Talk:Actuary/Archive 1

Etymology of "Actuary"
I've removed from the article the note that said that the etymology of the word "actuary" is from the latin verb "agere" (to do, to drive) - I've never seen this given as the etymology, and the link between "agere" and "actuary" is not at all obvious. As I understand it, most sources trace the etymology back to the latin "actuarius" (copyist, account keeper), which makes more direct sense. In any case, more sources would be useful. Enchanter 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, see the online definition at Merriam-Webster.com Avi 20:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-US Credentialing
Can someone please flesh out the Non-US credentialing process? Avi 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If I can just put in here as I was just about to add a "US Slant" section; on the contrary, I believe this article has its U.S. credentialing information too fleshed out. Almost half the article is about the examination procedure for just one country!  Perhaps it's not even the length so much as detail about such issues as individual exams and who accepts them and who doesn't.  Seems a bit unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoso Jade (talk • contribs) 15:33, March 29, 2006  (UTC)

Non-Life/General
Enchanter, I moved your edit to the sentence on casualty actuaries as it allows for a smoother logical flow for the paragraph. Do you agree? Avi 21:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Enchanter 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary Exam
I had difficulty interpreting this section with regard to exam, organization, and compatibility. I think a table would help clarify the matter. Opinions?

Also, is there a more reasonable approach to achieve this table effect than HTML? I could convert this to an image and use that instead, but that would be more tricky (than HTML) to edit later. The proposed revision follows:

The first four exams ("Preliminary Exams") consist largely of core mathematics related to actuarial science including probability, statistics, interest theory, life contingencies, and risk models. Note that while the third examination of the SOA, also known as Exam M, is accepted by the CAS, the reverse does not hold.

These exams are also approved by the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. This joint sponsorship allows students to work on the initial requirements before they choose a specific discipline to pursue.

Like so?

Not a bad idea, let me see Avi 06:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Even better: Avi 16:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Exam 3 vs Exam M
You can apply for a waiver for CAS exam 3 if you took SOA exam M. However, not the reverse. So it is interchangable in 1 direction.


 * Which is why exam M is in blue, because it is recognized by the CAS, whereas Exam 3 is in orange, because it is not recognized by the SOA. I believe the text mentions that as well. -- Avi 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

US Slant
Does anyone else feel that this article is way too particular to the US? Many of the statments made as a blanket for the profession are, in fact, particular to the US (and often Canada, admittedly). For instance the statement: "There are two major actuarial disciplines, often referred to as life & health and property & casualty" I know there's a little nod to "non-life" and "general" insurance as used in "some other countries" later but does someone have a justification for using the US terminology (which, in this situation, appears less intuitive)?

For a profession that began in the UK, and is relatively (especially from the international insurance perspective) more prominent in the UK, I find it hard to understand why this page essentially describes the profession from such an American point of view, other than the fact there seems to be an understanding on Wikipedia that things are written with the United States as a standard and everyone else as some strange sort of fringe incidence. I'm certainly not saying that the article should be changed to a British slant for this would also be wrong (albeit, a bit more logical considering the Equitable and Lloyd's). Just that all "facts" about the profession that refer solely to American actuaries should be stated as such; explicitly stated that they are attributes of American actuaries. Also, as I have stated above ,the exam section goes into way too much detail for the American credentialing. If someone feels it absolutely necessary for this information to be on Wikipedia, perhaps it should have its own article. If every country that had an actuarial credentialing system posted up that much detail, this page would become a novel.

Hope I haven't pissed anyone off, I'm just interested in getting this article looking professional and unbiased. Right now, the page is a bit misleading for anyone who doesn't live in the US. Thanks.--Zoso Jade 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points. However, if you look at the credentialing process in the TOC, you will see that I specifically placed it under US (2.1.1, 2.1.2, etc.) By all means, flesh out and expand the UK entry under 2.2 or whatnot. However, having the credentialing process is important, IMO, as that is one of the most asked questions about actuaries -- Avi 20:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Perhaps a new section on the exams is necessary?  To be honest, I'm just procrastinating because I'm supposed to be studying for an exm.  I'm trying to write up a UK credentialing section now.  It may not be very eloquent at first as I am trying to study at the same time but as I have time I will refactor.--Zoso Jade 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I like what you did with the UK section. I took the liberty of restructuring it a bit for symmetry and ease of finding information. Please let me know if you approve. -- Avi 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the restructuring. Definitely approve.  What we need now is a more senior UK actuary to improve what I've written about the Specialist Technical and Applied papers as I know little of those exams.--Zoso Jade 10:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actuarial Organizations
At this point, I think an exhaustive list is too much for the article. There already exists a category called Category:Actuarial associations, and I think it would be better to link to that category and remove the list. Especially as there are plenty of red-links and duplication in the External links section. -- Avi 20:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have created entries for each association listed, and placed them all into Category:Actuarial associations, so I will just link to the category and remove that huge list. I will likely do the same for many in the external link sections as well. -- Avi 21:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Exam support
I believe this section probably applies as is to most countries. Would anyone be against me taking out of the US and making it a section under "Exams and Credentialing"?--Zoso Jade 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all, be bold :) -- Avi 21:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's Australia
Come on, we're letting the whole southern hemisphere down. Hopefully some budding young actuary will update this site (possibly myself if I'm bored enough) to reflect the awesomeness that is the actuaries down under. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.47.220.10 (talk • contribs) 02:20, May 4, 2006 (UTC)

Mention of Wikipedia in The Actuary
In the current edition of the British version of The Actuary an article talks about Wikipedia and what a great way of spreading information it is. Hopefully this will encourage more actuaries to discover this site, and if so, to help build this page!--Zoso Jade 18:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer Zoso! For anyone interested, the article is available online here. Enchanter 20:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Some issues within the article
Hate to be a moaner but IMHO there are some issues within the article that need clearing up. I'm happy to do them myself, I just want to get input from the original writers before I do anything: 1) Typical employment/ Non-traditional employment; We should probably be consistent in our wording; i.e. either both "typical" or both "traditional". Also we now have the statement of the Wall Street ranking under non-traditional employment, even though the article has nothing to do with the topic.

2) Academic Actuarial Programs is becoming like the "Actuarial Organisations" used to be; a long list that will keep growing until it takes up a disproportionate amount of the article. Perhaps the same solution? (i.e. another article altogether)

3) This statement about UK and ROI qualification:

"Here, actuaries undergo a large part of their initial professional education in universities."

I think I understand what this person is trying to say but it's not entirely accurate and can be misleading.

If I didn't know better I would read this as the first studies a UK or ROI candidate does (i.e. after graduating and getting an actuarial job) take place in a university. Of course, this is completely untrue. The standard actuarial qualification process involves no university input at all and the Institute/ Faculty of Actuaries do not have official ties to any universities regarding this matter.

What, I imagine, the author was trying to say here is that a UK or ROI actuarial student can use any actuarial learning they may have done while at university to make a case for being exempt from the standard actuarial examinations that they would normally have been expected to take. This is not what the sentence currently says. There are two main inaccuracies with the sentence as it currently stands. First it says "actuaries undergo". Not "some actuaries undergo" as would be more appropriate. While many actuaries have had some actuarial education at university, a very significant amount haven't. I don't have to hand any figures showing the proportion that don't have any university actuarial education but basing it on my company's (a large consultancy) experience and that of our clients (very big insurers), about 30-40% come in with no exemptions whatsoever. Secondly, the sentence says "a large part of initial professional education". I'm not sure I agree with this. Some come in completely exempt from the Core Technical subjects (a significant number do but certainly not up to half). If it's a question of whether the university education provides for a large amount of the actuarial education, there is little evidence of this; for instance at my company the average time from start to qualification for those with exemptions is the same as those without (4 years/8 sittings). There is also a lot of controversy behind exemptions;Long and short, this sentence is misleading and I'll leave this up for a few days and then will change it.

OK, rant over! :) --Zoso Jade 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * be bold, Zoso! Excellent points. I have made the term "traditional" to be symmetric, removed the paragraphs that seemed to list everyone's university that even remotely deals with actsci, although I tend to agree with you that perhaps a separate list page is preferable, and created a section called "remuneration" and moved the Wall St article there. However, as a US credentialed actuary, I would feel less comfortable messing around with the UK/Ireland issues that if an FIA or similar would do so, although I reserve the right to mess things up ;) Thanks! -- Avi 13:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

FCAS
This article lists the FCAS as having a high level of wage. What's the FCAS? Shawnc 12:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * FCAS means Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society, maning someone who has passed all of the Society's exams and is fully qualified as an actuary. Enchanter 12:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While an FSA is a fellah of the society of actuaries. John wesley 21:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

NYU's academic program
I don't think NYU has an actuarial major. Only courses. As such it should be removed. John wesley 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and thus once it was clarified as a minor, I removed it. -- Avi 22:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)