advantages/disadvantages of ph.d

[leibniz]

Hi folks,

I'm currently wending my way through a doctoral degree in economics. My ambition and full intention has always been and will always be to enter industry and "build an empire"; my passion has never been for theoretical research and teaching as the vast majority of doctoral candidates aspire to. Therefore, the purpose of obtaining this degree and producing some extremely applied dissertation research is to accumulate an elaborate skill set employable in the private sector. Consequently, I've been exploring various career possibilities, and, as evidenced by this post, one of those recommended was actuarial science. My undergraduate degree was in mathematics, and I've taken calculus-based statistics, probability theory, reliability theory (& survival models), linear algebra, and some others. Hopefully I'll be able to take my fields of specialization in econometrics and finance.

My questions are fairly broad:

1) Will a career as an actuary employ the full breadth of knowledge accumulated with this ph.d? Conversely, do ph.ds who enter industry typically find actuarial science a satisfying, lucrative expression of their skills? By this latter question I hope to determine whether or not ph.ds typically are able to find better opportunities or if, perhaps, a job in actuarial science serves nicely as a means of gaining experience before branching out to other career possibilities.

2) How relevant would taking a couple of business courses be for a transcript?

[leibniz]

Nobody wants to answer my questions :(



Hi folks,

I'm currently wending my way through a doctoral degree in economics. My ambition and full intention has always been and will always be to enter industry and "build an empire"; my passion has never been for theoretical research and teaching as the vast majority of doctoral candidates aspire to. Therefore, the purpose of obtaining this degree and producing some extremely applied dissertation research is to develop an elaborate skill set employable in the private sector. Consequently, I've been exploring various career possibilities, and, as evidenced by this post, one of those recommended was actuarial science. My undergraduate degree was in mathematics with a minor in computer science, and I've taken calculus-based statistics, probability theory, reliability theory (& survival models), linear algebra, and some others. Hopefully I'll be able to take my fields of specialization in econometrics and finance.

My questions are fairly broad:

1) Will a career as an actuary employ the full breadth of knowledge accumulated with this ph.d? Conversely, do ph.ds who enter industry typically find actuarial science a satisfying, lucrative expression of their skills? By this latter question I hope to determine whether or not ph.ds typically are able to find better opportunities or if, perhaps, a job in actuarial science serves nicely as a means of gaining experience before branching out to other career possibilities.

2) How relevant would taking a couple of business courses be for a transcript?

[Trojan_Horse]

Having a PhD will not be much of any help to you in this field. A few of the course may help you pass the exams, but exam completion is much more important than degree level. I work with a PhD and he is treated with no more or less respect than any other actuary. You will need to learn much more than you already know before you become an actuary (Associate or Fellow). One of my professors used to tell me that becoming an FSA is like getting a PhD in Mathematics AND Economics. To answer your question about whether a career in actuarial science would be a satisfying, lucrative expression of your skills, I know many extremely educated actuaries that find their work both satisfying and lucrative. Actuaries have consistently been rated in the top three best paid professions.

In answer to your second question - they will have little relevance. Passing a couple of actuarial exams will have the most relevance.

Good luck in your quest.

[leibniz]

Thanks for your reply.

Respect isn't actually what I'm after. Clearly all actuaries have attained some level of rigorous education or else they wouldn't be able to perform their jobs. Nevertheless, my understanding is that many careers for a ph.d in industry frequently lead to top level positions simply because a corporation is paying for a skill premium (which might be b.s. but a political reality regardless) and/or because that level of education actually is desirable/useful. Apparently according to what you've said the former does not hold true as an actuary, but regarding the latter, some of your response do not seem consistent which is what leads to the following:

You espoused your professor's view that the FSA is like getting two ph.ds -- one in math, the other in economics. How do you reconcile this statement with your previous claim that, "A few of the courses may help you pass the exams"? Also, please consider that, as I said in my original post, this ph.d is being specifically designed to include all the right ingredients for industry by emphasizing a field in finance and another in econometrics, taking relevant courses in the statistics department (statistical inference, probability theory II [Markov chains, etc.]), and of course all three of the basic econometrics courses I, II, & III, and the six economics courses which, incidentally, are extensively covering the topic of insurance. I'm having difficulty understanding how most of these courses could be irrelevant even to passing tests! Furthermore, a relevant, applied dissertation I would think demonstrates leadership potential. Would an insurance company not distinguish between a person who had shown his ability to produce innovative new policies and a person who had done nothing but taken the same number of tests as his doctoral counterpart?




Having a PhD will not be much of any help to you in this field. A few of the course may help you pass the exams, but exam completion is much more important than degree level. I work with a PhD and he is treated with no more or less respect than any other actuary. You will need to learn much more than you already know before you become an actuary (Associate or Fellow). One of my professors used to tell me that becoming an FSA is like getting a PhD in Mathematics AND Economics. To answer your question about whether a career in actuarial science would be a satisfying, lucrative expression of your skills, I know many extremely educated actuaries that find their work both satisfying and lucrative. Actuaries have consistently been rated in the top three best paid professions.

In answer to your second question - they will have little relevance. Passing a couple of actuarial exams will have the most relevance.

Good luck in your quest.

[Trojan_Horse]

In the business world (outside of research), you will find much less appreciation for your PhD than you may think you deserve.

When I spoke of relevance, I was answering your initial second question about "a couple of business courses". The other courses you mention would certainly be relevant. I'm sure the courses you've taken would help for the first few exams (once you've mastered actuarial notation). After the first four exams, the coursework for the exams becomes much more industry specific and less theoretical. I don't know of any University program that attemts to teach the material needed after the first four exams.

Once again, good luck in your quest.

[leibniz]

Can you substantiate and elaborate on this claim? How many fields of industry are you familiar with, and how many have you actually worked in?

I think that your statement is highly suspicious. If you think that I believe a ph.d provides me with some kind of entitlement, you are wrong. If, however, you think that a ph.d is wasted effort regardless of what industry I might enter, then you must surely be doubly wrong in such a sweeping statement. I routinely obtain reports from doctoral students (many of whom are colleages here at my university) entering industry that state how a doctoral degree in economics is highly desirable and useful. I'm inclined to believe that for some, the more direct route of obtaining a terminal masters and working immediately is better for some whereas the longer route of obtaining the ph.d is better for others, but ultimately, to claim that one way or the other is wasteful or useless is just bloviating. Regardless, the focus of this thread was on actuarial science -- not a general discussion of all industrial fields. The exception to this was a possible discussion about whether actuarial science might be utilized as an effective springboard to other career opportunities.


In the business world (outside of research), you will find much less appreciation for your PhD than you may think you deserve.

When I spoke of relevance, I was answering your initial second question about "a couple of business courses". The other courses you mention would certainly be relevant. I'm sure the courses you've taken would help for the first few exams (once you've mastered actuarial notation). After the first four exams, the coursework for the exams becomes much more industry specific and less theoretical. I don't know of any University program that attemts to teach the material needed after the first four exams.

Once again, good luck in your quest.

[ramjom]

Leibniz said: Therefore, the purpose of obtaining this degree and producing some extremely applied dissertation research is to accumulate an elaborate skill set employable in the private sector.

My opinion (again I repeat, my opinion): A dissertation is a document that presents the author's research and findings. A dissertation is not used to develop a skill and actuarial employers probably won't put much weight on it.

Leibniz said: Furthermore, a relevant, applied dissertation I would think demonstrates leadership potential. Would an insurance company not distinguish between a person who had shown his ability to produce innovative new policies and a person who had done nothing but taken the same number of tests as his doctoral counterpart?

My opinion: I don't see any leadership qualities in producing a dissertation. Ability to produce innovative new policies = research. Leadership is the process of leading, not creating new policies.

Leibniz said: You espoused your professor's view that the FSA is like getting two ph.ds

My opinion: I have heard this too and it usually refers to the time and dedication it takes to become an FSA, in no way does it belittle the value of a ph.d

Trojan_Horse said: In the business world (outside of research), you will find much less appreciation for your PhD than you may think you deserve.

My opinion: I agree and a graduate professor in Statistics told me the same thing and he didn't blink, so I believe him. By the way, he's an FSA and has a ph.d also. PhDs are not of little value but, neither have greater value in the actuarial field (Exams....Exams...Exams....is what they like...among other things).

Leibniz said: The exception to this was a possible discussion about whether actuarial science might be utilized as an effective springboard to other career opportunities.

My opinion: I have seen some employers seeking candidates with actuarial experience (usually more on the SOA side) for positions in financial engineering. Yes, I believe it could lead to other careers.


You might want to read this, although it's 2002, it should help
http://www.aeaweb.org/joe/articles/2004/2004_market.pdf

[Irish Blues]

Leibniz said: Therefore, the purpose of obtaining this degree and producing some extremely applied dissertation research is to accumulate an elaborate skill set employable in the private sector.

My opinion (again I repeat, my opinion): A dissertation is a document that presents the author's research and findings. A dissertation is not used to develop a skill and actuarial employers probably won't put much weight on it.

Leibniz said: Furthermore, a relevant, applied dissertation I would think demonstrates leadership potential. Would an insurance company not distinguish between a person who had shown his ability to produce innovative new policies and a person who had done nothing but taken the same number of tests as his doctoral counterpart?

My opinion: I don't see any leadership qualities in producing a dissertation. Ability to produce innovative new policies = research. Leadership is the process of leading, not creating new policies.

Leibniz said: You espoused your professor's view that the FSA is like getting two ph.ds

My opinion: I have heard this too and it usually refers to the time and dedication it takes to become an FSA, in no way does it belittle the value of a ph.d

Trojan_Horse said: In the business world (outside of research), you will find much less appreciation for your PhD than you may think you deserve.

My opinion: I agree and a graduate professor in Statistics told me the same thing and he didn't blink, so I believe him. By the way, he's an FSA and has a ph.d also. PhDs are not of little value but, neither have greater value in the actuarial field (Exams....Exams...Exams....is what they like...among other things).

Leibniz said: The exception to this was a possible discussion about whether actuarial science might be utilized as an effective springboard to other career opportunities.

My opinion: I have seen some employers seeking candidates with actuarial experience (usually more on the SOA side) for positions in financial engineering. Yes, I believe it could lead to other careers.
*Very* well said. If you're trying to tie "Ph.D." and "actuarial experience" together, they will tie but not nearly as nicely as you'd like ... unless you're going to use that Ph.D. in theoretical aspects of the actuarial field. However, since leibniz has *no* desire to pursue the theoretical part of research, then the two are not going to tie in very nicely if at all.

[leibniz]

Most of what you said sounds very reasonable to me. However, there are a few questions and slight revisions I'd like to make.

First, you are obviously correct that a dissertation does not show an ability to lead. However, allow me to rephrase my position: I would think that a relevant, applied dissertation would demonstrate a thorough understanding of the expertise (by expertise I'm referring to skills rather than management ability. E.g., finance skills relevant to a CFO) required for leadership roles. Therefore, such a dissertation, seemingly, would be a useful asset for not only getting promoted, but also for making more learned proposals or decisions. Would this hold true as an actuary with an applicable dissertation?

Second, you said that you did believe actuarial experience could lead to other careers, and you mentioned financial engineering as one of them. However, financial engineering positions at prestigious places such as Wal Street require doctoral degrees in math, physics, or statistics -- they don't really accept economics ph.ds from lower tier universities, do they? Also, would you mind telling me some other lucrative career possibilities with a wide latitude for advancement springing from actuarial experience? Please note that I do not have a sense of entitlement nor do I want to be unrealistic about my career prospects, but if my intention was to get a cozy job with a stable, unchanging income with good benefits and nothing to do but sit around and pick my ***, then I would be teaching at a nice community college somewhere in a quiet neighborhood. This is not for me. I want to go where the challenge is and know that, not only is my income being maximized, but the room available for advancement is constrained only insofar as my ambitions would carry me. In that sense, the testing structure for actuarial science is very appealing, but in another sense, the life of an actuary seems like it could be rather monotone. For example, perhaps an actuary simply performs repetitive kinds of tasks but is never involved with any decision making that affects company direction. I could be all wrong about this. Please help.





Leibniz said: Therefore, the purpose of obtaining this degree and producing some extremely applied dissertation research is to accumulate an elaborate skill set employable in the private sector.

My opinion (again I repeat, my opinion): A dissertation is a document that presents the author's research and findings. A dissertation is not used to develop a skill and actuarial employers probably won't put much weight on it.

Leibniz said: Furthermore, a relevant, applied dissertation I would think demonstrates leadership potential. Would an insurance company not distinguish between a person who had shown his ability to produce innovative new policies and a person who had done nothing but taken the same number of tests as his doctoral counterpart?

My opinion: I don't see any leadership qualities in producing a dissertation. Ability to produce innovative new policies = research. Leadership is the process of leading, not creating new policies.

Leibniz said: You espoused your professor's view that the FSA is like getting two ph.ds

My opinion: I have heard this too and it usually refers to the time and dedication it takes to become an FSA, in no way does it belittle the value of a ph.d

Trojan_Horse said: In the business world (outside of research), you will find much less appreciation for your PhD than you may think you deserve.

My opinion: I agree and a graduate professor in Statistics told me the same thing and he didn't blink, so I believe him. By the way, he's an FSA and has a ph.d also. PhDs are not of little value but, neither have greater value in the actuarial field (Exams....Exams...Exams....is what they like...among other things).

Leibniz said: The exception to this was a possible discussion about whether actuarial science might be utilized as an effective springboard to other career opportunities.

My opinion: I have seen some employers seeking candidates with actuarial experience (usually more on the SOA side) for positions in financial engineering. Yes, I believe it could lead to other careers.


You might want to read this, although it's 2002, it should help
http://www.aeaweb.org/joe/articles/2004/2004_market.pdf

[Trojan_Horse]

In the insurance industry, actuaries ARE the ones that make the decisions that affect the direction of the company. Most of the presidents and vice presidents are actuaries.

Big Wall Street firms look for PhDs in Math and Statistics but also Economics and also FSAs. SOA and CAS fellows are often courted by Wall Street firms to fill Financial Engineering roles as well as ERM (enterprise risk management) roles.

FEN (Financial Engineering news) often publishes actuarial related articles. The fields are very inter-related.

[Ken]

I think you might look into becoming a quant at an ibank to build your empire rather than becoming an actuary. If you're set on becoming an actuary, maybe look into some of the firms that do research in catastrophe modeling. Some of the companies in reinsurance might value someone who would like to do research in the private sector or maybe a place like Milliman. Actuaries, in general, value hard experience more than the time you spend in school. Some courses in school will help you with exam progress, but if you think exams are very similar to what actuaries do at work, you might be in for a surprise.

[leibniz]

That is exciting news because a) according to what you've said here the insurance industry sounds like an environment which would indeed be compatible with my proclivities and b) the university I'm attending is not top-tier. I engaged in a career discussion with one of my professors some time ago and he pointed out that nearly all of the investment banking jobs required doctoral graduates from top tier universities if the applicant had zero related work experience. He said, however, that one such as I could enter ibanking indirectly. Upon learning this, I sought alternative occupations which led me to actuarial science, and now you're telling me that actuarial science is both an attractive profession AND an excellent way to enter ibanking. These responses indicate that either actuarial science or ibanking is gonna be where the sex is at. 'Impressive! :)



In the insurance industry, actuaries ARE the ones that make the decisions that affect the direction of the company. Most of the presidents and vice presidents are actuaries.

Big Wall Street firms look for PhDs in Math and Statistics but also Economics and also FSAs. SOA and CAS fellows are often courted by Wall Street firms to fill Financial Engineering roles as well as ERM (enterprise risk management) roles.

FEN (Financial Engineering news) often publishes actuarial related articles. The fields are very inter-related.

[leibniz]

That lion & gazelle quote is so kick a$$ I decided to print it out and paste it across the inside of my apartment front door.

You should see my previous response which was in reference to both this post and the previous one from trojan horse.

In addition however, since you seem knowledgeable about the various aspects of actuarial science, I'd appreciate any advice you might offer regarding the pros and cons of completing an applied dissertation as opposed to a theoretical one. My understanding was that industry far prefers applied work because businesses will not be interested in purely academic, theoretical mumbo jumbo about epsilon neighborhoods and so forth, but a previous poster mentioned that in fact theoretical research is what insurance companies look for! Now I'm confused about what should be done.


I think you might look into becoming a quant at an ibank to build your empire rather than becoming an actuary. If you're set on becoming an actuary, maybe look into some of the firms that do research in catastrophe modeling. Some of the companies in reinsurance might value someone who would like to do research in the private sector or maybe a place like Milliman. Actuaries, in general, value hard experience more than the time you spend in school. Some courses in school will help you with exam progress, but if you think exams are very similar to what actuaries do at work, you might be in for a surprise.

[Ken]

It's an african proverb that goes something like,

Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up.
It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed.
Every morning a lion wakes up.
It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.
It doesnt matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle.
When the sun comes up, you better start running.

It just doesn't fit as a sig line.

I'm not going to read the previous responses because I'm not a fan of reading. If you want to go into ibanking, being an actuary isn't really a great stepping stone. Life insurance would probably give you the most exposure to the financial side since it's more important to them because the expected time until payout is pretty long.

[leibniz]

Thanks for the full quotation.

...can you elaborate about life insurance? How does being an actuary differ from working with life insurance, and for that matter, what exactly is working with life insurance? Where does one find that type of employment? I wonder what the official title is of someone doing that kind of work.


It's an african proverb that goes something like,


It just doesn't fit as a sig line.

I'm not going to read the previous responses because I'm not a fan of reading. If you want to go into ibanking, being an actuary isn't really a great stepping stone. Life insurance would probably give you the most exposure to the financial side since it's more important to them because the expected time until payout is pretty long.

[wat]

In addition however, since you seem knowledgeable about the various aspects of actuarial science, I'd appreciate any advice you might offer regarding the pros and cons of completing an applied dissertation as opposed to a theoretical one. My understanding was that industry far prefers applied work because businesses will not be interested in purely academic, theoretical mumbo jumbo about epsilon neighborhoods and so forth, but a previous poster mentioned that in fact theoretical research is what insurance companies look for! Now I'm confused about what should be done.

Hm - I missed this earlier.

Just to be clear - you're set on getting this PhD, and you want to know how to progress in the PhD, rather than asking about how the entry-level situation for actuarial students go, right? Here, I can't help - I haven't done any formal graduate studies, nor have I attempted any theses/dissertations in my life.

However, I can say that the PhD doesn't really add value to an entry-level individual - i.e., you won't receive $10k more than the person with a BS in Actuarial Science out of college just because you have a PhD in Economics. That's where the actuarial exams come in.

The more and more I read your responses, the more I get the feeling that you want to be one of the "leading figures" in some theory - you know, get your name behind a theoretical model that can be used worldwide. Generally speaking, traditional actuarial roles aren't suited for this. Contrary to popular belief, we don't do it for the glory. However, the SOA/CAS/CIA are trying to break out of this mold and move into other areas - Financial Risk Managment, ALM, etc. This is the essence of the new "Image of the Actuary Campaign".

I also get the feeling that you're not interested in becoming an actuary - rather, just using the experience as a resumé booster. If that's the case, I wish you luck in attempting to get a position. There are many people out there that have passed several exams and looking for jobs, where becoming an actuary is the goal rather than a stepping stone to another path. I do believe companies will be more willing to hire someone that may stick around in the long run and are genuinely interested in the profession rather than something related.

[leibniz]

In truth, I'm just not sure one way or the other whether actuary is what suits me best or if ibanking is the ticket, but to be honest, actuarial science sounds like an excellent option. In any given interview, there are a number of truthful responses I can offer about what attracted me to a long-term career in actuarial science. Nevertheless, there is just no way to know without accumulating job experience, so contingency planning is in order if I'm going to be taking tests concurrently as this ph.d progresses. Even if potential employers were to know the full extent of my contingency planning, there would still be no more risk associated with hiring me as opposed to someone else having an equivalent amount of work experience because anybody and everybody could suddenly discover some alternative career option that is preferred. I must point out here that my intention is to try for one or two actuary internships before this doctorate is completed.

Your statements about my ph.d goals are not correct. There are certain ancillary reasons, but my primary interest in pursuing this ph.d is to collect an extremely large toolbag of skills. Part of my purpose for continually mentioning that my dissertation ought to be applied is that I don't want to signal employers that I'm somehow conflicted about leaving theoretical research, teaching, and academia. An applied dissertation would signal that I want to get my hands dirty -- not teach or attain academic fame. Nobody's gonna care that some dead guy has his name attached to an obscure theorem. Hugh Hefner will be remembered long before that poor sap in my opinion.

Admiring the beauty of fractals and exploring the annals of measure theory (unnecessarily) are not what motivate me in terms of career. Challenge, generating profit, and realizing tangible business results are what resonate with me.


Hm - I missed this earlier.

Just to be clear - you're set on getting this PhD, and you want to know how to progress in the PhD, rather than asking about how the entry-level situation for actuarial students go, right? Here, I can't help - I haven't done any formal graduate studies, nor have I attempted any theses/dissertations in my life.

However, I can say that the PhD doesn't really add value to an entry-level individual - i.e., you won't receive $10k more than the person with a BS in Actuarial Science out of college just because you have a PhD in Economics. That's where the actuarial exams come in.

The more and more I read your responses, the more I get the feeling that you want to be one of the "leading figures" in some theory - you know, get your name behind a theoretical model that can be used worldwide. Generally speaking, traditional actuarial roles aren't suited for this. Contrary to popular belief, we don't do it for the glory. However, the SOA/CAS/CIA are trying to break out of this mold and move into other areas - Financial Risk Managment, ALM, etc. This is the essence of the new "Image of the Actuary Campaign".

I also get the feeling that you're not interested in becoming an actuary - rather, just using the experience as a resumé booster. If that's the case, I wish you luck in attempting to get a position. There are many people out there that have passed several exams and looking for jobs, where becoming an actuary is the goal rather than a stepping stone to another path. I do believe companies will be more willing to hire someone that may stick around in the long run and are genuinely interested in the profession rather than something related.

[Ken]

For different people, toolbag of skills means different things. For an actuary, it's Excel, Access, SAS, ProVal, TAS, MoSes, ... There was a pretty extensive list on the most recent issue of Contingencies. Being an actuary differs from life insurance because not everyone working at a life insurance company is an actuary and not all actuaries work in life insurance. Life companies have actuaries working on investments because you have to have money in reserves for longer periods of time. Your investment income and inflation is a big factor in determining price because of the long-term nature. Because solvency is a big issue with life companies, there are a lot of regulations on the investment side such as how much of your money can be invested in risky assets so you won't have great experience in trying to get into ibanking from actuarial work.

[wat]

Your statements about my ph.d goals are not correct. There are certain ancillary reasons, but my primary interest in pursuing this ph.d is to collect an extremely large toolbag of skills. Part of my purpose for continually mentioning that my dissertation ought to be applied is that I don't want to signal employers that I'm somehow conflicted about leaving theoretical research, teaching, and academia. An applied dissertation would signal that I want to get my hands dirty -- not teach or attain academic fame. Nobody's gonna care that some dead guy has his name attached to an obscure theorem. Hugh Hefner will be remembered long before that poor sap in my opinion.

One main point I forgot to mention in my original post is that a PhD, depending on the company you decide to work for or the opportunities made available, may be somewhat of an overqualification. I pose this question to you - if you are truly interested in becoming an actuary right now, what's stopping you from giving up the books/formulas you're reading about now and picking up the books that relate to 1 or 2 of our actuarial exams? A point I'm trying to make (and a few others may have tried to make a little earlier in the thread) is that while your PhD may help in a job search with other financial professions, won't be worth the additional investment of time and efforts if you decide to become an actuary. Your time is much better spent studying for and taking the actuarial examinations. And the first 4 exams aren't necessarily insurance/actuarial specific - they include many tools that risk managers and business analysts should desire to have. So, while you ask us what kind of PhD to get, I ask you, is a PhD necessary?


Admiring the beauty of fractals and exploring the annals of measure theory (unnecessarily) are not what motivate me in terms of career. Challenge, generating profit, and realizing tangible business results are what resonate with me.

Strange - I would think getting one's PhD would prove the polar opposite.

[Ken]

Hey wat, you do your post padding elsewhere.

[leibniz]

Well, you may have a point, though my summers actually will be spent passing the actuarial exams. Part of the problem is that I don't have any job experience to know whether or not actuarial science is for me. Throwing away what I've accomplished thus far in the program and going on an actuarial science fishing expedition seems rather careless don't you think? Moreover, I like the fact that holding a ph.d for life affords me with more options. Ironically, I would feel much more confident and dedicated about whatever profession I chose knowing that given profession wouldn't have me locked in. After all, no business wants an employee who isn't really inspired to be there. Of course you mentioned that the first four actuarial exams or so are beneficial, so the question is whether I should settle for a masters and some excess classes or just take another two years and finish the damn thing. 'Might as well stick it out and get the title belt 'cause no matter what the future holds, the ph.d is there.

Regarding your second point, there's a difference between the desire for an intellectually stimulating career and the desire for a dedicated research career. As evidenced by some previous postings, there are a number of ph.ds currently working as actuaries. If their ph.ds are proof that they aren't interested in making money and conducting business, then do you suggest that those people are fakes? Surely this is not the case or else they would currently be working as university professors, so a double standard musn't be applied to me.


One main point I forgot to mention in my original post is that a PhD, depending on the company you decide to work for or the opportunities made available, may be somewhat of an overqualification. I pose this question to you - if you are truly interested in becoming an actuary right now, what's stopping you from giving up the books/formulas you're reading about now and picking up the books that relate to 1 or 2 of our actuarial exams? A point I'm trying to make (and a few others may have tried to make a little earlier in the thread) is that while your PhD may help in a job search with other financial professions, won't be worth the additional investment of time and efforts if you decide to become an actuary. Your time is much better spent studying for and taking the actuarial examinations. And the first 4 exams aren't necessarily insurance/actuarial specific - they include many tools that risk managers and business analysts should desire to have. So, while you ask us what kind of PhD to get, I ask you, is a PhD necessary?



Strange - I would think getting one's PhD would prove the polar opposite.

[wat]

Well, you may have a point, though my summers actually will be spent passing the actuarial exams. Part of the problem is that I don't have any job experience to know whether or not actuarial science is for me. Throwing away what I've accomplished thus far in the program and going on an actuarial science fishing expedition seems rather careless don't you think? Moreover, I like the fact that holding a ph.d for life affords me with more options. Ironically, I would feel much more confident and dedicated about whatever profession I chose knowing that given profession wouldn't have me locked in. After all, no business wants an employee who isn't really inspired to be there. Of course you mentioned that the first four actuarial exams or so are beneficial, so the question is whether I should settle for a masters and some excess classes or just take another two years and finish the damn thing. 'Might as well stick it out and get the title belt 'cause no matter what the future holds, the ph.d is there.

That's the mindset that we're currently trying to break - that actuaries only belong in the backrooms of insurance companies and consulting companies to crunch out numbers and evaluate their importance. We are attempting "spread our wings", so to speak, with respect to the business world. Holding an actuarial credential is more of a testament to the fact that you know the basics of analyzing risk and have gone through a rigorous examination system that can vouch for that. It doesn't mean you have to work for a life or P&C insurer. Like Ken mentioned, there's also catastrophic modeling, which is relatively new and seems pretty cutting-edge. There's also terroristic modeling, which was asked about on this board (I don't recall where at the minute).

And if in the near future, you feel that you want to make the change, and PhD work is just not for you, don't let sunk costs stop you from doing so. Instead of saying you spent 3 years already working toward it, think that you're saving 1 year of your life and getting a 1 year head start on whatever it is you're making the change to. You can't get those years back (and I don't think you'd want to - I'd imagine your graduate studies have proven fruitful), but if you find it's something that's not for you, you don't want to have to be throwing in more time after it.


Regarding your second point, there's a difference between the desire for an intellectually stimulating career and the desire for a dedicated research career. As evidenced by some previous postings, there are a number of ph.ds currently working as actuaries. If their ph.ds are proof that they aren't interested in making money and conducting business, then do you suggest that those people are fakes? Surely this is not the case or else they would currently be working as university professors, so a double standard musn't be applied to me.

I know of at least one PhD holder that switched to the actuarial field. I got the impression that he felt that academia wasn't for him, and that he liked the statistical aspect of actuarial science.

I don't understand your question about them being "fakes." I think their PhD's are proof that they are comfortable enough with doing large research projects and are probably somewhat interested in the subject they're doing their dissertation on. And I think the PhD holders that are associated with actuarial science either are comfortable with academia and like working with actuarial models/concepts specifically (think Dr. O), or aren't comfortable with research and academia being their long-term profession and made the switch to the actuarial field. In the first case, these are individuals that knew about actuarial science and would rather prefer research to actual practice, while in the latter case, I'm under the impression that they find out about the actuarial field after their PhD program is done.


Hey wat, you do your post padding elsewhere.

Haha. Sorry.

[Irish Blues]

Here's a better idea altogether:

1. Set wat and Ken's post counts to 500. (Or 200, whichever is more amusing)
2. leibniz gets the Ph.D. and sets out on building that great business empire
3. leibniz hires an actuary to do that stuff while focusing on the other parts of the business and making it grow into something spectacular.

It's win-win all around. Neither Ken or wat is post padding to get to 500 :D , leibniz builds that great business empire, and the actuarial field gains another job for a future candidate.

No thanks necessary - just put the check in the mail.

[leibniz]

lol I used the phrase "building an empire" probably for lack of ability to express myself any better. By that phrase I just mean that the kind of career with a relatively low upper ceiling on advancement would be a real bummer. In a philosophical sense, Karl Marx was right when he said that capitalism tends to remove people from the product of their labor, and in society we tend to see this manifest itself when people complain about that damn job because they go to work and perform the same repetitive tasks without ever really seizing their potential and moulding their own circumstances. There's a big difference between love for money and love for making and managing money and using it as a means to an end. I also agree with American philosopher John Dewey who rebutted Marx by stating that democratic capitalism can self-correct incrementally in this regard. Just like the African proverb pointed out, each person must start running or he will be consumed by his own indifference.

Anyway, I'll step down off my soapbox now. Probably nobody even wanted to read all that philosophical-thought-of-the-day ****. :p


Here's a better idea altogether:

1. Set wat and Ken's post counts to 500. (Or 200, whichever is more amusing)
2. leibniz gets the Ph.D. and sets out on building that great business empire
3. leibniz hires an actuary to do that stuff while focusing on the other parts of the business and making it grow into something spectacular.

It's win-win all around. Neither Ken or wat is post padding to get to 500 :D , leibniz builds that great business empire, and the actuarial field gains another job for a future candidate.

No thanks necessary - just put the check in the mail.

[ramjom]

Employers look for Experience (for like the 100th time already....)

-Experience is the father of wisdom.

"Build an Empire"....ok..ok...good luck and start working on it, we already know your plan of world domination.

-Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

Leibniz said: These responses indicate that either actuarial science or ibanking is gonna be where the sex is at. 'Impressive!

Doesn't sound like a person who is serious about something.

I don't know if you are familiar with the post padding concept, but read this to refresh your memory.

Post padding is the practice of posting multiple replies one after another in a single thread, rather than making a single reply responding to multiple people. People who do this are known as post padders.

Replying to a single post over multiple responses, unnecessarily thread bumping, and the posting of unnecessary replies in place of using the edit post feature can also constitute post padding.

Post padding generally occurs due to one of these two reasons:

1. Ignorance - the post padder is unaware that you can reply to multiple people in a single reply.

2. Boosting one's post count - the post padder is actively aware of the offense they are committing, but chooses to continue doing so to allow them to raise their post count. Possibly, these people may have a case of post count envy.


Finally, since ibanking or actuarial science is gonna be where the sex is at. I think you found your answer buddy. Now go out there and build your empire.

[leibniz]

Is there some reason...

[leibniz]

p.s. I have no clue about post padding nor why anybody would want to have a high number of posts. Squabbling over the number of posts on an Internet forum seems really petty for whatever bizarre reasons(?).


Is there some reason...

[Irish Blues]

I don't know if you are familiar with the post padding concept, but read this to refresh your memory.

Post padding is the practice of posting multiple replies one after another in a single thread, rather than making a single reply responding to multiple people. People who do this are known as post padders.

Replying to a single post over multiple responses, unnecessarily thread bumping, and the posting of unnecessary replies in place of using the edit post feature can also constitute post padding.

Post padding generally occurs due to one of these two reasons:

1. Ignorance - the post padder is unaware that you can reply to multiple people in a single reply.

2. Boosting one's post count - the post padder is actively aware of the offense they are committing, but chooses to continue doing so to allow them to raise their post count. Possibly, these people may have a case of post count envy.


http://www.actuary.com/actuarial-discussion-forum/showthread.php?t=1595

If you didn't read that thread, you wouldn't get that the comment was a joke that was understood by both parties. ;)

[SirVLCIV]

This is a forum for actuarial science discussion.

No funny business!

[leibniz]

yea, **** it up, bucko. it's all fun and games until leibniz builds his empire and holds the world hostage for *pinky in mouth* one mmmMIIIILLLion DOOOllars!


This is a forum for actuarial science discussion.

No funny business!