I had a meeting with a business manager this morning. He said he has `an old school attitude` and he'd never employ somebody who has studied a course fast track. He said as far as he's concerned they know how to pass exams, but not necessarily how to do the job. I was quite surprised but I do recall a similar conversation a few years ago with an accountant who insisted their trainees take their time with their studies.
Now courses such as AAT are so flexible, fast track study is becoming very popular. So what do you think?
The question there surely is who puts on their CV how long it took you to pass a qualification?
EMployers are more concerned with experience than qualiifcations but having the qualifications gives one an advantage over those who do not.
The time it took to pass or indeed whether one passed every paper first time is immaterial.
If I were interviewing someone for a role having ACCA on their CV would get them through the interview room door but not to a desk. They need to back that up with:
1) Evidenced practical experience
2) Presentability
3) Confidence
4) Could I sit opposit this person for the next six months of my life (even if I wasn't the person that was going to have to do that).
All in all how long it took one to pass the exams is really no never mind so long as they did in fact pass them.
One thing that I would say is that I would give preference to those who have taken exams over those who have claimed exemptions for other learning. I really think that is a big mistake by the ACCA in that the skills level papers are to my mind the most important but people with relevant degree's can can exemptions from most of them and I know that with some degree courses bookkeeping is an optional module whereas that surely should form the foundation stone of one's studies.
Well, that's my take, interesting to hear others thoughts.
kind regards,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
It's really interesting isn't it? It really can be very subjective.
I agree with you regarding exemptions too. Awarding bodies compare assessment criteria to provide exemptions but I wonder if they consider assessment style and pass percentages of the relevant awarding body? Example, to be awarded a 'unit' one awarding body may require a student to achieve 70 percent under supervised exam conditions and another 40 or 50 percent, perhaps not under supervised conditions? There can be a significant difference here which can question how credible a qualifiation is.
I'm really interested in your comments, as I've seen a growing trend in the last year of people wanting the highest qualification possible, as quickly as possible, and as cheaply as possible. As many qualifications are now open access it means people claim to be able to start at the highest possible level based on work experience alone. Or with other quals where they've actually achieved really low grades It's rarely the case that someone has experience in all the learning and assessment areas for a full level. It's also impossible to validate work experience so it leaves training providers in a very difficult position these days.
We believe qualifications are here not only to equip people with knowledge and skills so they can put new skills to good use and increase career opportunities, but also to validate them through the assessment process. It gives people confidence and belief in themselves as well as giving employers and clients more confidence. It's not just about obtaining the highest Qual possible (which could actually hinder you).
I agree with Shaun, i dont think it matters how long someone takes to take a course. Some one who does the whole AAT in one year is not neccessarily any better or worse than some one who takes two years. Everyones personal lives are different, and different factors come into play, which are unrelated to their ability to do the job. I dont think employers really care, they are more interested in what the person brings to the table in terms of skills, experience and personality.
Exemptions have there place, i got quite a lot from having my AAT when i did my ACA, which i was more than grateful for! However, i do think that exemptions can cause problems, but overall i cant think of too many awarding bodies that do give out the vast majority of their qualification on exemptions alone. Most are keen for some exams fees!
Nick
__________________
Nick
Nick Craggs FMAAT ACA AAT Distance Learning Manager
with bodies such as the ACCA they charge the exam fee for every exemption which basically makes each paper a guaranteed pass but you have still paid the full fee to sit it.... Cake and eat it comes to mind there!
On the ACA to AAT I see nothing wrong with those exemptions as they are in the right direction.... Seems a bit like an airline pilot learning to fly a Sesna. One knows far more coming to the studies than will ever be required but there is just more manual stuff to pick up.
I do despair with the ICB's stance a little where they don't allow exemptions from higher bodies. But, it's their business and their qualification so by joining up people agree to abide by their rules even is they do not agree with them.
Just got to pop accross to another thread where I said Nick Goddard rathetr than Nick Craggs. Ooops, sorry!
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
I was really interested in all your views. From my perspective when interviewing I would not necessarily look at paper qualifications but look at work history and experiance. I never took bookkeeping exmas but have been working as a bookkeeper for 13years, I was taught on the job in the beginning and over the years gained all my experiance from working on the job and from working with the accountants practice who I have a very good relationship with.
I have expanded and opened my own office during purely bookkeeping, what has surprised me is I have taken over clients from other bookkeepers and have been in many many cases shocked by the poor quality work of other bookkeepers who were actually qualified by exam. Therefore I learnt that passing an exam does not guarantee anything it is all about experiance.
I think a mixture of experience and qualifications is the best bet. Obviously one needs to have worked to gain experience which is (particularly at this point in time) sometimes difficult. I do have a problem with, and have argued the point on her in the past, people who have never worked in book-keeping taking qualifications and then setting up as self-employed book-keepers as I believe no matter which awarding body exams do not prepare one for what happens in real life. No exam scenario can mirror an actual business. I think it's particularly a problem with distance learning too as there is not a tutor available face to face to pass on the knowledge, anecdotes, etc of what happens when working in the field so to speak. Stands back ready to be shot down in flames!
Hi Keely
I agree with you , there are many experienced people out there without quals. However in my experience there are also some very inflated job titles And job descriptions too!
Experience combined with quals would be ideal for me. But in saying that I do like to train people into jobs and provide opportunity. But I need something that validates ability. In the past we've had people tell big fat porkies on their CV! I've learnt very valuable lessons a few times. These days I check original certificates, always obtain references and for the last couple of jobs I even did a mini test!
We have a student who is on target to achieve level 2 and 3 in 3 months and is targeting level 4 achievement in 2 months. I told him I didnt think this was possible but he's proving me wrong I'm amazed!
Sonya
Hi semsley,
At eagle we write our own paper based resources, write our own elearning as well as providing published texts! Through these we actually do discuss what happens in practice. It's one of the things we pride ourselves on! There are tutors available but whether a student taps into the service or not is a different matter altogether. The students that use our service fully and do ask questions get responses from very experienced accountants and business professionals.
I was taught in a classroom and the tutor had never worked in accounting (they had a business degree) and used to read the text book to us! I was more experienced than the tutor ...... So eagle was born two years later as a result of this extremely poor learning experience.
Still today we ave students join us because they have a similar experience! Its a shame. So based on my experience I think it's about choosing the right learning provider - classroom or distance.
Sonya.
You seem to have the right attitude. I had 20 years book-keeping experience and qualifications when I re-trained to become a FE tutor which I did for 10 years teaching book-keeping, IT and business admin, I was also an examiner/moderator for RSA latterly OCR. From the examiner/moderator work it was easy to spot the colleges/schools/training organisations who were employing IT tutors to teach computerised book-keeping as for students to pass the qualifications they had to complete some manual book-keeping, specifically double entry. I found it really sad to have to fail students when it was patently obvious that they had not been taught the principles of book-keeping and whole batches were fails. It was usually down to double-entry incorrect cash book entries and bank reconciliations and many who could not even write a cheque to restore imprest on petty cash.
