How many people who become actuaries didn’t take calculus in high school? It’s not zero, but I would bet most did.
1 Like
Do you think you really understand calculus after a calculus course though?
My deeper understanding always lagged behind. So maybe in linear algebra, say, i was getting really comfortable with calculus 1, where it seemed really obvious.
Understand it well enough for what purpose? To become a math professor? No. To become an actuary? Resoundingly, yes.
I really enjoyed college because I was able to take classes I wouldn’t have had access to, I got to meet people I wouldn’t normally have interacted with, and I got to find some independence with a safety net. But I believe I would have been the same caliber of actuary without the experience or degree, although not the same caliber of person.
To my mind, even basic probability requires calculus 3, really, because you need to be able to handle multi parameter models. And I also think you need calculus 3 to even conceptually understand how a lot of numerical optimization techniques work, which is becoming increasingly important. And really, linear algebra is better.
I suppose it could be that i simply have trouble imagining how to think about those things without what i already know. I don’t think that is happening, but it could be. It may also just reflect my particular job.
In any case, I would argue there are definitely actuarial jobs that require the more advanced math. But perhaps fewer than i imagine.
2 Likes
I took calc 3 in highschool, and I’d say it is completely unnecessary for my job, and largely unnecessary for exams. The theory is great, but it barely brushes against the practice.
I think there’s a few specific college courses that arguably actuaries might benefit from (eg. Time series) and those are in fact required by the exam practice. But the huge bulk of my college classes whether cultural anthropology or differential geometry were profoundly useless.
1 Like
What about when things change?
For example, almost all the literature on the new machine learning techniques assume math skill on parallel with someone who has a graduate degree in engineering or a more mathematical science. I don’t know how you even begin to read about new technology without a college degree.
I would say a time series class is fine, but to my mind you are almost better off stretching yourself in college. Take the differential geometry class and really try to think differently. As long as you have a solid background in statistics, the time series stuff is not to hard to learn on your own.
In part, we may have different ideas about what college is supposed to give you. For me, it’s role is to teach a person to think critically, either through words or math (there isn’t usually time to learn both really well.) It is not to learn a particular set of facts that will be useful in a job.
1 Like
So you’re saying it’s well worth it to put yourself into a debt you’ll never be able to pay off in order to send your kids to an expensive college despite there being many cheaper alternatives available to earn the same degree?
Who are you asking? I don’t recall anyone saying anything like that in this thread.
All of these people who are trying to figure out if you need college to pass exams or to be actuarials. I say start an actuary company, hire a bunch of kids straight out of high school, and if your business fails, you’ve got your answer.
I’m not really one to judge. Some folks like cars, some folks do strippers, some want to send a bunch of kids to college. Whatever. This might be how you think Biden is racist and most others don’t seem to.
I’m not judging anyone for liking cars, strippers, or college. I’m judging them when they pay way more than they can afford and then expect a bailout for their choices.
I was responding to what you said above.
In short, no, I don’t think debt is a big deal.
Taking on debt? Maybe not such a big deal. Taking on debt you’ll never be able to pay off? That’s kind of a big deal. Blaming someone else for debt you took which you’ll never be able to pay off? That’s a big deal.
Very much this.
I completely agree with this, and it’s one reason why I think college is valuable and I want my kids to attend.
But someone choosing to not go that route doesn’t mean they aren’t employable as an actuary if they can hack the profession’s skill set. College is not the only way a person learns to think critically (and in fact I would argue many with a college degree never learn that skill).
California (and a few other states) doesn’t require a lawyer to attend law school, and provides another pathway. Kim K is trying to become a lawyer without the degree. Most lawyers still go that route, but shouldn’t we keep the door unlocked for the Kim’s of the profession? For a lot of reasons, I say yes. That doesn’t devalue what I got from my college experience.
The value of sending your kids to school, for me anyway, is to make sure they have what’s necessary to be successful. I feel that’s my obligation, though I know others don’t. Also I want my kids to be better off earlier than I was. I committed to them that I would get both of them through undergrad debt free and anything else was theirs. In practice we’ve been fortunate that they’ll get through their masters and PhD debt free.
One of them did their masters in the US and that was a bit to swallow. They did go to an expensive school though.
School in Canada isn’t cheap, but it is a possible even for lower incomes. Personally I think it should be free, but nobody seems interested in that.
2 Likes
I don’t think? a lot of older actuaries are studying ML algorithms, but I could be wrong about that. I certainly agree that critical thinking and creative problem solving are valuable and stressed in college math… But I don’t know… How much really comes from college vs maturity vs innate whizz kid skills? Maybe we improve in college, but probably some of us have enough talent to be as useful as others who finished college.
I’m getting flashbacks of L30 threads.
2 Likes