CA versus Law

[CISSP]

Originally Posted by valo403

To who??

to me

[AR_Six]

Yeah I wouldn't have wanted to article there.

I really disagree on this. From UofT your probably fine applying with average or just above average marks. From UBC you needed to be in the top 20-10% or have amazing pre-work experience to secure a job at a top firm in Toronto.

I know a handful of people who went to Tdot from UBC, and they weren't all the potential-gold-medalist all star guys and girls. They were all pretty much on par with the group who got big firm jobs in town, they just chose to apply out of town.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Yeah I wouldn't have wanted to article there.

I know a handful of people who went to Tdot from UBC, and they weren't all the potential-gold-medalist all star guys and girls. They were all pretty much on par with the group who got big firm jobs in town, they just chose to apply out of town.

Were there father's big time lawyers in Toronto? I went to UBC and yes many students there did secure big law jobs in Toronto. However, if I could rank the factors they looked at I would say:

1) who your parents are

2) your grades

3) your grades

4)what professional experience do you have

However, I think that average grades at UofT were not perceived the same way average marks at UBC were. I also know students from UofT, and they definitely had the edge. Even in OCIs, the large Toronto firms were very unintersted in anything but the top 30% of students at UBC, and probably only made offers to anyone in less than the top 20% if they had some other form of outstanding quality.

[AR_Six]

No they weren't. They were generally the type of people who interview well, but that helps regardless of city or school.

And okay, if you're outside of the top 30% (really, if you're outside of the top 15%, unless you have something else to reccommend you), why would you expect the top flite best firms in the Country to want to hire you? Yeah, of course you need the marks or the connections to get your ass in the door. They only have so many slots in interview week. That's true regardless of whether you're interviewing Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal, or Toronto. It's not like "Oh you have a 70 average and went to U of T, well, we'll consider that about even with a 76 average from UBC". Not the case, man. Now, if you're interviewing at a Toronto firm when you're from Abbotsford and have no discernible reason to want to move to Ontario outside of finding a good job, that might be a concern, but it's not because UBC is somehow looked at as a lesser school than U of T.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

My ex was a CA and she dealt with audits amonst other things. It does have mobility. She showed me her pay scale, and after two years of being a CA, she was due 95K+ bonus, and after 10 years, she'll be making over a quarter mil a year.

I don't much about it other that.

Is this real? Is it typical?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Is this real? Is it typical?

I think it only applies to the very very slim minority of graduates who manage to hold jobs with major firms for that long and work their way up to the top.

I know CAs who make far less than this. They still do fairly well for themselves though.

[CISSP]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Is this real? Is it typical?

If you work for a big 4. You basically cannot invest anywhere (Any firm the firm has globally worked with, I know KPMG is laxing these standards but Deloitte is still pretty stringent). Neither can your immediate family. Think of the high salary as a way of compensating you for your inability to invest.

And yes this is typically a reflection of skill level and seniority. There are a couple seniors who earn more than managers at my office due to the unique skill sets they have. Talking 140k for around 6 years seniority.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CISSP

Trout, if you don't mind me asking, which Lawschool did you go to? I was always interested to see where people decided to go. I actually sat on a couple offers before I decided to go the CA route (co-oped at Deloitte through undergrad and stuck around postgrad)

UBC. I elected Vancouver over Edmonton and Victoria, for the fun, fun, fun.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Is this real? Is it typical?

If you are a CA with 10 years experience, maybe. If you are still in public practice you'll be a senior manager or a partner. A Big 4 partner can pull down that amount, but there is no way a senior manager makes that, even in Calgary.

In Alberta (highest compensation amongst the provinces), a CA with five years of post qualifying experience (5 years after they got their CA) earns an average of $150,000 in compensation, as per the latest CA survey. The number goes to $385,000 for 25-29 years of post qualifying experience. A newly designated CA in Alberta averages $75,000 per year.

They don't have a 10 year average, but with 5-9 years post qualification the average is $180,000. With 10-14 years, it's $235,000.

To earn these figures, add 3-4 years to the timeframe for how far out of university you'll be, as these are the articling years where you start at around $35,000 now and go up to approximately $60,000 before you attain your CA designation.

[CISSP]

Originally Posted by troutman

UBC. I elected Vancouver over Edmonton and Victoria, for the fun, fun, fun.

Ah cool. Vancouver is fun. Especially compared to Victoria.

[flamesflames444]

Originally Posted by CISSP

If you work for a big 4. You basically cannot invest anywhere (Any firm the firm has globally worked with, I know KPMG is laxing these standards but Deloitte is still pretty stringent). Neither can your immediate family. Think of the high salary as a way of compensating you for your inability to invest.

And yes this is typically a reflection of skill level and seniority. There are a couple seniors who earn more than managers at my office due to the unique skill sets they have. Talking 140k for around 6 years seniority.

I'm not sure I agree with the statement that the high salary is a way of compensating you for your inability to invest. First off, salaries in industry outside of public practice are at least on par if not higher especially taking into account stock options, RSUs, PSUs, or whatever compensation plan your company employs.

Independence rules for investing when in public practice amongst the Big 4 are stringent however they mostly relate to clients for whom the firm audits. At the end of the day, that may translate to at most 1/3 of the companies out there. I will agree they are rather ridiculous, for example, if the firm that you work for audits TD Bank out of Toronto, no one globally can even hold a TD mutual fund.

And if there are 6th year seniors in your office, the big question is why haven't they made manager yet which would usually happen in their fourth or fifth year.

As an aside, I was with a Big 4 firm for 8 years until I moved out into industry six months ago.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Hello CP,

I have once again decided to plug the collective brain of this board as it seems there are a lot of well-paid posters with a lot of free time

Anywho, I know at first glance these may seem like completely divergent careers and that I should really know what I would choose between these two, but truth is both require a lot of time to complete, and require a lot of hard work.

This is more of a reconnaissance mission. First, the reasons I find both appealing is the difficulty and intellectual stimulation. However, I am kind of at a crossroads.

Is a CA very restricted into doing audits and accounting or do they move more into strategy and etc as they move up the corporate ladder. Also, is it a flexible designation?

With law, I feel like I am approaching it kind of naively, I just kind of want to know what a day in the life of a lawyer is actually like.

Also, I have heard that law is starting to become a bit saturated, and that future outlook may not be as strong, can anyone speak for or against this in regards to Canada?

Finally, is it a numbers versus word thing?

Thank you again CP

The trouble with careers are that there is an extremly good chance that what ever you choose to do will end up being fairly repetative, whether it is law or CP or plumbing, therefore you had better like whatever it is you do enough to like it even when you end up doing a crap load of tax returns for a living or endless repetative divorce of house convayencing.

Don't choose due to money, most anything will pay well enough to keep a roof over your head, getting filthy rich beyond that is more a matter of luck, passion or connections, you may well be a brilliant lawyer and end up doing legal aid work with juvies or the like for less than the schmoe that fixes your car because that appeals to you.

Typically whatever you do if it pays several hundred grand a year plus it is because that is your whole life with late hours and working weekends routinely etc, at 30 when you have a kid and are trying to keep a marriage together that looks a hell of alot less pleasent than a decent wage and a decent life outside of work, even if that means your career is mundane.

[geos]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The trouble with careers are that there is an extremly good chance that what ever you choose to do will end up being fairly repetative, whether it is law or CP or plumbing, therefore you had better like whatever it is you do enough to like it even when you end up doing a crap load of tax returns for a living or endless repetative divorce of house convayencing.

Don't choose due to money, most anything will pay well enough to keep a roof over your head, getting filthy rich beyond that is more a matter of luck, passion or connections, you may well be a brilliant lawyer and end up doing legal aid work with juvies or the like for less than the schmoe that fixes your car because that appeals to you.

Typically whatever you do if it pays several hundred grand a year plus it is because that is your whole life with late hours and working weekends routinely etc, at 30 when you have a kid and are trying to keep a marriage together that looks a hell of alot less pleasent than a decent wage and a decent life outside of work, even if that means your career is mundane.

Great post/points.

Generally the really high paying stuff is that way because you've given up a huge chunk of your personal life. Working 70 hours a week is one thing to say and another to do it for a few years...

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

If you are a CA with 10 years experience, maybe. If you are still in public practice you'll be a senior manager or a partner. A Big 4 partner can pull down that amount, but there is no way a senior manager makes that, even in Calgary.

In Alberta (highest compensation amongst the provinces), a CA with five years of post qualifying experience (5 years after they got their CA) earns an average of $150,000 in compensation, as per the latest CA survey. The number goes to $385,000 for 25-29 years of post qualifying experience. A newly designated CA in Alberta averages $75,000 per year.

They don't have a 10 year average, but with 5-9 years post qualification the average is $180,000. With 10-14 years, it's $235,000.

To earn these figures, add 3-4 years to the timeframe for how far out of university you'll be, as these are the articling years where you start at around $35,000 now and go up to approximately $60,000 before you attain your CA designation.

Just a question, but these surveys are voluntary right? So basically it's as flawed as the CP "how much do you make" poll in that generally, people who make lots and want to brag about it will fill it out, but people who think they make less than the standard average will not fill it out. So it skews the results. It's the same with any professional survey IMO, so you have to take that number with a grain of salt.

[CISSP]

Originally Posted by flamesflames444

I'm not sure I agree with the statement that the high salary is a way of compensating you for your inability to invest. First off, salaries in industry outside of public practice are at least on par if not higher especially taking into account stock options, RSUs, PSUs, or whatever compensation plan your company employs.

Independence rules for investing when in public practice amongst the Big 4 are stringent however they mostly relate to clients for whom the firm audits. At the end of the day, that may translate to at most 1/3 of the companies out there. I will agree they are rather ridiculous, for example, if the firm that you work for audits TD Bank out of Toronto, no one globally can even hold a TD mutual fund.

And if there are 6th year seniors in your office, the big question is why haven't they made manager yet which would usually happen in their fourth or fifth year.

As an aside, I was with a Big 4 firm for 8 years until I moved out into industry six months ago.

At Deloitte, alot of seniors choose not to make the jump to manager because they feel they are not well suited to handling engagement teams. Many of them decide to stay as seniors because, frankly, they possess a skill set more suited to that role.

Regarding compesation, I think I was misunderstood when I said higher salary, Seniors tend to be compensated at greater rates to compensate for the lack of ability to invest when compared to juniors. However overall, Big 4 compensation is pretty sparse considering the hours and travel you have to put in. So what I meant to say, is they attempt to compensate you for the lack of investing, but they don't really get there.

[CISSP]

Originally Posted by fotze

I know very little about accounting, after the oil gets sold, its a big mystery what happens then.

What is it that requires so much expertise (and I believe it does, I just don't know what it is).

Is it all tax related stuff?

There are geology for engineer courses, are there any accounting for engineers courses? Finance courses?

Audits. Accounting deals with assurance. They basically issue reports that the companies finances are good. Its a check and balance system. It's why when a Company goes down due to fraud, or some white collar crime, there is usually blood on the hands of the inevitable big 4 that did their books.

It's why the Big 5 is now the Big 4. (See: Enron)

[tjinaz]

Nothing should get past the auditor but it does....question is was it intentionally hidden or just overlooked. CISSP or CISA are good certs and if you specialize in compliance it pays really well. Systems have to be audited too.

I started out in Finance and went IT. Just seemed a lot more fun making things work than moving paper from one side of my desk to the other. If you are not hell bent on MBA look into MSIM degree. It is starting to take off and is more a for the tech folks than the standard MBA.


Accenture LIVES!

[The Yen Man]

If you're really gung ho, do both, and become an international tax lawyer. You'll be making 200K+ easily.

[flamesflames444]

Originally Posted by CISSP

At Deloitte, alot of seniors choose not to make the jump to manager because they feel they are not well suited to handling engagement teams. Many of them decide to stay as seniors because, frankly, they possess a skill set more suited to that role.

Regarding compesation, I think I was misunderstood when I said higher salary, Seniors tend to be compensated at greater rates to compensate for the lack of ability to invest when compared to juniors. However overall, Big 4 compensation is pretty sparse considering the hours and travel you have to put in. So what I meant to say, is they attempt to compensate you for the lack of investing, but they don't really get there.

Well maybe it's different at Deloitte and on the IT consulting side as a whole for that matter, but at the other Big 4 firm I was at, generally speaking, only the incompetent don't get promoted to manager as it's a general rite of passage if you are going to stick around the firm (and that includes the IT side of the business).

[CISSP]

Originally Posted by flamesflames444

Well maybe it's different at Deloitte and on the IT consulting side as a whole for that matter, but at the other Big 4 firm I was at, generally speaking, only the incompetent don't get promoted to manager as it's a general rite of passage if you are going to stick around the firm (and that includes the IT side of the business).

Well I worked at both the Toronto and Vancouver offices. But generally, during their year-end reviews, they can make it pretty clear to management that they'll take slightly less pay to retain their senior position. Generally speaking though, most people jump at the opportunity to be manager, and yes the time frame is usuall 4-5 years.