Degree vs Experience

Kemik said:
While not all of the Chartered Accountancy exams require a degree, without one will require just as long if you train with any of the Big Four. You need a Chartership if you want to be an auditor.

There's always management accounting!
Click to expand...

Actually I dont understand why people think CA is better than any of the
professional quals. Its got a better prospect for earnings for the few % that manage to make a long term career out of it, but for most it ends up as dreary years followed by being kicked out.
Most CA work is dreary and boring, unless you specialise in certain fields.

Most CAs that I know who left the profession and worked outside the big four have said they really disliked the work. Where as personally I loved working from day one after going directly to study CIMA at age 18.

Now 20 years later I know I went the right way, I hate tax, stat accounting and those types of things. I love investment appraisals, management and understanding a business where I add value.
 
robskinner said:
Actually I dont understand why people think CA is better than any of the
professional quals. Its got a better prospect for earnings for the few % that manage to make a long term career out of it, but for most it ends up as dreary years followed by being kicked out.
Most CA work is dreary and boring, unless you specialise in certain fields.

Most CAs that I know who left the profession and worked outside the big four have said they really disliked the work. Where as personally I loved working from day one after going directly to study CIMA at age 18.

Now 20 years later I know I went the right way, I hate tax, stat accounting and those types of things. I love investment appraisals, management and understanding a business where I add value.
Click to expand...
Its my opinion that CIMA is just prestigious as CA's, they just work more with management decisions thus tend work in actual industry. I think most people think that.
 
UK-AL05 said:
http://www.michelin.com/corporate/EN/group/corporate-governance/team

Apear to have degrees to me.
Click to expand...

They are the very top management (in France) and they still probably got their degrees with their apprenticeship.
Back in 1974 I had four workmates who were put into the top seed and had to go to Manchester to do degrees.
I stayed on a HNC with my apprenticeship.

As a Michelin Apprentice you had to do college work alongside your Apprenticeship - some stayed on City & Guilds, then ONC, then HNC, then degree.
 
robskinner said:
Actually I dont understand why people think CA is better than any of the
professional quals. Its got a better prospect for earnings for the few % that manage to make a long term career out of it, but for most it ends up as dreary years followed by being kicked out.
Most CA work is dreary and boring, unless you specialise in certain fields.

Most CAs that I know who left the profession and worked outside the big four have said they really disliked the work. Where as personally I loved working from day one after going directly to study CIMA at age 18.
Click to expand...

The reason why ACA/CA is usually rated higher than CIMA by employers is because:
1. It's apparently more difficult.
2. The audit team have seen a range of clients, including the employer's competitors (as audit is split in to market sectors) and are therefore useful to know business systems inside out and what can work better for the new employer that their competitors are doing.
3. Auditors are highly trained in the latest legislation. The Big Four spend a fortune on these guys and the employers are more than willing to reap the rewards.

Personally, I work in tax (CTA & CA qualified soon) and I haven't picked my specialism yet (although I do currently work in Transfer Pricing) but if I stayed in TP, employers would be attracted to me because of the experience I have working with a range of clients and knowledge of the latest TP and tax legislation. It's a specialist area that would be too expensive to train someone in house for when they can just pay me a bit more than the Big Four and steal me to their company.

It's all about saving the money!
 
Kemik said:
The reason why ACA/CA is usually rated higher than CIMA by employers is because:
1. It's apparently more difficult.
2. The audit team have seen a range of clients, including the employer's competitors (as audit is split in to market sectors) and are therefore useful to know business systems inside out and what can work better for the new employer that their competitors are doing.
3. Auditors are highly trained in the latest legislation. The Big Four spend a fortune on these guys and the employers are more than willing to reap the rewards.

Personally, I work in tax (CTA & CA qualified soon) and I haven't picked my specialism yet (although I do currently work in Transfer Pricing) but if I stayed in TP, employers would be attracted to me because of the experience I have working with a range of clients and knowledge of the latest TP and tax legislation. It's a specialist area that would be too expensive to train someone in house for when they can just pay me a bit more than the Big Four and steal me to their company.

It's all about saving the money!
Click to expand...

Interesting views, certainly 1 & 2 I haven't heard quoted before.

1. I certainly haven't heard any employer ever mention the difficulty of exams.

2. I can see a slim amount of truth in, but I can say for sure no auditor I have ever come across has ever seen enough of any companies systems and processes that I have worked for in enough detail to be useful elsewhere.

3. True, they are more up to date, but its rarely used day in day out other than in a few very specialist roles. Certainly the first and last company I worked for paid a tax specialist to do the work for us, as you say the skills go out of date fast if not kept up to date which would be the risk if you took an expert from the Big 4, also there is this think called CPD (continual professional development) that basically keeps people up to date anyway, long gone are the days you passed your exams and then just ignored most legislation. They would have big issues if their staff were not great in knowledge.

Also the last company I worked at we had a partner from KPMG brief us 6 monthly on anything relelvant to us. They even worked on our companies behalf and helped influence some legislation, that was known as well by us as them, its not all one sided.
 
Last edited:
I'm about to start training towards ACA in a smallish firm.

Big 4 really doesn't appeal to me. It's all down to personal taste.
 
Kemik said:
Your wife chose the wrong degree - BA Accounting from University of Liverpool got me full exemptions from the entry levels exams.

The school leaver programs for the Big Four take 5 years to fully qualify. This is one year less than a degree + qualification but if you fail your exams twice you're fired, which judging from the amount of school leavers remaining in my office, happens often or they delay to the next intake so they have more time to revise as it's a massive jump from A level standards.

While you can sit the qualifications yourself, you need experience to fully qualify. The degree gets you in to the Big Four if you're decent enough in interviews and have some examples of where you have worked well in a team. The A levels can get you on the Big Four school leaver programs but they face the difficulties described above.

Having seen both methods, I'm glad I done the degree then qualifications.
Click to expand...



She laughed when I told her that she had the wrong degree. She has some sort of Accounting and Finance degree from LSE.

She said that the degree route was slower than if she accepted the offer she had after her A levels. She also said that with the ACCA route you gain a degree anyway.

I suspect that it is entirely down to personal choice and what you want to end up doing. My wife is ambitious and has fast tracked (after her idea of a slow start) to be in a position that few of her age could expect to be in. She took huge leaps of faith with leaving the big 4 and going into industry, everyone was telling her she was making a mistake etc....yet she did it anyway and she was ultimately right I suppose.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;18744273 said:
Correct.

It just takes a heck of a lot longer.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but is the length worth more than the the 4 years of degree plus relevant experience, and also the added cost of a degree compared to the apprenticeship/experience route.
 
I definitely think that more emphasis should be placed on practical vocational qualifications in any field. Degrees should be limited to those who want to pursue an academic career or to those who may well need a degree for a job that requires it.

I also think it is about time that employers take an active role in the education policy and especially with formulation of courses that specifically satisfy the 'current' requirments of businesses. So as business needs change so do the courses; rather than bemoaning constantly about young people not having enough work experience which imo is the responsibility of employers to provide such experience.
Employers need to broaden their outlook aswell especially in recruiting young people.

I have said it many times that there should be a collaboration between employers, educational institutions and government to help young people getting into work places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom