Quote:
Originally Posted by V
Sounds more like Engineers arguing with Engineering Techs.
I'd be choked if I was a CA.
|
Disagree really. A CMA upon graduation has 2-3 years of relevant corporate experience. I question the value of 3 years of audit and tax to most corporate settings. Depends on the situation, but if I was presented with 100% equal freshly minted CMA or CA candidates for a role in my area (which is finance, but not accounting), I'd go with the CMA. They have more relevant experience at t0.
Later on in career, there is some advantage of the social network created by being a CA. But it's primarily social and not competency based. Having a good familiarity with both programs, I wouldn't say either has a huge educational compentency advantage. I don't believe that audit and tax easily translate into SOME corporate areas. Absolutely for an audit or tax position I would hire a CA first, ABSOLUTELY. But for positions in my area (corporate finance), I'd lean more heavily on the other designations as I get better value for money, if I have to hire an accountant at all.
CGA is a little different from the big two, but I still know highly competent CGAs and completely incompetent CAs so again it's more the individual.
And that's really the problem with the accounting profession that this is trying to solve IMO. They think their letters mean something to non-accoutants about their competency, and maybe their marketing has convinced some. But it's all about the individual at the end of the day. That's something that these labels ignore.
Further, the CA professional is dying, in terms of enrollment and market share. So they have no choice anyway. I wonder if that also suggests that for the broader corporate market, CMA or CGA holds greater appeal. Perhaps I can get the same job done by a highly competent CMA at a much lower cost than a CA which carries a premium in the corporate world but a questionable one.
Various things to consider. It doesn't seem like a big deal to the old folks in the CA program as they'll all have to wear their silly double designation for a decade or so. The recently minted CA's I guess can complain that they struggled for 3 years for nothing... but at the end of the day, no point in crying over spilled milk. Move on and be the best accountant that you can be.
My advice would be for the truly competent folks, the more you contribute and advance in your career, the more you let your accomplishments speak. The most successful CA's I know tend not to rely on the "I'm a CA so I'm better" attitude and more on fact that they let their achievements define them more than an educational qualification that is not HUGELY superior to others in their field.
