Advice please. Struggling first year uni student

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

Originally Posted by GargoyleWaiting

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. I don't even know if any of this makes sense.

If you want a more explicit version:

A basis for the space of 3x3 matrices:

1 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

along with

1 0 0       0 0 0
0-1 0       0 1 0  
0 0 0       0 0-1  

and the six matrices obtained by replacing one star by a 1 and the others by zeros in:

0 * *
* 0 *
* * 0

The first matrix has a non-zero trace, so dim(image) = 1
The next eight have trace zero, so dim(kernel) = 8

Linear algebra is useful in statistics --- degrees-of-freedom are really dimensions.

[sail648]

I have been an actuary since 1987, studied physics in college, and have served on 2 separate US exam committees, so my experience may be valuable.

Focusing on theory got in my way for a few years and was of no value for passing exams.

I found linear algebra a fun computational exercise but have never applied in a real world situation. (or if I did, I didn't realize it at the time).

Do not assume that your struggles with theory will slow you down in the profession, but take an honest look at your strengths and weaknesses in the relation to the exam syllabus you are about to take on.

The key skill is the ability to juggle exam study with work and life. Making and keeping to a study schedule is the way to get your credential quickly. Once you have it, most of the material on the syllabus can be forgotten. The other important skill is changing your focus to study to pass the exam, rather than studying to pass learn the material.

Good Luck.

[JMO]

Originally Posted by Colymbosathon ecplecticos

If you want a more explicit version:
Linear algebra is useful in statistics --- degrees-of-freedom are really dimensions.

To avoid all this, just become a life actuary - when I worked on the life side there wasn't any of this statistical mumbo jumbo.

[MusicMan]

My 2 cents:
I was on exam committees for several years (granted, it was a long time ago). I don't think ability to construct proofs would necessarily be required - what would be of more value is the ability to read a problem, select the relevant data, and construct a solution based on the syllabus. And do it quickly. You will probably see a lot of stuff on the exams that you will never encounter in your career.

After I passed Part 3 (which at that time included operations research), my boss asked me to estimate the time to complete a complicated task. I used PERT/CPM, constructed diagrams, etc, and proudly took it into his office. He threw it all away, told me to make my best guess, then triple it.

He was right.

[yoyo]

Originally Posted by sail648

I have been an actuary since 1987, studied physics in college, and have served on 2 separate US exam committees, so my experience may be valuable.

Focusing on theory got in my way for a few years and was of no value for passing exams.

I found linear algebra a fun computational exercise but have never applied in a real world situation. (or if I did, I didn't realize it at the time).

Do not assume that your struggles with theory will slow you down in the profession, but take an honest look at your strengths and weaknesses in the relation to the exam syllabus you are about to take on.

The key skill is the ability to juggle exam study with work and life. Making and keeping to a study schedule is the way to get your credential quickly. Once you have it, most of the material on the syllabus can be forgotten. The other important skill is changing your focus to study to pass the exam, rather than studying to pass learn the material.

Good Luck.

Originally Posted by MusicMan

My 2 cents:
I was on exam committees for several years (granted, it was a long time ago). I don't think ability to construct proofs would necessarily be required - what would be of more value is the ability to read a problem, select the relevant data, and construct a solution based on the syllabus. And do it quickly. You will probably see a lot of stuff on the exams that you will never encounter in your career.

After I passed Part 3 (which at that time included operations research), my boss asked me to estimate the time to complete a complicated task. I used PERT/CPM, constructed diagrams, etc, and proudly took it into his office. He threw it all away, told me to make my best guess, then triple it.

He was right.

SO MUCH THIS!

[Vorian Atreides]

Originally Posted by JMO

To avoid all this, just become a life actuary - when I worked on the life side there wasn't any of this statistical mumbo jumbo.

[JMO]

There was, I admit, one key proof on the life contingencies exam. It relied on using consistent assumptions in every step of the calculation of statutory reserves. By simple algebraic rearrangement of the formula for net level premium, one could prove that reserves accumulated retrospectively were equal at each durat6ion to prospective reserves.

[Taemisung1]

Fortunately, you will never have to proof anything again. Proofs was the hardest course I ever took and none of it matters anymore.

[Shakeela]

Check out this post I made about my experience. Sounds like you're in a similar situation to me and I don't think you should give up so early!