPA happened to be above 3.5).




jprep, my point was never that one was better off sticking to one city. Of course you increase your chances if you are applying to more companies.

My/our larger discussion, I think is/was what does the future of our profession hold. Yes economic times are bad and if I were in a position to relocate then I would consider it, but this isn't about me. If the bulk of people at the career fair a few weeks back and who I met on AO were having so much better luck than me then I would write myself off as an abberation.

Thus far we've asked a number of different questions:

1) Can the current actuarial hiring climate can be explained entirely by the recession or are there other factors in play?

2) Is it harder for career-changers?

3) Should it be harder for career-changers?

4) Does relocation play a larger role in getting hired in the actuarial profession than in our peer-professions?

What I find interesting is that there are respondents on this board who agree with me on one question and disagree on the others and vice-versa (for the record my responses are Q1 No/Yes; Q2:Y, Q3:N, Q4:Y).

I think this is an important discussion to have though with as many voices being heard as possible (students, employers, career-changers, pre-ASA, ASAs, FSAs, FCASs) etc.

[banpeikun]

jprep, my point was never that one was better off sticking to one city. Of course you increase your chances if you are applying to more companies.

My/our larger discussion, I think is/was what does the future of our profession hold. Yes economic times are bad and if I were in a position to relocate then I would consider it, but this isn't about me. If the bulk of people at the career fair a few weeks back and who I met on AO were having so much better luck than me then I would write myself off as an abberation.

Thus far we've asked a number of different questions:

1) Can the current actuarial hiring climate can be explained entirely by the recession or are there other factors in play?

2) Is it harder for career-changers?

3) Should it be harder for career-changers?

4) Does relocation play a larger role in getting hired in the actuarial profession than in our peer-professions?

What I find interesting is that there are respondents on this board who I agree with me on one question and disagree on the others and vice-versa (for the record my responses are Q1 No/Yes; Q2:Y, Q3:N, Q4:Y).

I think this is an important discussion to have though with as many voices being heard as possible (students, employers, career-changers, pre-ASA, ASAs, FSAs, FCASs) etc.Is it really surprising that people at the career fair are in the same unemployed boat? Did you expect to find something different? And for the record, this poll is ridiculously nonsensical and nonstatistical. It's like voting for the best study manual when you've only used one. If I passed, then I just vote for the one you used. If I'm unemployed, then yeah, everything is too hard. Not that I know anything about whether relocation plays a larger or smaller role in actuarial roles versus engineering roles.

2) Is it harder for career-changers?

3) Should it be harder for career-changers?
For the record, TWSS

[jprep]

jprep, my point was never that one was better off sticking to one city. Of course you increase your chances if you are applying to more companies.

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. You were right though when you said that local talent is considered first (when compared to similar non-local talent). But we are career changers without internships, so we are not as "highly qualified" as recent graduates with internships (according to hiring mangers' actions).

I guess what we're saying is that sticking in one city is a bad idea, but when searching geographically and locally, you'll probably get more interviews locally (depending on the number of actuaries where you live). It's still worth it to look geographically if possible. Relocation is harsh at times, especially with people I knew in Vegas who were upside-down in their mortgages.

I consider myself lucky that my family wasn't relocated when I was a kid, and that I was able to relocate for my teaching job later on.

[EaglesFan]

Is it really surprising that people at the career fair are in the same unemployed boat? Did you expect to find something different? And for the record, this poll is ridiculously nonsensical and nonstatistical. It's like voting for the best study manual when you've only used one. If I passed, then I just vote for the one you used. If I'm unemployed, then yeah, everything is too hard. Not that I know anything about whether relocation plays a larger or smaller role in actuarial roles versus engineering roles.




My point on career fair was that 500 attendees (and a waiting list), many of whom had multiple exams passed and were willing to relocate and a smaller sample of companies many of whom were upfront about not hiring was a "hint" to me that I'm not an aberration (not to mention the PMs I receive on AO).

I'm also unclear as to why you're referring to my post as a "ridiculously non-sensical and non-scientific POLL." I never called it a poll and if I intended it to be a poll I'd have set it up as such. It's merely (as I thought I made clear) a recap of the questions that have been asked in the course of our thread which I believe make up an important conversation. Personally I think it's great that people like Carol Marler, Bruce Schobel and Mary Pat Campbell are part of this conversation and wish others from the SOA would join in as well.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Personally I think it's great that people like Carol Marler, Bruce Schobel and Mary Pat Campbell are part of this conversation and wish others from the SOA would join in as well.
DTNF = chopped liver??

[EaglesFan]

DTNF = chopped liver??

Sorry, I couldn't list everyone so I listed three people who post under their real names.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Sorry, I couldn't list everyone so I listed three people who post under their real names.
My place in the actuarial world is not as secure as their places are.

[banpeikun]

My place in the actuarial world is not as secure as their places are.But your sig will live on long past the time you fall from your place.

[EaglesFan]

My place in the actuarial world is not as secure as their places are.


Understood. I was merely giving out kudos to the SOA luminaries who were participating on this thread. It's hard to give kudos to other SOA luminaries when I don't know who they are.

[Blue Bird]

Personally I think it's great that people like Carol Marler, Bruce Schobel and Mary Pat Campbell are part of this conversation and wish others from the SOA would join in as well.
You know, not everyone from the SOA is as nice as Carol, Bruce and Mary. Wishing not nice people would join your conversation may not produce the results you desire.

[actuarialstateofmind]

I'm new to this forum, employed by a large financial firm working in a non-actuarial role currently, just passed P/1 and I am so excited about the people, opportunities, and passion I've experienced early in my journey into this truly fascinating field.

[jprep]

I'm new to this forum, employed by a large financial firm working in a non-actuarial role currently, just passed P/1 and I am so excited about the people, opportunities, and passion I've experienced early in my journey into this truly fascinating field.

Love the name! Read away at all of the info about the job-search at entry-level.

I'm just curious - what is your role at your company?

[khachikp86]

the problem is, there are too many would-be actuaries passing a few exams, getting a few internships, and hoping to find a job (myself included). I feel it should be appropriate to include a minimum of 3+ years work experience in a related field to be allowed to apply to the position. That way, all the recent graduates would need to get experience. There are far better test takers and studious students than there are people who would be good on the job. In this sense, I feel gpa should be last on the list of requirements especially for a job that requires a strong sense of business acumen and communications skills (two things I feel most recent graduates sorely lack).

and you are deluding yourself if you don't think that this is a small and niche profession. Its not an accident that most people dont know what an actuary is and only brings up 1 position in my city when searched for in monster.com.

[dukelampard]

the problem is, there are too many would-be actuaries passing a few exams, getting a few internships, and hoping to find a job (myself included). I feel it should be appropriate to include a minimum of 3+ years work experience in a related field to be allowed to apply to the position. That way, all the recent graduates would need to get experience. There are far better test takers and studious students than there are people who would be good on the job. In this sense, I feel gpa should be last on the list of requirements especially for a job that requires a strong sense of business acumen and communications skills (two things I feel most recent graduates sorely lack).

and you are deluding yourself if you don't think that this is a small and niche profession. Its not an accident that most people dont know what an actuary is and only brings up 1 position in my city when searched for in monster.com.

:rofl:

[Will Durant]

the problem is, there are too many would-be actuaries passing a few exams, getting a few internships, and hoping to find a job (myself included). I feel it should be appropriate to include a minimum of 3+ years work experience in a related field to be allowed to apply to the position. That way, all the recent graduates would need to get experience. There are far better test takers and studious students than there are people who would be good on the job. In this sense, I feel gpa should be last on the list of requirements especially for a job that requires a strong sense of business acumen and communications skills (two things I feel most recent graduates sorely lack).
This doesn't make sense. Are you saying 3+ years work experience in "a related field" in order to get an entry-level actuarial position? Why would somebody leave "a related field" in which they've invested 3 years and presumably climbed at least a rung or two to be a first-year spreadsheet monkey again? Becuz actuarys r so kewl?

[deathfrombelow]

This doesn't make sense. Are you saying 3+ years work experience in "a related field" in order to get an entry-level actuarial position? Why would somebody leave "a related field" in which they've invested 3 years and presumably climbed at least a run or two to be a first-year spreadsheet monkey again? Becuz actuarys r so kewl?

I haven't been reading this thread, but I'm going to use my powers of mind-reading to guess that the guy who said this has 3+ years of work experience in "a related field". Anyone want to bet with me?

[dukelampard]

I haven't been reading this thread, but I'm going to use my powers of mind-reading to guess that the guy who said this has 3+ years of work experience in "a related field". Anyone want to bet with me?

Ding Ding Ding!

I have 3 years working at a bank as a sales associate, hopefully thats considered a strength. I worked my way through college. I'm going to grad school and focusing on exams. I have a degree in finance, Im taking classes that will help me on the job in case I get hired, etc

what can I do about my undergrad gpa? nothing...I just hope my studying isnt going for naught

[Chalengr]

I haven't been reading this thread, but I'm going to use my powers of mind-reading to guess that the guy who said this has 3+ years of work experience in "a related field". Anyone want to bet with me?

:lol:

Let me I guess what's going through this guys head:
The perfect entry-level candidate should be.... just like me!

[Dismal Science]

I haven't been reading this thread, but I'm going to use my powers of mind-reading to guess that the guy who said this has 3+ years of work experience in "a related field". Anyone want to bet with me?

Since he thinks GPA should be considered last I suspect we can infer something else as well....

[thunderlips]

the problem is, there are too many would-be actuaries passing a few exams, getting a few internships, and hoping to find a job (myself included). I feel it should be appropriate to include a minimum of 3+ years work experience in a related field to be allowed to apply to the position. That way, all the recent graduates would need to get experience. There are far better test takers and studious students than there are people who would be good on the job. In this sense, I feel gpa should be last on the list of requirements especially for a job that requires a strong sense of business acumen and communications skills (two things I feel most recent graduates sorely lack).




BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!1 :moon2:

[banpeikun]

Ding Ding Ding!Nice find!

[etadk]

It's not that hard, just expand your geographical boundaries and improve your interview skills and then learn perseverance. Duh

[khachikp86]

my gpa is about a 3.0

and I wasnt using myself as an example. You can infer all you want, people whining about not being able to get entry level positions need to look at themselves and see what they can bring to the table for the company. If I was hiring I wouldn't hire any entry level applicants, I would hire someone with at least 3+ years of work experience. Period.

Lets be honest here. Most people wouldn't even hire themselves if the roles were switched.

[dukelampard]

my gpa is about a 3.0

and I wasnt using myself as an example. You can infer all you want, people whining about not being able to get entry level positions need to look at themselves and see what they can bring to the table for the company. If I was hiring I wouldn't hire any entry level applicants, I would hire someone with at least 3+ years of work experience. Period.

Lets be honest here. Most people wouldn't even hire themselves if the roles were switched.

2.93 <> 3.0 in the world of recruiting. I'm not saying that a 2.93 GPA is terrible, but no recruiter is going to be impressed by it. Get off your high horse and go pass some exams.

[khachikp86]

2.93 <> 3.0 in the world of recruiting. I'm not saying that a 2.93 GPA is terrible, but no recruiter is going to be impressed by it. Get off your high horse and go pass some exams.

I'm the one on a high horse? lmao

yeah I'm done here.

[ishamael]

and I wasnt using myself as an example. You can infer all you want, people whining about not being able to get entry level positions need to look at themselves and see what they can bring to the table for the company. If I was hiring I wouldn't hire any entry level applicants, I would hire someone with at least 3+ years of work experience. Period.



I would like to hear your opinion on what fresh graduates can bring to the table for the company? In my company we don't really expect fresh graduates to contribute anything for the first 6 months.
Or if I am reading you correctly then you won't even consider the fresh grads in the first place?
If everyone needs to have at least 3+ years of work experience to be employed, are you saying all fresh grads don't deserve to be employed???

[EaglesFan]

Lets be honest here. Most people wouldn't even hire themselves if the roles were switched.

As someone who has hired (albeit in a different profession) I've asked an interview question along those lines and quite frankly, I WOULDN'T hire anybody who WOULDN'T hire themselves.

[banpeikun]

my gpa is about a 3.0

and I wasnt using myself as an example. You can infer all you want, people whining about not being able to get entry level positions need to look at themselves and see what they can bring to the table for the company. If I was hiring I wouldn't hire any entry level applicants, I would hire someone with at least 3+ years of work experience. Period.

Lets be honest here. Most people wouldn't even hire themselves if the roles were switched.2.93 <> 3.0 in the world of recruiting. I'm not saying that a 2.93 GPA is terrible, but no recruiter is going to be impressed by it. Get off your high horse and go pass some exams.
You rounded a 2.93 to 3.0? Wow. Maybe you could round it to 3 if you played it kind of fast and loose with sig figs.

[khachikp86]

You rounded a 2.93 to 3.0? Wow. Maybe you could round it to 3 if you played it kind of fast and loose with sig figs.

I've been taking classes at my community college and getting As but I don't need to justify or explain anything to you now do I?

[ishamael]

You rounded a 2.93 to 3.0? Wow. Maybe you could round it to 3 if you played it kind of fast and loose with sig figs.

I am sure he would make a great actuary. We always round to the nearest million :-)

But curiously, how would you make you hire yourself and get those 3-years experience once you graduate? Considering that you wouldn't hire yourself if you don't have 3-years experience

[GooseyGoose]

I am sure he would make a great actuary. We always round to the nearest million :-)

But curiously, how would you make you hire yourself and get those 3-years experience once you graduate? Considering that you wouldn't hire yourself if you don't have 3-years experience

The dude said 3 years experience in a related field. It's a terrible idea, and I'm all for making fun of him, but if you read what he said you would have your answer.

[khachikp86]

You all missed the point but I didn't expect anything more from a bunch of arrogant number crunchers

with so many people getting laid off, experience becomes priority when hiring employees. Companies don't want to hire and if they do hire, they'd want someone with experience. They wouldn't want to expend the resources necessary to train a new graduate. And I'm not only talking about skills that solely pertain to being a successful actuary. I'm talking about other skills, such as writing ability, communication skills, business acumen, salesmanship, rapport skills etc. All of that is learned only through experience. For example, I'd much sooner hire jprep than any of you recent graduates because he knows how to handle himself in business situations and has built skills that new graduates wouldn't have. AGAIN, this is important in an economy such as this. If business was booming, I'm all for hiring anyone who might prove to be an asset to the company, experience or not.

I wish you all luck in your careers. You're really going to need it with the poor attitudes you are all exhibiting.

[banpeikun]

You all missed the point but I didn't expect anything more from a bunch of arrogant number crunchers

with so many people getting laid off, experience becomes priority when hiring employees. Companies don't want to hire and if they do hire, they'd want someone with experience. They wouldn't want to expend the resources necessary to train a new graduate. And I'm not only talking about skills that solely pertain to being a successful actuary. I'm talking about other skills, such as writing ability, communication skills, business acumen, salesmanship, rapport skills etc. All of that is learned only through experience. For example, I'd much sooner hire jprep than any of you recent graduates because he knows how to handle himself in business situations and has built skills that new graduates wouldn't have. AGAIN, this is important in an economy such as this. If business was booming, I'm all for hiring anyone who might prove to be an asset to the company, experience or not.

I wish you all luck in your careers. You're really going to need it with the poor attitudes you are all exhibiting.So to summarize, when the economy is GOOD, companies can hire bright young graduates with high GPAs and a track record of passing exams. But when the economy is BAD (like now), companies should hire candidates with at least three years experience as a bank grunt, a 2.93 GPA that "rounds" to 3.0, and one failed exam (like you).

How long do you predict before hiring managers wise up, realize that you are the best candidate in a bad economy, and line up to interview you? When answering this question, remember that they, like you, have all the skills that can be learned only through experience.

While you're thinking about it, also ponder why it is you were able to come to these fabulous conclusions before all the experienced minds making hiring decisions.

[EaglesFan]

I'm talking about other skills, such as writing ability, communication skills, business acumen, salesmanship, rapport skills etc. All of that is learned only through experience.

Really? I've been a journalist at one of the 10 largest papers in the country and an executive at a public relations firm and done my share of hiring as well. Ironically I'd say the skills you listed are specifically the things that often CAN'T be taught!

[unnamed]

You all missed the point but I didn't expect anything more from a bunch of arrogant number crunchers

with so many people getting laid off, experience becomes priority when hiring employees. Companies don't want to hire and if they do hire, they'd want someone with experience. They wouldn't want to expend the resources necessary to train a new graduate. And I'm not only talking about skills that solely pertain to being a successful actuary. I'm talking about other skills, such as writing ability, communication skills, business acumen, salesmanship, rapport skills etc. All of that is learned only through experience. For example, I'd much sooner hire jprep than any of you recent graduates because he knows how to handle himself in business situations and has built skills that new graduates wouldn't have. AGAIN, this is important in an economy such as this. If business was booming, I'm all for hiring anyone who might prove to be an asset to the company, experience or not.

I wish you all luck in your careers. You're really going to need it with the poor attitudes you are all exhibiting.


So you are saying students need internships before they land a full time.
Point noted.

BTW I like jprep too. He's a nice fellow.

Actually, to jprep:
if you are coming to Toronto anytime soon, let me know and I will buy you a drink.

[actuarialstateofmind]

My GPA is nothing to brag about but my SVP likes me well enough to say a few good words about me to our actuarial department now that I passed P/1. No guarantee that they'll move me right next door to our chief actuary anytime soon, but I'm working all the angles and trying to use all the tools I've got in my bag. Just play to your strengths, always make an effort to go over and beyond, and keep a positive attitude. At the very least your becoming a smarter, more disciplined hard-worker by taking exams and trying to get ahead. I dunno what else I would do with my free time now, it might be a tough job market and too many people are passing these prelim exams and blah blah blah but it's more productive than sitting around after work and watching Jersey Shore like some people I know!

jprep: benefit outsourcing - 401k, pension, health insurance, thanks for asking!

[willel2338]

As someone who has hired (albeit in a different profession) I've asked an interview question along those lines and quite frankly, I WOULDN'T hire anybody who WOULDN'T hire themselves.

+1

The primary question your interviewer is going to ask either directly or indirectly is "Why should I hire you?"

If you don't know the answer, or worse, if your answer is, "If I'm being honest... I wouldn't even hire myself!!" then you have more serious problems than no exams passed.

[jprep]

You all missed the point but I didn't expect anything more from a bunch of arrogant number crunchers

with so many people getting laid off, experience becomes priority when hiring employees. Companies don't want to hire and if they do hire, they'd want someone with experience. They wouldn't want to expend the resources necessary to train a new graduate. And I'm not only talking about skills that solely pertain to being a successful actuary. I'm talking about other skills, such as writing ability, communication skills, business acumen, salesmanship, rapport skills etc. All of that is learned only through experience. For example, I'd much sooner hire jprep EaglesFan than any of you recent graduates because he knows how to handle himself in business situations and has built skills that new graduates wouldn't have. AGAIN, this is important in an economy such as this. If business was booming, I'm all for hiring anyone who might prove to be an asset to the company, experience or not.

I wish you all luck in your careers. You're really going to need it with the poor attitudes you are all exhibiting.

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm just a former teacher. People like EaglesFan do have actual business experience, and admittedly it's something that I will need to learn. Mainly, people with prior work experience know about things like office politics, getting along with coworkers/covering their duties if they need to leave suddenly, working with a team and being flexible for them, etc.

So you are saying students need internships before they land a full time.
Point noted.

BTW I like jprep too. He's a nice fellow.

Actually, to jprep:
if you are coming to Toronto anytime soon, let me know and I will buy you a drink.

Thanks! :) Now that I'm in Buffalo, I might just do that, but only after I take the exams in May! It'll be a reward if I do a good job.

By the way, how's the job search faring for you?

[EaglesFan]

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm just a former teacher. People like EaglesFan do have actual business experience, and admittedly it's something that I will need to learn. Mainly, people with prior work experience know about things like office politics, getting along with coworkers/covering their duties if they need to leave suddenly, working with a team and being flexible for them, etc.



Thanks! :) Now that I'm in Buffalo, I might just do that, but only after I take the exams in May! It'll be a reward if I do a good job.

By the way, how's the job search faring for you?



Jprep---I really DO hope I get to work with you someday :toast:

[PhildeTruth]

Dear Job Hunters,

The moment you start blaming yourself for your shortcomings is the moment you dramatically improve your chances of getting hired.

The world owes you nothing, you are in competition with other job seekers. The best person wins.

Regards,

PhildeTruth

[Mariner]

:iatp:

sticky?

ETA: On second thought, I suggest the above post be deleted. This sudden change of opinion has nothing to do with the fact that I don't want more competition.

[PhildeJoke]

Dear Job Hunters,

The moment you start blaming yourself for your shortcomings is the moment you dramatically improve your chances of getting hired.

The world owes you nothing, you are in competition with other job seekers. The best person wins.

Regards,

PhildeTruth

Dear PhildeTruth,

It should read: the moment you identify your shortcomings and show the courage to overcome them is the moment you dramatically improve your chances of getting hired.


Not one of the PhildeX family,

PhildeJoke

[eagles418]

Dear PhildeTruth,

It should read: the moment you identify your shortcomings and show the courage to overcome them is the moment you dramatically improve your chances of getting hired.


Not one of the PhildeX family,

PhildeJoke

That sounds a lot like something banpikun would say; except with a PhildeABC ritzy tone of word-play.

[EaglesFan]

Dear PhildeTruth,

It should read: the moment you identify your shortcomings and show the courage to overcome them is the moment you dramatically improve your chances of getting hired.



Well Duh...but I don't think that's the issue with the vast majority of the job-seekers on AO.

Heck, if you want to think that that's the reason that I haven't gotten hired in the actuarial profession yet (even though I've rarely had problems landing jobs in other fields), hey go ahead. But the comment is completely unfair to the many other qualified job-seekers with good attitudes who I've met both in person and on AO.

P.S.---Time for my weekly reminder that me and eagles 418 are not the same person :)

[eagles418]

P.S.---Time for my weekly reminder that me and eagles 418 are not the same person :)

:iatp:

EDIT: I can see why you guys are having trouble right now. This time last year; I was sending out cold-emails to the people I met at my school's career fair, and I wasn't even getting replies let alone phone interviews. Keep in-mind that I didn't learn about the SOA directory until April or May of that year, but the situation is still somewhat comparable.

If there's any seasonality in hiring patterns, then the summer should be a good time for you guys. Q: Is there seasonality? A: I don't know. Maybe? :(

[Will Durant]

You all missed the point but I didn't expect anything more from a bunch of arrogant number crunchers

I wish you all luck in your careers. You're really going to need it with the poor attitudes you are all exhibiting.

:oyh:

:duh:

[eagles418]

Can someone add me to the emailing list for Arrogant Number Crunchers Weekly? I feel like someone left me out of the loop.

[jprep]

Jprep---I really DO hope I get to work with you someday :toast:

Same here, that would be nice.

I remember at a teacher career fair in Spring 07, a few colleagues of mine and I were searching for jobs, and we thought it would be cool if we could all get a job at the same school. Obviously that didn't happen.

The actuarial profession is so small that in 10 years, if we wind up in the same field, we could actually choose to work at the same company. If that's possible, it would be really cool.

I just started a data-entry temp job, and fortunately my coworkers are fun. I still feel that the best thing about a company is if you have good coworkers.

[Dismal Science]

Dear Job Hunters,

The moment you start blaming yourself for your shortcomings is the moment you dramatically improve your chances of getting hired.

The world owes you nothing, you are in competition with other job seekers. The best person wins.

Regards,

PhildeTruth

While there is certainly truth in what you say, the delivery is abrasive. Do you have to act like an imperious jerk now that you happen to have some security? Most people on this forum discuss ways to improve their resumes to become competitive. I'll certainly be prepared for an ad hominem attack in your next post.

Regards,

Dismal Science

[eagles418]

While there is certainly truth in what you say, the delivery is abrasive. Do you have to act like an imperious jerk now that you happen to have some security? Most people on this forum discuss ways to improve their resumes to become competitive. I'll certainly be prepared for an ad hominem attack in your next post.

Regards,

Dismal Science

He's an FCAS Dismal; there's no stopping him.