advanced mathematics course (1 Viewer)

[flyin']

As for actuary vs adv maths, I've heard some personal comments from the maths academics. To summarise, the only benefit of being an actuary is the high pay. It's a highly specialised discipline, so the job prospect is quite narrow. Due to the size of the Australian economy, the demand for actuaries is not high. There are only just over 1000 fully qualified actuaries in the whole country, and that's already sufficient to meet the demand of the market.

I've heard a story from a friend. A guy ranked 2nd in Macquarie actuarial studies failed to get a job after graduation due to lack of experience. The point from that is you need subtantial experience to gain the trust from your boss to handle the job.

Maths/stats on the other hand, gives a much broader view. In essence actuarial is probability theory (which is part of stats) focusing heavily on insurance and finance. Whereas in maths/stats, you learn all the genearl stuff so that you have the choice of getting into other directions as well (e.g. biostats and the biotech industry for that matter).

And of course you can go into the finance field with maths/stats. There is a new major at usyd called "financial maths/stats", which is offered entirely within the school of maths and stats. The maths taught in finance courses in the commerce faculty are essentially naive versions of the maths courses. They only tell you "what" and the some basic "how", whereas in maths you get the whole picture - the "how" and "why".

I've got another little fact that makes my point. An actuary lecturer at Macquarie uni is currently doing a maths PhD under the supervision of the head of the financial maths program at usyd school of maths. Actuarial is relying heavily on the maths/stats expertise. Hope that helps.

A few brief comments:
1. The (actuarial) pay varies and may not be "that" great.
2. Only one-third of actuarials work in traditional actuarial work - the other two thirds work elsewhere. It's not narrow in terms of job opportunities. Further although demand isn't great in Australia, it's huge in Asian countries.
3. Students aren't "ranked" in Actuarial Studies at Macquarie. Employers don't exclude hiring people without experience, it may have been for other reasons such as personality (no personality - you'll find it hard to find a job anywhere regardless).
4. Aside - Aren't people at uni to specialise, not just to learn "general stuff"?
5. Yes, Actuarial Studies is built on alot of mathematics/statistical theory.

 

[Super Pig]

A few brief comments:
1. The (actuarial) pay varies and may not be "that" great.
2. Only one-third of actuarials work in traditional actuarial work - the other two thirds work elsewhere. It's not narrow in terms of job opportunities. Further although demand isn't great in Australia, it's huge in Asian countries.
3. Students aren't "ranked" in Actuarial Studies at Macquarie. Employers don't exclude hiring people without experience, it may have been for other reasons such as personality (no personality - you'll find it hard to find a job anywhere regardless).
4. Aside - Aren't people at uni to specialise, not just to learn "general stuff"?
5. Yes, Actuarial Studies is built on alot of mathematics/statistical theory.

Some nice comments there.
1. Good pay is the general prospect for a qualified actuary, otherwise there wouldn't be so many ppl doing it despite so many exams to pass before full accreditation. Of course it varies depending on responsibility and the field. But I've heard many ppl saying that the work is quite tedious and all that. Not quite sure whether that's biased or not. Any comment on that?
2. Yes I must agree that the type of work undertaken by actuaries is broadening, especially in the finance area. But mathematicians and statisticians are working in those areas as well (under the title of "actuarial analyst"). The distinction is not very clear to me. It would be nice if someone can point that out. Thanks for pointing out that the demand is great in Asia (huge in fact). I forgot to mention that.
3. Of course they are not ranked officially, but that's what I heard (probably be some unofficial ranking in WAM). Yeah it depends a great deal on other stuff as well I must say. I think the guy did manage to get an actuary job after getting some postgrad qualification.
4. There is great debate recently on whether unis should educate or just train ppl. Some ppl argue that Australia should offer a liberal arts education rather than being vocational head on. By "teaching the general stuff" I mean the general theory and principles underlying all real practices, so that ppl may elect to specialise in whatever direction they desire later on. Of course there is nothing wrong with specialising early if you know what you would like to do.

 

[§eraphim]

im doing BComm/BSc (Finance & Statistics). i reckon ur more likely to get a job with a commerce degree in finance, in particular, quantiative finance (quant/trader?), rather than a maths degree, cz im sure most sci degrees will b filtered out. (Exception - actuarial, as most external students did math honours). im planning to do honours in finance, and although i think the science degree is just there to back me up with the maths. Employers recognise the Commerce degree as teaching more industry relevant material. =D

 

[flyin']

Some nice comments there.
1. Good pay is the general prospect for a qualified actuary, otherwise there wouldn't be so many ppl doing it despite so many exams to pass before full accreditation. Of course it varies depending on responsibility and the field. But I've heard many ppl saying that the work is quite tedious and all that. Not quite sure whether that's biased or not. Any comment on that?
2. Yes I must agree that the type of work undertaken by actuaries is broadening, especially in the finance area. But mathematicians and statisticians are working in those areas as well (under the title of "actuarial analyst"). The distinction is not very clear to me. It would be nice if someone can point that out. Thanks for pointing out that the demand is great in Asia (huge in fact). I forgot to mention that.
3. Of course they are not ranked officially, but that's what I heard (probably be some unofficial ranking in WAM). Yeah it depends a great deal on other stuff as well I must say. I think the guy did manage to get an actuary job after getting some postgrad qualification.
4. There is great debate recently on whether unis should educate or just train ppl. Some ppl argue that Australia should offer a liberal arts education rather than being vocational head on. By "teaching the general stuff" I mean the general theory and principles underlying all real practices, so that ppl may elect to specialise in whatever direction they desire later on. Of course there is nothing wrong with specialising early if you know what you would like to do.

1. Generally, the pay improves astronomically after full accredition, before that, it's good but not spectacular by any means. Work tedious? They're prolly biased. An actuary can do so much (it's not funny) so it's their choice not to do something which doesn't interest them.
2. There are certains things only an FIAA (full accredited actiarial in Aust) can sign, and you can expect an actuary to know certain things.
3. Macquarie doesn't use WAM (only a dodgy GPA system : 4 for Hd/D; 3 for Cr; 2 for P; 1 for PC?; 0 for F. And even then it's hard to tell who is better. No differences between HDs and Ds. So getting a GPA of 3.99 doesn't mean you come second.)
4. Typically, people get a rough overview of whatever they're doing in their first 2 years, and then they specialise (major) in 3rd year.

I'm combining Actuarial and Mathematics, and I'm getting two extremes - applicable Actuarial and very non-applicable (is this even a word?) Mathematics.

Replies to earlier posts:
5. Actuarial qualification requires 3 parts (well, 4 but the last doesn't count) - nicely called Part I, II, III. Part I and II can be done as part of an undergraduate - with Cr grades in specific units (subjects). Part III is done externally - in a typical minimum of 2 year - 4 half-year subjects. Part IV is something about sitting an ethics class.
6. As for high paying jobs 100,000K+, there aren't that many out there. As before, personality plus academics plus extra-curricular help.

 

[Super Pig]

im doing BComm/BSc (Finance & Statistics). i reckon ur more likely to get a job with a commerce degree in finance, in particular, quantiative finance (quant/trader?), rather than a maths degree, cz im sure most sci degrees will b filtered out. (Exception - actuarial, as most external students did math honours). im planning to do honours in finance, and although i think the science degree is just there to back me up with the maths. Employers recognise the Commerce degree as teaching more industry relevant material. =D

Most Science degrees will be filtered out??? That sounds a bit extreme. I think it is true to some extent and indeed the commerce faculty teaches more real world stuff. But there are a whole lot of finance job ads posted on maths and physics departments noticeboards. And most of them do not require any commerce background, ppl can learn as they go. That's when the flexibility of science ppl comes in. In general they also have better computing skills (programming, simulation etc, not just Excel). A lot of Nobel prize winners in econ were applied mathematicians and statisticians and knew nothing about finance. So are many financial practitioners today. A lot of them were physicists in the late 80's. They switched to finance because the cold war was over and the demand for physicists dropped. So I reckon pure science students are still there.

 

[Archman]

Most Science degrees will be filtered out??? That sounds a bit extreme. I think it is true to some extent and indeed the commerce faculty teaches more real world stuff. But there are a whole lot of finance job ads posted on maths and physics departments noticeboards. And most of them do not require any commerce background, ppl can learn as they go. That's when the flexibility of science ppl comes in. In general they also have better computing skills (programming, simulation etc, not just Excel). A lot of Nobel prize winners in econ were applied mathematicians and statisticians and knew nothing about finance. So are many financial practitioners today. A lot of them were physicists in the late 80's. They switched to finance because the cold war was over and the demand for physicists dropped. So I reckon pure science students are still there.

basically, it is a lot easier for maths people to learn commerce than for commerce people to learn maths.

 

[Bob.J]

basically, it is a lot easier for maths people to learn commerce than for commerce people to learn maths.

hahha yeah, lets just leave it at that.

A person who would be really into getting a job in finance or some sort of thing would obviously do something commerce related at some point in the uni 'career'. But, that's why many of us just do the straight science course. So that there is plenty of job possibilities. and blah blah blah

 

[Bob.J]

hehe, lets just leave it at that.

A person who would be really into getting a job in finance or some sort of thing would obviously do something commerce related at some point in the uni 'career'. But, that's why many of us just do the straight science course. So that there are plenty of job possibilities, not only in the finance/corporate/office sector.

 

[flyin']

degrees don't count for that much in the end (unless it's so left field it's obviously not going to get you anywhere)

 

[Ultimate]

degrees don't count for that much in the end (unless it's so left field it's obviously not going to get you anywhere)

I agree, well once u get your first job its your experience that counts. A degree is just like a ticket into the workforce, just as the UAI was a ticket into uni (and is now meaningless). I think that in general a science degree(with a major in maths) is a better degree to have than a commerce degree with a finance major. This is because with a science degree you can work in science areas as well as commerce areas (such as superannuation, banking, insurance, stockbroking etc). The same can't really be said for someone with a finance major.

 

[shannonm]

then why are you doing both?

 

[Ultimate]

then why are you doing both?

1. Because I intend to keep my options open as much as possible
2. Because I have an interest in some commerce subjects such as econometrics, and finance which I hope to major in.

 

[emeka]

ta for all the info fellas. much appreciated.
reckon ill put actuary before advanced maths. both look pretty good but