Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test • Hacker News Board

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#31

Post by nabla9 » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

tfehring wrote: post #22

stbtrax wrote: post #3

From experience from a few close friends: Actuarial science is always in the lists of top jobs but it's a terrible career. It's quite limiting and doesn't pay particularly well. The companies are all old and stagnant and the amount of time put in to studying for exams is taxing. It'd be much better ROI to put that time into studying for sw-eng roles. That is, unless you're particularly interested in memorizing math f…

I left the actuarial field for basically the reasons you describe, but the characterization still strikes me as somewhat unfair. Actuaries reliably make significantly above the median US income right out of undergrad, and reliably double that income within a decade, working 40 hours a week, without needing to go to a target school or get an advanced degree. That alone makes it a good career by most objective standard…

I wonder how the difference looks like if you think over the whole career.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#32

Post by francisofascii » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

riskneutral wrote: post #12

stbtrax wrote: post #3

From experience from a few close friends: Actuarial science is always in the lists of top jobs but it's a terrible career. It's quite limiting and doesn't pay particularly well. The companies are all old and stagnant and the amount of time put in to studying for exams is taxing. It'd be much better ROI to put that time into studying for sw-eng roles. That is, unless you're particularly interested in memorizing math f…

> unless you're particularly interested in memorizing math formulas for insurance calculations Note that the formulas in question are the opposite of interesting formulas. They're just made-up regulatory rules about how much capital an insurance company has to hold in order to sell insurance. Everyone agrees that some amount of capital needs to be held. Everyone, except maybe some of the "actuarial scientists" themse…

Since the job is all about helping insurance companies manage risk, someone who makes "safe" choices would be a good fit.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#33

Post by tschwimmer » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 9:47 PM UTC

riskneutral wrote: post #12

stbtrax wrote: post #3

From experience from a few close friends: Actuarial science is always in the lists of top jobs but it's a terrible career. It's quite limiting and doesn't pay particularly well. The companies are all old and stagnant and the amount of time put in to studying for exams is taxing. It'd be much better ROI to put that time into studying for sw-eng roles. That is, unless you're particularly interested in memorizing math f…

> unless you're particularly interested in memorizing math formulas for insurance calculations Note that the formulas in question are the opposite of interesting formulas. They're just made-up regulatory rules about how much capital an insurance company has to hold in order to sell insurance. Everyone agrees that some amount of capital needs to be held. Everyone, except maybe some of the "actuarial scientists" themse…

Are you okay there? It got a little specific at the end.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#34

Post by Spooky23 » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

tfehring wrote: post #22

stbtrax wrote: post #3

From experience from a few close friends: Actuarial science is always in the lists of top jobs but it's a terrible career. It's quite limiting and doesn't pay particularly well. The companies are all old and stagnant and the amount of time put in to studying for exams is taxing. It'd be much better ROI to put that time into studying for sw-eng roles. That is, unless you're particularly interested in memorizing math f…

I left the actuarial field for basically the reasons you describe, but the characterization still strikes me as somewhat unfair. Actuaries reliably make significantly above the median US income right out of undergrad, and reliably double that income within a decade, working 40 hours a week, without needing to go to a target school or get an advanced degree. That alone makes it a good career by most objective standard…

For better or worse, HN posters think the good times will be rolling forever.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#35

Post by not-my-account » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #24

not-my-account wrote: post #16

Is the answer to the question at the top 0.33? let pc = purchased_collision, pd = purchased_disability we have: 2 * P(pc) = P(pd) P(pc & pd) = 0.15 so P(pc) * P(pd) = 0.15 2 P(pc)^2 = 0.15 --> P(pc) = 0.274, P(pd) = 0.548 So the probability of neither pc nor pd is !P(pc | pd) = 1 - P(pc) - P(pd) + P(pc & pd) = 0.328 ~= 0.33? The addition of P(pc & pd) was to take account of the double counting of pc and pd. Please le…

It is yes. Definitely need a calculator to be able to do sqrt(0.075) and calculate the result. Though I was able to figure it out in my head without a calculator by eliminating choice A and choice C (I tried pd=0.3 and pd=0.2 to prove the answer had to be >0.28 and <0.48).

Ah clever!

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#36

Post by knodi123 » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

dhosek wrote: post #26

npmisdown wrote: post #11

So the answer to the question in the topic is (B) ~0.33 (can't see the answer because of the paywall)? Doesn't seem to be a particularly tricky question unless I miss something, just basic probability theory calcs.

That was my answer as well: My reasoning: Let x be the probability of purchasing disability coverage, thus the probability of purchasing collision is 2 x from conditions b and c, we know that 2 x ∙ x = .15 so we can calculate the probability of neither applying as 1-(2 x + x )+2 x ∙ x = .18 + .15 = .33 I can see the trap of forgetting to add 2 x ∙ x in the calculation (since we don't want to double count the case whe…

> with free answer exams, they can still get partial credit

Rarely had a prof that had the patience for that, vs. a simple red X. Not arguing, it's just my anecdote of frustration.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#37

Post by riskneutral » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

tschwimmer wrote: post #33

riskneutral wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unless you're particularly interested in memorizing math formulas for insurance calculations Note that the formulas in question are the opposite of interesting formulas. They're just made-up regulatory rules about how much capital an insurance company has to hold in order to sell insurance. Everyone agrees that some amount of capital needs to be held. Everyone, except maybe some of the "actuarial scientists" themse…

Are you okay there? It got a little specific at the end.

Don't worry, I'm not an actuary.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#38

Post by decafninja » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

yukinon wrote: post #30

tfehring wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I left the actuarial field for basically the reasons you describe, but the characterization still strikes me as somewhat unfair. Actuaries reliably make significantly above the median US income right out of undergrad, and reliably double that income within a decade, working 40 hours a week, without needing to go to a target school or get an advanced degree. That alone makes it a good career by most objective standard…

This could be outdated information that I have, but don't actuaries constantly need to study for their exams/certs? Does that fall outside of the 40 hour/week range, or is that done on work time?

You could argue that a lot of SWEs also have to constantly study leetcode on their own, outside of working hours. Especially if you are targeting many of the high paying companies that would pay substantially more than an actuary.

Even if you are fortunate not to have to do leetcode (i.e. frontend engineer interviews seem to diverge from leetcode problems nowadays), you still have to extracurricularly grind on coding in ways that you would typically not encounter during your normal work.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#39

Post by d136o » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 9:55 PM UTC

In this [1] interview by Barry Ritholtz, Markel CEO essentially told the origin story of an insurance giant. Basically a family member was a lawmaker, passed a law that drivers of the newly invented cars (maybe horse buggies?) must be insured. They simultaneously started a company that sold insurance. Over time they learned to make money from investing their customers capital.

It blew my mind at how candid he was about the fact that his business exists due to regulatory mandates. Are there insurance products that people are really satisfied with and trust will pay out in case of event X? I feel like I’m self insuring when it comes to car and healthcare at least. Title insurance when buying a house also seemed like a total “legally required” joke.

[1] https://ritholtz.com/2021/11/transcript-thomas-gayner/

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#40

Post by lumost » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 10:00 PM UTC

tfehring wrote: post #22

stbtrax wrote: post #3

From experience from a few close friends: Actuarial science is always in the lists of top jobs but it's a terrible career. It's quite limiting and doesn't pay particularly well. The companies are all old and stagnant and the amount of time put in to studying for exams is taxing. It'd be much better ROI to put that time into studying for sw-eng roles. That is, unless you're particularly interested in memorizing math f…

I left the actuarial field for basically the reasons you describe, but the characterization still strikes me as somewhat unfair. Actuaries reliably make significantly above the median US income right out of undergrad, and reliably double that income within a decade, working 40 hours a week, without needing to go to a target school or get an advanced degree. That alone makes it a good career by most objective standard…

I suspect that SWE is becoming a bi-modal field. We often talk about SWE salaries pushing mid-> high six figures, but this is only true for experienced professionals working in very successful companies benefiting from large stock appreciations.

If the stock market was falling/flat for a few years SWE comp would not be as high. By definition, most SWEs will not work at Netflix. The current situation of stable, well paying, and public tech companies is unlikely to persist indefinitely.