Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Moody's - Climate Risk Insurers series
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • June 2014
06

Let's talk about maths

Open-access content Friday 30th May 2014 — updated 4.50pm, Tuesday 14th April 2020
2

In Rizwan Majeed Khan's letter (The Actuary, April 2014), he calls for more mathematically oriented exams. Over the past 20 years, I have built up some sympathy with this view - at least from the UK perspective - and believe a proper debate is needed.

Mathematicians (including statisticians, operational research and computer scientists) who work in the field of 'big data', perhaps more technically labelled as 'data analytics' or 'data science', seem to have mathematical ability which is often stronger than that of many actuaries. And it seems to be these areas where there has been 'big growth' over the last decade (I hear stories of one mature organisation increasing numbers of data analysts from 30 to 200 people in two years and they are by no means alone). Yet outside some insurance applications on pricing, I have been told this is an "actuary-free" zone and I'm not aware of any material counter-evidence. This is one of the reasons for suggesting a proper analysis, since actuaries have the potential and should, in my view, be positively getting into new highly valued and rewarding fields.

To those who argue we need to have actuaries who can also communicate and write reports, I would agree. But I would ask for evidence that the essay style required in some of the exams, has done anything to make actuaries better at communicating than other mathematicians not taking actuarial exams. 

I am conscious of what a senior civil servant once said to me: "Actuaries come across as stuck in their ways and wanting to avoid change." Consistent with this message, and on some scenarios for the long-term effects of changes in UK private sector pensions, there is clearly an option to keep the exams broadly as they are and simply welcome the long-term goal of a future expectation of life and general insurance. While this option has a lot going for it, I know many do not share this goal including those, like me, who support the sentiment in Kelvin Chamunorwa's April editorial that actuaries should critically inform wider business decisions. But outside insurance and DB pensions, what is the evidence on our reputation for this? 

The long-term future for actuaries in the profession's home UK base is at a crossroads. Mr Khan's letter seems to be a good trigger for reviewing options. We should ask what we expect actuaries of the future to need by way of mathematical ability, to ask what should be in the exams and ask how long it should take to qualify once ability is proven. We should ask what the best answers to these questions are in the competitive world for quality graduates while maintaining a proper sense of realism. Looking at the exams is a necessary step.

Try answering the following questions to see how you measure up to the booming work for mathematicians:

1. Who was Thomas Bayes and what is he famous for?

2. What is the GLM?

3. What is boot strapping?

4. What sort of software is R and can you use it?

5. What are the four Vs?

6. In the context of this letter, what can fire hose deliver?

7. What is Nate Silver famous for?

8. Name the leading actress in Zero Dark Thirty and what is the relevance of this question? 

9. What is the difference you might get in newspaper headlines if you issue a press release saying: (a) up to 100,000 people may die; or (b) the chances of there being more than 100,000 deaths is very small

10. Have you ever tweeted?

Trevor Llanwarne, 28 April

Answers will be published in the next issue of The Actuary

The editor welcomes readers' letters but reserves the right to edit them for publication. Please email [email protected]. The deadline for receiving letters for the July issue is 18 June 2014. 

This article appeared in our June 2014 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in
06

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Environmental, Social and Governance- GI Actuary

England, London
£70000 - £170000 per annum
Reference
145888

Calling All Australian Actuaries

England, London
£50000 - £120000 per annum
Reference
145887

Calling all GI Actuaries looking to move into contracting

England, London
£700 - £1000 per day
Reference
145886
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2023 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ