I attended the 2017 Actuarial Research Conference (ARC) and was fascinated by a talk that argued insurance companies should consider firearm ownership as a rating factor. Firearm presence has a stronger impact on claims than many other factors that are used. The reason for its absence is not efficacy but politics: there is opposition from groups that have a vested interest in more firearms being sold. I was intrigued and wanted to weave this kind of topic into my teaching.

Around the same time, I was finishing up the Fundamentals of Actuarial Practice modules, which examine actuarial work in a more nuanced and sophisticated way. For example, they discuss what external factors actuaries need to consider, how they set assumptions for models, and how they justify their choices. This reinforced the potential value to think beyond the textbook in my course design.

I taught ACTSC 232, the introductory life contingencies course, in Winter 2018, so this was a perfect time to incorporate some of these new ideas. Thus I developed a segment called "Think Like an Actuary" (TLA) to get students to think about the more complex issues that actuaries face, not just the formulas they need to pass exams.

I included TLA activities in many lectures (having students brainstorm ideas and collecting them on the board), in every tutorial activity (work they could do in groups and hand in, with instructors and TAs there to assist them), in every assignment (requiring them to write a one-page report), and on both midterms and the final exam (with limited time, somewhat more closed-ended questions), so it was truly fully integrated into the course.

Some TLA examples include:

• How can insurers afford to offer guaranteed issue policies? Would you buy one?
• Should it be allowable to use genetic testing information to price policies?
• What are the pros/cons/considerations of using firearm ownership as a rating factor?
• Identify concerns with a commission structure that pays agents a large amount when policies are first issued

Although students were hesitant at first, asking "so you want me to write a sentence?" and questioning why I was asking them things that were not specifically in the textbook, it didn't take long before students saw the value. They began having spirited discussions and debates, looking at underlying assumptions with a critical eye, considering multiple perspectives, and realizing the nuance of actuarial work. I was pleasantly surprised at the depth of thought that these young students (most only in second year!) were able to come up with, once they were encouraged to.

For part of their final assignment, they had to look back on all the TLA topics they had seen and write a reflective paper about what they found most surprising or interesting. I was overwhelmed by the responses. Students said things like:

• "Being an actuary is not only being able to calculate risk using complex mathematical equations, but also adapting to the changing society both technologically and socially.”
• “I find it interesting how changes in technology constantly impact the insurance industry and how actuaries must use their analytical skills to respond quickly and precisely to such changes.”

I was so inspired by the original ARC 2017 talk that not only did I develop TLA and heavily incorporate it into my course, but I ended up speaking about it at ARC 2018. My slides from that talk are below

I’m so proud of how much my wonderful students learned, and how deep they were able to extend their knowledge in their first life contingencies course. I look forward to seeing them develop into thoughtful, professional actuaries!