Why are you assuming that academic research is necessarily more valuable and/or interesting than being an actuary (which can involve some really sophisticated s

Why are you assuming that academic research is necessarily more valuable and/or interesting than being an actuary (which can involve some really sophisticated stats)? The big downside of the academy is that it's basically a zero-sum game. There's a limited pot of money, decided by the politics of the day, and all geniuses and near-geniuses are fighting for it. The added benefit of another smart person entering research is therefore limited. However, in industry, including the insurance industry, a smart person can create more growth than existed before he/she entered. The added economic stability is not in conflict to this.