<p>Thanks guys! Its much appreciated.</p>
<ul>
<li>Good pay.</li>
<li><p>Good job satisfaction.</p></li>
<li><p>Hard?</p></li>
<li><p>Extremely small market for jobs.</p></li>
<li><p>Coming insurance reforms might reduce the need for actuaries.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Somewhere on the University of Texas website for the actuary program, it states that something like half of all jobs are located in only three states: Connecticut, Illinois, and New York. If you desire geographic mobility, it probably is not for you. </p>
<p>I’ll see if I can find the link. </p>
<p>Another negative: the exams. They suck. Plan on about 300 hours of study for each one, well beyond what the classes will give you.</p>
<p>Pro’s</p>
<p>-Excellent compensation
-Strong Demand (the coming reform’s won’t change anything, actuaries do a lot more than health insurance…)<br>
- Flexibility. If you don’t want to work in the insurance industry, you’ll likely find offers in consulting and banking.<br>
-Upward mobility comes with passing of more exams </p>
<p>Con’s</p>
<p>-The exam’s are difficult. And without passing them, it’s extremely difficult to obtain a job. No pass, no money.<br>
- Lotsa math (could be a pro as well :))</p>
<p>If you are NOT good at math, don’t even try. By good at math, I mean, 740+ M SAT’s and knowing that you are GOOD at math. Don’t be tempted by the financial rewards if you aren’t good at math. Actuarial science is pretty much applied math, probability, and risk assessment. </p>
<p>If you’re good at math and like math, then it is an excellent choice. You will still have to study your butt off for the exams (watched my friend do this).</p>
<p>^my friend got a math degree from yale and he didn’t finish his last one until he’s in his 40s.</p>
<p>notice how many acturial science professors aren’t even fellows (FSA); most got to be “only” ASA. we are talking about professors with PhDs after all.</p>
<p>[The</a> Best and Worst Jobs - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904574638321841284190.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_careerjournal]The”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904574638321841284190.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_careerjournal)</p>
<p>Nuff said.</p>
<p>PM me if you have more specific questions.</p>
<p>Pro:
We got a chance to live and work in London for 3 years.</p>
<p>" it states that something like half of all jobs are located in only three states: Connecticut, Illinois, and New York. If you desire geographic mobility, it probably is not for you. "</p>
<p>You might need to do your training in one of the big cities, but after you get your exams completed, there are more options, if you are open to them.</p>
<p>I love math.
800 on Math II. Currently preparing for the AMC12 and should hopefully get 100+ on it.
I live in New York City, so the geography seems perfect.</p>
<p>"The Best and Worst Jobs - WSJ.com</p>
<p>Nuff said.</p>
<h2>PM me if you have more specific questions". </h2>
<p>In that article, it says:</p>
<p>“Mr. McAllister says he earns a total annual compensation within the average range for actuaries in his niche with four years of experiencebetween $91,000 and $133,000, according to global recruitment firm DW Simpson, based in Chicago”</p>
<p>Wow, really?</p>
<p>So a 25-year old actuary in training (4 years of experience) will be making between 91k and 133k?</p>
<p>That’s excellent if true.</p>
<p>I think you need a few years after graduation (3-5 yrs) in order to take the exams</p>
<p>No, you are expected to take/pass a few in college (1P, 2FM) at the very minimum. College courses and a fair amount of studying will prepare a student to succeed at these exams. But there are many higher level exams that are offered after graduating.</p>
<p>Lil<em>Wayne</em>Fan,</p>
<p>I doubt that’s actual average. Remember those sites are trying to promote the field and give you the better scenario. </p>
<p>In a way, what you’ll make is very dependent on youself. If you pass all the exams in no time, you will be making even more. But the possibility of getting stuck, spending hours in exams and still failing is also real. The first 2 exams are supposed to be relatively easier so if you find yourself laboring for either or both of them, it’s safe to assume you will spend years to pass the subsequent ones. If you find the first two not that big of a deal, then it’s a good sign you will likely be successful in this field.</p>
<p>major in math instead in case you decide to do something else (not that u cant with actuarial studies but it has more opportunities)</p>
<p>The OP is very good at math. It would be unlikely for him to fail the exams if he puts in the preparation time. </p>
<p>It is true that many students who are not good at math try to become actuaries because of the financial compensation. They end up studying for hours and still fail the exams. </p>
<p>I agree with poster above. You should major in mathematics (and still take a few actuary specific courses) to give yourself more flexibility.</p>
<p>The only problem is it’s difficult to know what “very good at math” means. I got 800 on GRE and I see those exams as tortures. 
I second your suggested course of action. I’d also recommend taking the first two as soon as possible, preferrably before even taking any acturial sci classes. This way, one would know what “learning on his own” for those exams is like.</p>
<p>Yeah, actuary exams aren’t exactly SAT/GRE style math exams where you can not study and do reasonably well. Study, study, study.</p>
<p>Very good at math…98th percentile?</p>
<p>This is the type of job that is easily outsourced overseas.</p>
<p>I was wondering if Operation Research was a good path to get into this industry?</p>
<p>
Seriously.</p>