Book review: CONFESSIONS OF AN ACTUARIAL TUTOR (John Lee)

As part of my job, I have to sit actuarial exams in tandem to working. I sat CM1 and CS1 in April, and CS2 in September (the M stands for Maths and S stands for Statistics). I have had the good fortune of having passed all three exams I sat this year (hence the rather extravagant Christmas present I got myself), but luck was only a small factor in why I was successful. John Lee, who’s expert tutelage I received for the two Statistics modules, played a huge part.

That's not him btw.

His new book, Confessions of an Actuarial Tutor, is a compendium of amusing things that happened to him in his ~20 years of teaching actuarial students. For anyone who’s ever met John, he writes as he speaks: a mixture of gallows humour, self-deprecatory banter, nerdy mathematical jokes and a sprinkle of that unique John Lee eccentricity.

My Gal Gadot piercing

As part of my job, I have to sit professional exams in order to become a qualified actuary. My first sitting for these exams were this April, where I sat two. I was fairly confident that I'd passed Statistics but almost certain that I failed Maths.

So, imagine my euphoria come results day in early July, when I saw my name on the pass list for both exams that I sat! An exam pass is so much more satisfying when you've made peace with yourself that you were going to fail it!

As a treat to myself for all that hard work I put into those passes (I was knee-deep in revision notes all the way through April; I didn't even know certain football matches had happened), I got the top of my ear pierced, as photographed below:

Given how passionate I am about films and film star culture, it should come as no surprise to you that I was inspired to get this cartilage piercing, after seeing it on Gal Gadot:

I'm not so vain and deluded that I consider myself remotely in even the same league as Ms. Gadot, but at least now I have something in common with my own pick for the most gorgeous woman in a 2016 film!

My Moneyball moment

Earlier this year, I had a job interview for a Finance role, wherein I had to give a pitch about myself. I found the task a little daunting (how does one sell themselves without sounding egotistical?), but I remembered one of the fundamental tenets of good film writing: show, don't tell.

Rather than tell my interviewers what I could do, I thought I'd show them. I said I had some experience with R, and put my money where my mouth was in the form of this graph:

So there you go: my very own "Jonah Hill in Moneyball" moment. And just like Hill's character convinced Brad Pitt with his expert understanding of baseball economics, I convinced my interviewers thanks to my graph of goals scored by Chelsea players!

And they say films don't teach you anything. ;)

No Country for Young Men

Dunkirk 2: The Frenchman Rises - where Tommy goes back for Gibson, rescues him, and the two celebrate being evacuated by going to a LA Dodgers game. Absolutely love that Barnard is wearing Ray-bans in this photo!

Over the Easter weekend, when I wasn't watching my club lose miserably to Spurs, I was making the most of the poll function on Instagram, to investigate one of life's most important, unanswered questions:

Just who is the hottest actor in Dunkirk?

Statistical Analysis of the 141 films I watched in 2017, with BBFC analysis.

Just like last year, when I put my hard-earned coding skills into practice by analysing all the marks I’d awarded every film I watched in 2016, I repeated the process again this year.

The arithmetic mean of the 141 films was 6.64, a fractional increase from last year, meaning that my discernment skills to have improved slightly. That being said, the lowest mark out of 10 I gave last year was a 2, whereas I gave 1/10 to two films this year, and zero out of 10 to one, Darren Aronofsky’s bloated stinker, mother!, which is the worst film I’ve ever seen in my entire life, and featured that movie ingredient that I am so averse to: Jennifer Lawrence screaming her head off.

A ranking exercise (part 1)

I gave an R class on Thursday, where I showed how you can sort a dataset by more than one criteria. Here, it's sorted by BBFC rating, then IFCO rating, then alphabetically to give a rough outline of all the films I watched on my Odeon Limitless card (over two subscription years) from childish to most adult

My challenge to you: within the blocks of where the BBFC and IFCO ratings are the same (so for example, the first three films in the table), re-rank them so that the list of most childish to most adult is more accurate. Obviously this is a totally subjective exercise, but, give it a go!

She played the fiddle in an Irish band, but she fell in love with an Englishman.

Given that romance is my favourite genre, it goes without saying that I've seen my fair share of love scenes in movies. There’s an unofficial hierarchy when it comes to how strict the BBFC, IFCO and MPAA are when it comes to lovemaking at 12A/PG-13, and it goes (from least strict to strictest): BBFC < IFCO < MPAA.

For example, the sex scenes in The Light between Oceans, Brooklyn and My Cousin Rachel received the 12A equivalent in all three films boards. About 80% of PG-13-rated sex scenes do fall in that Venn diagram intersection of BBFC, IFCO and MPAA rating sameness.

Saoirse Ronan shines in Brooklyn. She's also in the music video of Ed Sheeran's 'Galway Girl' a song I currently have stuck in my head!

Statistical Analysis of Usage of My Odeon Limitless Card

I went on a 4-hour R course last year, and since then, I’ve just been fixated with adapting the code they gave us to draw pretty graphs with, in order to nerd out over my personal interests (chiefly, films and football).

This post will be much like the one I did six months ago when I analysed my film-watching habit of 2016 across all mediums, only here, I’m just analysing the 69 titles I saw on my Odeon Limitless card with some attempts at ~science behind the graphs I present.

Review of the 133 films I watched in 2016 [with BBFC analysis]

I’m slowly going through my review of 2016 releases, one blog post per week (backlog: un et deux). As I still have quite a lot of the 2016 awards-nominated films to see and thus don't want to complete my 'review of the year' without giving them a chance first, I thought I’d buy some time by looking at all the films I watched in 2016, not just the ones that were released that year.

I watched 133 films in total last year, in a mixture of mediums, from at the cinema (my Cineworld Unlimited and Odeon Unlimited cards have both recouped their charges), at the cinema with ISENSE, whatever that is, on DVD, on the TV, on Netflix and Amazon Prime, and a few other mediums that I shan’t detail.

The arithmetic mean for the 133 films I gave out of ten was 6.54, which unfortunately shows some erroneous decision-making on my part, given I generally only watch a film if I expect it to be 7/10 in quality.

However, the appearance of a couple of lesser-seen films with my favourite actresses in, Saoirse Ronan and Rooney Mara, on Netflix, including a couple of real stinkers (Lost River, Dream Boy, Dare, Trash), would have no doubt bought this average down. Plus, while catching up with the 2015 Oscar-contention films, there were a handful which I didn’t think were that great, but watched for the sake of completeness (eg The Revenant and The Big Short), so they, too, would have skewed the average.

I recently went on an R course, so here be three graphs that indulge my statistical fascination with films (and the BBFC in particular).

What I go to school for.

I went on an R course recently just so I could produce this rather fabulous graph, of the certificates of films I've seen, and at which cinemas, since procuring my Odeon Limitless card in July.

Statistics can be fun sometimes!

--

Level 4 of my BBFC game, by the way, is purposely very very tricky. Match the film to the film which has the identical rating and short insight as it.

(Note: the short insight of the pairs don't have to be in identical order, for example, one might say 'strong language, violence, sex' and the other 'strong language, sex, violence'. That would still count as a match. Also, because the BBFC are inconsistent with 'ands', some might have an 'and' linking the reasons and others won't).