<p>76% of statistics are made up.</p>
<p>That means that engineers are happier 68% of the time. :-)</p>
<p>3 out of 4 times? Sure!</p>
<p>If one thinks about it, the bar for “actuary happiness” is too low. There are approx. 20k actuaries vs. approx. 1 million engineers (in the US). If 11k actuaries answer they are relatively happy, then over 50% of actuaries are happy; in contrast, you need 500k engineers to answer they are happy to get the 50%.</p>
<p>!</p>
<p>Same goes for job satisfaction!</p>
<p>“better to be a CPA/CA or actuary in a nice plush office making the dough than work in an oily sweaty chemical or manufacturing plant for peanuts and breathing in Lord knows what crap.”</p>
<p>LOL, my husband and I work in a beautiful office we added on to our house. I look out at 75-foot tall pine trees. I can walk out the door and go down a short path to the river. I can also go out for a run down rural roads whenever the mood strikes me. We’re home when our three kids get out of school, too. I wouldn’t trade my job as a structural engineer for anything.</p>
<p>MaineLonghorn, it sounds like you pretty much have it made. I can only hope to be so lucky.</p>
<p>@MaineLonghorn:</p>
<p>I enjoy personal stories such as yours. It gives people like me inspiration. The problem is that I also tend to be pessimistic (realist?) and I realize not every engineer will end up like you. </p>
<p>Another thing to consider is that actuaries generally assess risk and engineers generally solve problems. One thing I know about problem-solvers is that when they solve a problem, their reward is more problems (as it should be) but sometimes don’t get enough thanks. Actuaries just get more data to assess more risk; no thanks.</p>
<p>“Another thing to consider is that actuaries generally assess risk and engineers generally solve problems.”
- If assessing risk wasn’t a problem, they wouldn’t have to pay actuaries to do it.</p>
<p>Reading comprehension is essential.</p>
<p>Actuaries are paid to recognize the problem and develop methods minimize the effects from that problem. The problem still remains.</p>
<p>Engineers are paid to recognize the problem and develop solutions to solve the problem. The problem disappears (or becomes a new one).</p>
<p>Example: an actuary is asked to analyze the risk of crossing a bridge missing a beam; the actuary says 70% and advises not to cross the bridge. An engineer is asked to analyze the risk of crossing a bridge missing a beam; the engineer designs a new replacement beam; problem solved.</p>
<p>Further reading:</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos041.htm#nature]Actuaries[/url”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos041.htm#nature]Actuaries[/url</a>]</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#nature]Engineers[/url”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#nature]Engineers[/url</a>]</p>
<p>That is an incredibly oversimplified view of engineers and actuaries. Additionally, actuaries usually do risk assessment on things like business decisions and what kind of financial risk they entail. I have never heard of actuaries doing things like that on a bridge, as they have nowhere near the level of scientific know-how to even begin to address that problem.</p>
<p>^Hence the reason I linked an authoritative source. Here’s what the BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook says about each field:</p>
<p>[Actuaries](<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos041.htm#nature:]Actuaries[/url]:”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos041.htm#nature:):</a>
“Through their knowledge of statistics, finance, and business, actuaries assess the risk of events occurring and help create policies for businesses and clients that minimize the cost of that risk. For this reason, actuaries are essential to the insurance industry.”</p>
<p>[Engineers](<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#nature:]Engineers[/url]:”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#nature:):</a>
“Engineers apply the principles of science and mathematics to develop economical solutions to technical problems. Their work is the link between scientific discoveries and the commercial applications that meet societal and consumer needs.”</p>
<p>The oversimplified view is valid; the actuary assesses risk while the engineer solves the problem(s) that increase that risk.</p>
<p>I understand the thread was created to instigate controversy and some of the participants have posted unnecessary hostile messages. It’s as if some of you feel threatened when a post like this emerges.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>Who checks the Rochester, MN news a regular basis? Why? …anyway interesting article that you brought up.</p>
<p>[IBM</a> Rochester layoffs may number more than 1,000 - KTTC Rochester, Austin, Mason City News, Weather and Sports](<a href=“http://www.kttc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9760630]IBM”>http://www.kttc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9760630)</p>
<p>Don’t assume that the engineering profession is the IBM building in Rochester MN…It’s really not that bad, however there is something about that specific building that messes with your head. Perhaps it messed with sakky’s head… ;). Would help me make sense of your endless posts here, Sakky.</p>
<p>Maybe those dudes at Kodak could take a lesson from some of their colleagues at Polaroid: [IEEE</a> Spectrum: Zink: Inkless Printing With Colorless Color](<a href=“http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gadgets/zink-inkless-printing-with-colorless-color/0]IEEE”>http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gadgets/zink-inkless-printing-with-colorless-color/0)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IBM and Kodak are 2 storied engineering companies with a theme that is general to many firms: while some divisions of those companies will be burgeoning, others will be declining, and there is no guarantee that you will be provided opportunities to move from one division to another. IBM’s IT service engineering division continues to hire, but that’s cold comfort to those IBM AS/400 system engineers who are being laid off. </p>
<p>Similarly, Kodak does indeed have interesting cutting-edge technology divisions within the digital group that continue to hire…but that doesn’t help those analog film manufacturing engineers who are not being allowed to transition to the healthy group. It is not simply a matter of steering your career towards the healthier, growing technologies. Alas, I wish it were so simple. The company also has to acquiesce in your shifting to a healthier technology, and if they refuse, but would rather have you stuck in an obsolete division, what are you going to do?</p>
<p>Enginox:</p>
<p>Reading comprehension <em>is</em> essential. Engineers solve technical problems. Actuaries solve… Either nontechnical ones, or at least technical ones of a different sort. I repeat: if assessing risk wasn’t a problem, they wouldn’t need to pay actuaries to do it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really?</p>
<p>Can engineers solve the problem of death? </p>
<p>Let’s face it. Actuaries do things like assess the risk of giving someone life insurance, taking into accounts all health factors that could increase the risk of (or I guess cause) death. </p>
<p>But by all means, teach me. How do engineers solve this problem? What, do they go back in time and cure the diseases that exist in the family pedigree? Erase cancer? </p>
<p>This is not to say actuaries are superior to engineers, or anything of the sort, but rather, the problems they deal with are in completely different fields, with completely different answers. AuburnMathTutor got it right: if assessing risk wasn’t a problem, then they wouldn’t be paying actuaries to do it.</p>
<p>^ I’ve never heard anyone commenting that death was a problem. Odd. Nonetheless, allow me to make your cases much easier: engineers solve technical problems, actuaries solve management or risk problems, lawyers solve legal problems, doctors solve medical problems, and so on.</p>
<p>Neither is superior to the other. I don’t know why this should be mentioned, at all.</p>
<p>^ You seemed to be implying that actuaries were different than engineers because engineers solve problems. In English that has a pretty clear meaning.</p>
<p>Do you think they are similar? If that’s the case the actuary vs engineer debate is moot.</p>
<p>They are similar in that they both solve problems. All he is saying is that you implied earlier that they are different because engineers solve problems and actuaries don’t. They are different, but that is not an example of such difference. That is what AMT was pointing out.</p>
<p>^Point well taken and valid. Now that we are past that, in what ways does that useless debate relate to the original question posed? By now someone should’ve pointed out that actuary vs engineer is largely a personal preference matter, no?</p>