Talk:Actuary

Opening definition of actuary

I don't think that the current description of an actuary provides a clear idea to people of what actuaries actually do. It merely links actuaries with financial risk - but what is it that actuaries actually do and what do companies pay them for? In the opening actuarial subject of my actuarial uni degree one of the first things they did was provide us with what they thought is the most comprehensive, clear and concise definition of an actuary: "An actuary is a professional who analyses risky cash flows to provide advice for the purpose of strategic decision making." I can find a broadly similar definition here: http://www.actuaries.org/ABOUT/Brochures/Actuarial_Profession_EN.pdf Utopial (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Actuaries analyze more than risky cash flows. I think the description here is actually better:

The future is uncertain. Some of the events that can happen are undesirable. "Risk" is the possibility that an undesirable event will occur. Actuaries are experts in:

*Evaluating the likelihood of future events
*Designing creative ways to reduce the likelihood of undesirable events
*Decreasing the impact of undesirable events that do occur.

-- Avi (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Roles and Responsibilities

Why is this section removed again and again?

Typically, an actuarial career progresses through several roles, depending on qualifications and experience, such as:

1. Trainee (i.e. apprentice, temp)
2. Executive (i.e. surveyor, modeller, analyst)
3. Associate Actuary (i.e. team leader)
4. Actuary (i.e. project manager) and
5. Chief Actuary (i.e. risk director)

within an organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.218.253 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Avraham removed it because, as he wrote in his edit summary, it is "Incorrect AND unsupported". I just removed it for the same reason. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WProject

Actuaries are a type of statisticians, and thus the article is in scope. -- Avi (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. The WikiProject Statistics is about the science of statistics (otherwise its scope would be so broad as to being able to include every article on Wikipedia, since one can collect statistical data on just about any topic and therefore claim that that topic belongs to WPStatistics). Additionally it was agreed that WPStatistics would include the history of statistical science, and the biographies or prominent statisticians (again scientists). The article statistician falls within the scope of the project only barely, since statisticians can be either applied or theorists, and if we include the biographies of theoretical statisticians, we have to include the definition of the term statistician as well. But since actuaries are not actually scientists, it's a purely applied field, this article falls out of scope of the project... I'm not saying that it's a bad article or anything like that, just the scope of WPStatistics is purely theoretical and not applied.  // stpasha »  07:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Let us continue the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics#Clarification of scope? -- Avi (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I see now that the List of statisticians clearly specifies that it includes prominent statisticians, actuaries and demographers, which makes the article related to the project. However I will reassess the importance in WPStatistics template to at least Mid.  // stpasha »  16:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Credentialing section

I think it is about time that the credentialing section be spun off into its own article, per summary style. Perhaps a brief mention of the largest systems worldwide (UK, US, Australia) can be mentioned, but it should be brief and lead to a new article. Any ideas for the name of the new article; something like "Actuarial credentials"? -- Avi (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

picture

Can't we find a nicer pic than Katrina?

Say, a cemetery?

Or the Bills of Mortality? Or Lloyds of London? Meepbobeep (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture used in Actuarial science, but it lacks the "oomph" of Katrina, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And it's already in the article :) -- Avi (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was completed thrown off by the picture on discovering this page. After reading the article, I can see the relevance but I do not understand why we have chosen a disaster over any other possible relevant image, this event in particular over any other or, in fact, this image over any other - it is not clear or interesting. FloreatAntiquaDomus —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloreatAntiquaDomus (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have another suggestion? -- Avi (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be too irreverent to use the About Schmidt poster?  :) MikeTheActuary (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes :P (and a fair-use violation as well) -- Avi (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest that the next time there's a CAS or SOA meeting in Las Vegas, someone contribute a picture of attendees at the roulette wheel.  ;) MikeTheActuary (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

First Black actuary

Here is a reference of sorts for the fact that Robert J. Randall Sr. was the first black actuary. FSA 1952

http://vimeo.com/1541614

Sugarfoot1001 07:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarfoot1001 (talk • contribs)

Strange reference style?

Why are the links/sources in this article laid out as a journal article, eg "...[t]his is the second half of a sentence (Jones, 1942)." and not "...[t]his is the last half of a sentence {ref tag}."? Also the resources section is laid out differently, I think? Or, is the layout of this article different than that of other wikipedia articles? biancasimone (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)