Tuition fee protest

Wookster

Really2 wrote: »

PSMSL:rotfl:

So You Think the
Institute of Chartered Accountants Ireland
Institute of Chartered Accountants Wales
Institute of Chartered Accountants Scotland
Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

What top jobs in england require those then (even public sector would prefer a CIMA or ACCA accountant but their is more to be mad in the private sector if you are good.)

Find me a top management account job that does not require CIMA or ACCA

I think you know nothing about accountancy. CIMA is usually classed as the top qualification. Look up why, the name gives it away.

Why do I know this? I am a qualified accountant who did not go down the uni route.

I would say you need to research this a bit, go to post 48
http://www.reed.co.uk/job-details/Sidcup/Accounts-Manager/Management-Accountant/?JobID=19579161&s=1756&sb=3&so=1&ns=True&sr=1&FromSector=1&1
Salary £35K

http://www.reed.co.uk/job-details/London/Accounts-Manager/Commercial-Financial-Planning-and-Analysis-Manger/?JobID=19646008&s=1756&sb=3&so=1&ns=True&sr=1&FromSector=1&
£65-£75K

Sorry Really2 but you're not being objective here. There is slightly different focus between the 3 qualifications and some of the old school types tend to be hung up on the ACA vs ACCA vs CIMA but a qualified account is a qualified accountant and they are all excellent qualifications. What matters more is your experience as this varies enormously between accountants.

Degenerate

diable wrote: »

Hmmmm maybe gone off track a bit as it was late, what I meant was that if you are gifted no matter from what background you should have the opportunity to educate yourself further at a reasonable cost. Far too many people leave Uni with a degree in some obscure and meaningless subject thinking they will waltz in to a high salaried position but in reality if they are lucky to find a job they will end up in Phones 4 U or a call centre in the middle of nowhere.

Scholarships, grants, reasonably priced evening classes helped a lot of people my age better themselves and move up in the world but I don't think those times will ever return as nowadays as most people are trying to juggle holding down a job, earning enough to survive and paying ridiculous fees for child care.

As someone mentioned earlier a lot of people have been brainwashed into thinking that they must or have to go to Uni, fantastic business plan if you are selling something in getting the masses to believe they must have it, bit like Ugg boots..............

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. Maybe I misinterpreted your previous posts, but it seemed to me that you were speaking up in support of the fee rises. With these changes, a student studying in at a London institution that charges the full £9K could find themselves with about £48K of debt at the end of a 3 year degree. However much leeway they give with repayments, I don't see how that can be anything but a massive deterrent for those of modest backgrounds.

The solution, IMO, is to keep funding arrangements affordable for all but limit the number of places. Drastically slash the useless subjects whilst maintaining the worthier ones, and allocate places purely by academic merit. For those who miss out on uni we need to invest in cheaper and more useful vocational training and apprenticeships.

Malcolm.

I think University should be opened up to the free market economy. University renumeration linked to graduates future earnings (recoup a %age of income), that would put an end to non-degrees.

The very best and brightest should receive help, this will ensure those from poor families don't miss out.

The number of places, and/or the types of courses should not be decided by market forces, not a centralised bureacracy.

Procrastinator333

My first post in this thread was I thought a pretty useful post. Link off to some research that gave an answer to a question people were guessing at. And now I get ranted at. Calm down!

Really2 wrote: »

The point was relating to get a job? Most good jobs require either CIMA or ACCA (or ACA).
How far would you like to drag this off topic?

Is a degree aprerequisite to getting a good accounts job or not?

You know the answer anyone can get a good accountancy job without a university degree.

A degree is not a prerequisite to a good accounts job. Definately not. But it is still the path that the majority take. It is also the path most likely to lead to higher salaries in your career. But again, that is of course an average, there are plenty who don't fit this mould. But to say that the majority of accoutnants don't have a degree and that ACCA and CIMA are the top qualifications is simply wrong.

Really2 wrote: »

You have just proved it showing non university qualified directors posts are now in the FTSE 100. Peal that back 10 20 30 years and you would expect 100% to be University qualified.

Please quote where I said there were no non university qualified directors? I didn't. Simply highlighting again that the most likely path to the more senior roles and higher salaries is a degree and the ICAEW. But again, that is of course not a rule. As that link showed, plenty others make it. Some don't have any qualification (though that actually worries me a bit!).

Really2 wrote: »

PS, if you are such a hot shot what is the program they study at ICEAW would it be ACA? Can you become a member of the ICEAW with CIMA or ACCA............yes.
ICEAW is a body, not a qualification, you can get a pathway to any providing you sit thier exams. In reality there is very little between the 3, all three are wanted for top jobs. (as stated and proved)

How many actually change their accountancy body? If you can find stats on it, by all means, but who would go to the hassle of it? What is the point of switching to the ICAEW if the ACCA or CIMA is better?

In terms of exams, I haven't studied or looked at them all, but I would be surprised if there is much in it. The difference is the work experience.

Really2 wrote: »

Depends how you look at top pay, because so many do ACA the average wage is £51K I think CIMA is £43K But top is £119K ACA and £128K CIMA.
One average you would earn more ACA but there is a scope to get paid more with CIMA.

As I don't know the geographical spread of CIMA vs ACA, I took the london region, but the data is all there if you like:

http://www.icaew.com/index.cfm/route/171484/icaew_ga/Members/Business/Career_Benchmarking_Survey/London_findings/pdf

Average London ACA salary including bonus = £107.9k

http://www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/Jobs-docs/Salary_Survey/CIMA%20Qualified%20salary%20survey_UK_20.10.2010.pdf

Average London CIMA salary including bonus = £75.8k.



There are plenty of excellent accountants who have done or are doing the ACCA or CIMA. There are plenty of excellent accountants who have not taked a degree related route. However, the majority do have a degree and the ICAEW and the ACA pays better on average.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

PSMSL:rotfl:

So You Think the
Institute of Chartered Accountants Ireland
Institute of Chartered Accountants Wales
Institute of Chartered Accountants Scotland
Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

What top jobs in england require those then (even public sector would prefer a CIMA or ACCA accountant but their is more to be mad in the private sector if you are good.)

Find me a top management account job that does not require CIMA or ACCA

I think you know nothing about accountancy. CIMA is usually classed as the top qualification. Look up why, the name gives it away.

Why do I know this? I am a qualified accountant who did not go down the uni route.

70% of finance directors (with an accountancy qualification) in the FTSE 100 were Chartered (i.e. ICAEW) and 10% CIMA.

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/1781678/qualifications-class-fds

That 70% rhymes (oddly or not) with the % with a degree.

StevieJ

I guess this is ideal for some retired people (those BBs again ) who perhaps earn a reasonable pension of say £20k, they could do a degree for fun (as some do) and never have to pay the fees back, or is there some restriction?

tomterm8

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So in four years time the deficit has been resolved. That still leaves around £1,300 million in Government debt to service.

Todays problems will take a decade to resolve.

I think I have already answered this point, Thrugelmir.

Several times.

Even from a purely numerical perspective, it makes no sence. The OECD says that the net benefit over a life time for the average graduate is £82k.

So, it makes little sence to say that, as a society, we should reduce things that over the long term produce a net positive benefit to our fiscal position.

It's rather like a business deciding not to produce stereos which it makes money on, because in the short term it costs money to buy the parts.

Except, at least in the business case, it will produce a short term cashflow boost, but these changes will actually harm the short term cash flow of the UK.

Foolish.

We should concentrate on those things that produce no benefit to society or poor returns for society, and eliminating them.

That's common sense.

Blobby8_2

If we are sending 40% of our kids to university does that mean 40% of jobs require a university education ?

Cleaver

Blobby8 wrote: »

If we are sending 40% of our kids to university does that mean 40% of jobs require a university education ?

There's actually not many jobs out there that 'require' a university education, as in the university teaches you something that you have to have to do the job. Medicine I guess? Law? Egineering?

I guess most degrees are (were?) seen as a benchmark type of qualification that a lot of employers ask for just because they can.

tomterm8

There are a lot of jobs out there that do not 'require' a university education, but where a university education makes it very much easier to get your foot in the door.