recent college grad looking at master's program at waterloo

[xiaoxin]

Hey guys,

I just graduated from Harvard (A.B. cum laude in mathematics) and I've been looking into the actuarial path since last year. So far I've passed one exam and now that I'm not bogged down with problem sets, papers, or any honors thesis, I'm studying for exam 2/fm this month. I don't have a lot of actuarial science exposure yet. I only took a few econ classes freshman and sophomore year but that's it.

However, I came across the master's in actuarial science program at the University of Waterloo and I'm very curious to learn more about it.

How well did it prepare you for the exams? Also would you consider it worthwhile? I'm an American citizen so I think I'd be shelling about $20K (which I don't have) to enter the program. Does anyone know how selective this program is?

Is it possible for Americans to receive funding to attend the master's program in the form of scholarships or fellowships?

And lastly, would you recommend this over entering one of the paid actuarial development programs that companies such as New York Life and MetLife have?

I would just like to hear someone else's feedback, especially if you were/are in the program! Thanks.

[limabeanactuary]

If you're an American citizen and thus don't need to hang out in a grad program for a while for visa purposes, and you don't intend to continue into academia/do research, there's no real good reason to go into a graduate program. Definitely no good reason to pay for the privilege. You should be able to prepare for exams via self-study.

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

Harvard math grads should do better than actuarial work.

[limabeanactuary]

I've seen Harvard math people do all sorts of things that pay less than actuarial work. They're not necessarily a picky bunch.

[xiaoxin]

Dr. John Zoidberg,

Like what? Care to name some examples?

And limabeanactuary,

The master's program only lasts a year, hence the reason I'm interested. Also I am between going down the Ph.D. in statistics route or the master's in actuarial science route.

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

I've seen Harvard math people do all sorts of things that pay less than actuarial work. They're not necessarily a picky bunch.

It's not about the pay, necessarily, but if you're coming out of there, taking a job that has moderate pay, no real chance to make a ton of money, and won't "make a difference" is probably the worst of all worlds.

[limabeanactuary]

And limabeanactuary,

The master's program only lasts a year, hence the reason I'm interested. Also I am between going down the Ph.D. in statistics route or the master's in actuarial science route.

I don't really know the state of financial support, but in general, professional Masters degrees are set up as a revenue source for departments, not a program where they will spend money on students (like with Ph.D. programs). Never hurts to ask, of course; it just seems to me that it will be unlikely that there will be support other than loans.

Most people do not go the M.S. route unless they intend to do further academic study (in which case, they should be applying to a PhD program, not a terminal M.S.) or have an immigration situation that continuing schooling helps with. It can help for people who have a weaker math background who want to get into actuarial work, but I'm assuming that's not your case.

A Ph.D. program you can often get support (especially for something in the mathematical arena, like stats). There's the opportunity costs to figure in there, though. That's a much bigger investment, time-wise.

[limabeanactuary]

It's not about the pay, necessarily, but if you're coming out of there, taking a job that has moderate pay, no real chance to make a ton of money, and won't "make a difference" is probably the worst of all worlds.

Plenty of Harvard grads make no impact at all in their careers. I'm still not seeing your point.

[xiaoxin]

It's not about the pay, necessarily, but if you're coming out of there, taking a job that has moderate pay, no real chance to make a ton of money, and won't "make a difference" is probably the worst of all worlds.
Zoidberg, the economy blows right now. Also just because one is an actuary does not mean he/she can't 'make a difference'.

The only ways to make a ton of money immediately out of college are by 1) finance & consulting, neither which I was interested in because of the hours and the content bored me, 2) tech sector, for which I don't have the requisite CS background...albeit I have taken two CS classes, or 3) starting your own company.

The last option is a definite possibility down the line.

And limabeanactuary, good call. I was considering the ph.D. route because I have other interests in statistics besides actuarial science, but I wanted to pursue the actuary route for the time being.

I wonder how people pull off the actuary ==> teach at university route. The requisite time required to also get the ph.D. in the process along with passing exams looks tremendous.

[xiaoxin]

If you're an American citizen and thus don't need to hang out in a grad program for a while for visa purposes, and you don't intend to continue into academia/do research, there's no real good reason to go into a graduate program. Definitely no good reason to pay for the privilege. You should be able to prepare for exams via self-study.
The last sentence brings up another point. Learning many of these concepts in a classroom setting with other people is much more effective than self-study. For me, the math is very easy. It's the financial concepts that are non-trivial for me. That's why I was considering the master's program not only to burn through the exams in a much faster time, but because I would have a much better understanding of the non-mathematical concepts.

[limabeanactuary]

The last sentence brings up another point. Learning many of these concepts in a classroom setting with other people is much more effective than self-study. For me, the math is very easy. It's the financial concepts that are non-trivial for me. That's why I was considering the master's program not only to burn through the exams in a much faster time, but because I would have a much better understanding of the non-mathematical concepts.

Ah, well, the first several exams are basically all math with just a bit of actuarial-specific terminology and notation thrown in. I really can't say how much non-math stuff gets into the Masters program at Waterloo in specific, or Masters programs in general. I imagine that many may differ. You will definitely learn different things from a classroom setting versus a work setting.

It does help to know your best method of learning different kinds of material. It is a critical skill in getting through the exams -- especially as the subject matter changes.

When I say "self-study", this primarily means doing something other than being in a formal course with homework, tests, etc. I don't mean that you're necessarily sitting by yourself, reading a book. Many (most?) people do use study aids such as manuals, flashcards, study groups (if you're part of an actuarial study program at a company with a lot of people taking the same exam as you are, this is a plus), and seminars (whether of the live or online variety...commercial plug: click on the logo in my signature).

In any case, what may be best is to see if you can get in contact with graduates from the program, who will probably be better able to tell you what they specifically got out of it. I can only tell you that most people don't take that route to the profession.

[urbansombrero]

If you can make it through Harvard Math, I am pretty sure you can pass all your prelims in a year.

Dont be foolish and pay 20K for nothing. Rule of thumb: dont pay for graduate school.

[marnol4]

I agree with Urban Sombrero. You should opt for an actuarial job if you land one.

Graduate School:
You can study for exams
You get another degree (only need a 4-year bachelors for an EL job with 3.0 GPA; your degree is probably overkill since you graduated with honors which I assume is 3.5+)
You pay money

Actuarial Job:
You can study for exams
You get experience
You GET paid money

Since you made it through Harvard, I shouldn't have to tell you which option is better.

I saw in your other thread that you're from Florida, you apparently moved up to Massachusetts for college, and now you're considering going to Canada. Just be ready to move again and keep studying.

[marnol4]

Since you made it through Harvard, I shouldn't have to tell you which option is better.


Sorry, I didn't mean that in a rude way. You should be very proud. Congratulations on passing Exam P, too. I wish you the best of luck.

[xiaoxin]

In the case I don't land one, should this be my backup plan?

I say that because I'm still without one.

[marnol4]

In the case I don't land one, should this be my backup plan?

I say that because I'm still without one.

Okay, well don't give up. One thing to keep in mind is that some people make it in this field by taking a non-actuarial job at an insurance company while going through the exams on their own. The most common routes would probably be something like IT or underwriting. Make it to ASA and you can explore your options to change roles at your current company or look elsewhere.

If you don't find an EL job or any acceptable alternatives, I don't think there's anything wrong with graduate school as long as you don't incur too much debt.

[Pug5]

I wonder how people pull off the actuary ==> teach at university route. The requisite time required to also get the ph.D. in the process along with passing exams looks tremendous.

I know I'm digging up the old part, but if your interests lie in the actuarial field & teaching, you could look into teaching at an actuarial program. If you started out teaching Calc / Stats you'd be plenty qualified now (maybe would still need the PHD but if you're wanting to do it anyway...), and if you're interested in exams the school could pay for them since it would give them more recognition to have more credentialed actuaries on staff.

If not, I'd be looking for a job much more than a masters program right now. Remember, if you're that interested in continuing education, your company will most likely pay for it down the road anyway.

As always get as many tests done as you can, but definitely don't give up on the job search. It takes time and energy, but if you're open to moving you should be okay.

[urbansombrero]

YOu are better off getting a part-time job and passing all prelims as fast as possible. Alot of actuaries will be impressed and it shows alot of commitment towards the field. you also have a harvard degree so that cant hurt you. Dont waste your time in Canada...

[xiaoxin]

Yeah taking FM and MLC this fall. How many months should I devote to studying to pass MFE and 4/C? I was planning to take those next spring.

[urbansombrero]

Honestly, if are hardworking and not lazy like me you could probably get all prelims done by november.

[limabeanactuary]

Honestly, if are hardworking and not lazy like me you could probably get all prelims done by november.

:roll2:

[urbansombrero]

:roll2:

:shrug:

[xiaoxin]

As long as companies don't care about your scores if you passed, then I can see that happening.

Are you implying that one could be ready for 3/MLC in a month or two?

[campbell]

As long as companies don't care about your scores if you passed, then I can see that happening.

Are you implying that one could be ready for 3/MLC in a month or two?

It's doable...because it's been done.

Whether you can do it - I don't know. Depends on your math background, and how fast/precise you are in calculation. For many people, it's not the concepts that kill them on MLC, but setting up problems correctly and getting then done fast enough without making computation errors.

[xiaoxin]

For me it's been learning all the finance concepts that kills me.

I can bash stuff with math accurately but I can see myself getting wrecked by more conceptual financial economics type questions.

[campbell]

For me it's been learning all the finance concepts that kills me.

I can bash stuff with math accurately but I can see myself getting wrecked by more conceptual financial economics type questions.

those aren't on MLC.

[xiaoxin]

They were on FM/2 so I was assuming they'd be on MLC as well. That's a relief then.

[campbell]

They were on FM/2 so I was assuming they'd be on MLC as well. That's a relief then.

uh......

Okay.

Some advice: each actuarial exam can be extremely different from the others.

You really need to look at syllabus/old exams to get an idea what's going on for a particular exam.

I never had a problem with the prelims, for example, but the moment I hit the written exams I ran into trouble for a variety of reasons). I had to change my study strategy a lot between prelims and the upper-level exams.

[urbansombrero]

As long as companies don't care about your scores if you passed, then I can see that happening.

Are you implying that one could be ready for 3/MLC in a month or two?

Depends. Are you working full time? My view is that each exam is equivalent to a serious math course in University so technically you should be able to pass 4 in 3-4 months.

The key is to practice alot so you dont hesitate in the exam. Theres basically no time to think. You just need to know what to do right away and not make a mistake on your calculator.

[xiaoxin]

Nope. I don't have any full-time opportunities at the moment. Almost done studying for exam FM. Taking practice exams currently to get faster.

[limabeanactuary]

Depends. Are you working full time? My view is that each exam is equivalent to a serious math course in University so technically you should be able to pass 4 in 3-4 months.

The key is to practice alot so you dont hesitate in the exam. Theres basically no time to think. You just need to know what to do right away and not make a mistake on your calculator.

:iatp: