Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Careers - Employment
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Search Actuarial Jobs by State @ DWSimpson.com:
AL AK AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA
ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NH NJ NM NY NV NC ND
OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-02-2020, 01:47 PM
hrm57's Avatar
hrm57 hrm57 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 168
Default Exam support vs no exam support

In my department, all of the managers are FSAs, but at the lower levels(i.e. me), there seems to be a mix of students(exam support) and analysts(no exam support), with slightly more analysts then students. From what I can tell, exams have no impact of job responsibilities, and we all do more or less the same thing. From reading some old threads, I gather that this is pretty common.

Anyway, something I am not totally clear on is if management has higher expectations (in terms of quality of work, etc.) for those taking tests, since they are a bit more expensive (study time, etc.) for the company. Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-02-2020, 01:58 PM
NormalDan's Avatar
NormalDan NormalDan is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: NJ
Posts: 10,882
Default

Difficult to know since that sounds like a pretty atypical situation, although I'd imagine the expectations are slightly higher.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-02-2020, 03:27 PM
Colonel Smoothie's Avatar
Colonel Smoothie Colonel Smoothie is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
College: Jamba Juice University
Favorite beer: AO Amber Ale
Posts: 50,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hrm57 View Post
In my department, all of the managers are FSAs, but at the lower levels(i.e. me), there seems to be a mix of students(exam support) and analysts(no exam support), with slightly more analysts then students. From what I can tell, exams have no impact of job responsibilities, and we all do more or less the same thing. From reading some old threads, I gather that this is pretty common.

Anyway, something I am not totally clear on is if management has higher expectations (in terms of quality of work, etc.) for those taking tests, since they are a bit more expensive (study time, etc.) for the company. Thoughts?
If you don't pass, you become one of the analysts.

If your company is really bad, you stay as one of the analysts even if you do pass. But I don't know if that's the case where you're at.
__________________
Recommended Readings for the EL Actuary || Recommended Readings for the EB Actuary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigmeister General View Post
Don't you even think about sending me your resume. I'll turn it into an origami boulder and return it to you.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-02-2020, 03:50 PM
hrm57's Avatar
hrm57 hrm57 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Smoothie View Post
If you don't pass, you become one of the analysts.

If your company is really bad, you stay as one of the analysts even if you do pass. But I don't know if that's the case where you're at.
Definitely not the case here
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-02-2020, 04:03 PM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 30,756
Default

I wouldn't say that expectations are higher, but they are different usually. Every place has their own approach, but what I've seen most commonly involves actuaries moving around and planning to move up. Analysts may not move up, or certainly if they do they would normally move more slowly. So, it's common that the actuaries are moving around and less familiar with a specific process; as a result, they might be more likely to get assigned something new to figure out versus the analyst is doing something that they've previously figured out. So, expectation for an analyst to figure out something new would probably be lower than for an actuary, but expectation to be efficient with processes that are already in place might be higher than for an actuary.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-02-2020, 09:25 PM
hrm57's Avatar
hrm57 hrm57 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
I wouldn't say that expectations are higher, but they are different usually. Every place has their own approach, but what I've seen most commonly involves actuaries moving around and planning to move up. Analysts may not move up, or certainly if they do they would normally move more slowly. So, it's common that the actuaries are moving around and less familiar with a specific process; as a result, they might be more likely to get assigned something new to figure out versus the analyst is doing something that they've previously figured out. So, expectation for an analyst to figure out something new would probably be lower than for an actuary, but expectation to be efficient with processes that are already in place might be higher than for an actuary.
Great answer, I hadn't thought about the moving around part.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-28-2020, 10:21 AM
zenkei18 zenkei18 is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
College: Angelo State University
Posts: 787
Default

I use to be in public sector. Left for consulting because of the lack of exam support and lack of work, among other things.

Does your position have a relatively good work/life balance, e.g. you get out of work on time most days, sometimes have downtime you can study?

I would say don't discount those things if so, if there is one regret I have it is not maximizing the time I had available to study in my last job.
__________________
P FM MFE C MLC
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-28-2020, 07:12 PM
hrm57's Avatar
hrm57 hrm57 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zenkei18 View Post
I use to be in public sector. Left for consulting because of the lack of exam support and lack of work, among other things.

Does your position have a relatively good work/life balance, e.g. you get out of work on time most days, sometimes have downtime you can study?

I would say don't discount those things if so, if there is one regret I have it is not maximizing the time I had available to study in my last job.
There is some down time but I feel like it is better spent trying to develop a deeper understanding of what is going on behind the scenes of my processes
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:57 PM
Fat Ninja's Avatar
Fat Ninja Fat Ninja is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Studying for FSA
Posts: 231
Default

Better for you or better for your employer?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:00 PM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 30,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Ninja View Post
Better for you or better for your employer?
This is a very good question.

FTR, my advice to young people (pre-associate) is always that it's better for you to make exam progress than to develop actual skills and experience. I don't think it should be that way, but IMO it is that way, across the industry and also at almost every single company in the ndustry.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.44030 seconds with 11 queries