[user1324345]

these metrics are always pure garbage. Someone comes up with an equation like:

(start salary) + (median salary) + .5 * (job availablilty) + .75 * (growth) ... etc

then they rank everything, tweek it, make an article.

The scary part is people will read this and parrot this information for potentially years, "did you know actuary is the best job???"

This is actually how misinformation spreads.

[bitxbit]

Bingo. They've been saying this about actuarial science for a very long time. But they fail to mention that (1) there aren't that many positions available, (2) for students smart enough to qualify for the positions (passing the CAS etc) you are far better off going into finance or economics as an undergraduate, and (3) most importantly, actuarial science sets you up for a very specialized and narrow career path.

[stochastastic]

FWIW, I think there is a risk-reward trade off involved for many of us that end up going the actuarial route. I was broke coming out of college, without much of a network or pedigree to fall back on and the prospect of a solidly middle-to-upper class income drew me in. No regrets (other than no multimillion dollar startup exit), but I wouldn’t recommend it for most people.

[QML]

I'm fine with metrics, as long as when people say "best", they'll quote an interpretable formula -- you have to start somewhere. The issue with this metric, however, is that there seems to be no given weight towards the population size. What is the point of a metric if it isn't generalizable?

I have the same grip with college rankings. When you look at the top 20, and then at the total student population, you'd realize these rankings are useless for the majority of Americans since only a small fraction will attend these schools.

[natalyarostova]

Don't forget their inevitable spreadsheet errors.