|
As has been mentioned, you will have no problem with the math. The difficulty in accounting lies in understanding a few abstract concepts and when to apply them and the many (many) rules. Assuming you have done corporations, trusts, etc. in law school, your background will give you a leg up in understanding core concepts. Listening to anecdotes probably is not going to give you a good idea of whether accounting will be a rewarding career. Like law, the profession offers a wide variety of opportunities and experiences, and what firm you end up with (and in which city) and the decisions you make about your practice area(s) will dictate whether you enjoy a rewarding career or want to kill yourself. If you're an introverted, analytical person, there are more technical roles that an accountant can take. If you are more social and organizational, you can steer your experience more towards project management-type work, especially in advisory. I don't think you have to make these decisions immediately, but every experienced accountant I've talked to says it's important to learn the basics of all fields in the profession, decide what might be best for you, and outline a rough personal roadmap to be revised as needed. Personally, I got a degree in finance, realized I'd rather shoot myself than go into ibanking, and ended up with an operations analyst position in industry. It was there I saw firsthand that the people who understood the business best were the CAs (Canada), and after doing some research realized that accounting was not just data entry and repetitive calculation (some of it is, though). After meeting a ton of cool people at local firms and seeing they weren't all amoral drones, my perception of the profession continued to change. This is Vancouver, though, and I get a different vibe from different cities, especially south of the border. None of the young accountants I've met has ever worked a 70-hour week, for example, even during busy season. E: For the record, this is all the experience and passed on hearsay of an accounting student. I don't start working for a firm until next year 
Buskas fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Nov 17, 2009 |
#
¿
Nov 17, 2009 09:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
Nipple Drainage posted:Yes, but how many of them have a Masters in Tax or an LLM in Taxation? As well as CA/CPA's? That's the difference. quote:In the loosest sense of the word, I am a lawyer. I am licesned to practice law, but I do not have a job as an attorney and probably never will. That practical learning requires a firm deciding you are worth it. You don't just walk into a job leading to fortunes as a tax attorney. E: Also, not all tax lawyers have Masters degrees or accounting designations. My father is a tax lawyer and has neither.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2010 01:49
|
|
|
Nipple Drainage posted:I'm aware. You're missing the point. You do not just get an LLM or CA/CPA and automatically are a candidate for tax law. You have to have a demonstrated passion and talent for the field, and usually a firm indicates they believe this before you choose to pursue an LLM or CA/CPA with a tax focus. My father is a partner at a major Canadian law firm and leads its tax division for the city in which he resides. No, Canadian lawyers do not make as much as their US counterparts and cruise around on yachts all day. E: The point not being MY FATHER, but that tax law is a competitive field and entrance into it relies more on commitment and talent than what letters one has behind their name. Buskas fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jan 19, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
whatupdet posted:Are you just speculating or do you have a reliable source because I doubt that will be the case. The three designations have already agreed to merge in Quebec. It's being seriously discussed by the CA and CMA organizations elsewhere in Canada, and the CGAs have joined talks in at least one province. It's going to be a bit of a process, but I think eventually the designations will merge if only because public accounting firms are afraid of more regulation. I'm working on my CA right now and I'm all for the merger provided it's handled well and the rigor of the qualification processes for the various designations isn't degraded. However, I think calling it a CPA is really stupid because a) it's going to stand for Chartered Professional Accountant (as opposed to Certified Public Accountant in the US), which adds to confusion rather than reducing it, and b) the qualification process for all three designations is arguably more rigorous than the CPA designation in the US, and it cheapens the brand. Buskas fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Nov 18, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2011 16:28
|
|
|
whatupdet posted:I guess I'm surprised because I recall the CA & CMA squashed the idea of the two of them merging not long ago, maybe a year ago? I was also caught off guard by CPA as I wondered why we'd adopt a US accounting designation especially if we're moving to IFRS/ASPE while they're not but now I see the name difference, agreed on being a stupid decision. I'm still working on getting my degree part time which will probably take another 4-6 years so by the time I actually decide on a designation maybe it will already be made for me. Yeah, it went to vote a few years ago and was shot down, but they're making another run at it. I really do think most of the support from partners of big firms is the result of government threatening to increase regulation if the organizations don't streamline self-regulation, which is difficult with three different national bodies and a throng of regional/provincial ones. There are a few other potential benefits of merging but I think they're secondary to the powers that be. I'm with you on the differentiation issue, which is why I'm mostly concerned about keeping the level of certification rigor up. Not to knock US accountants, but I really prefer the Canadian style of specializing as you study, rather than getting a very broad designation like the US CPA and then specializing after. However, I really don't like some of the acrimony between the brands (I'm really sick of hearing CA colleagues talking about dumbing down the designation by including CMAs - the lack of openmindedness is fairly ironic), and think merging could increase collaboration and efficiency if done well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
Aqualung posted:The CA designation is orders of magnitude harder to obtain than the CMA. After putting in the hard work, doing some of the hardest professional exams in the world and working 50 hours a week for at least 3 years while you only get paid for 37.5, would you like your designation to be diluted and merged with others who didn't go through the same process? This is exactly the kind of childish nonsense you hear all over the place, mostly from people who haven't done their research and have a knee-jerk response to the talks. If it took place under the current plan, all current CAs and CMAs would retain their titles for ten years before they were completely eliminated. If after ten years you're still relying on the letters behind your name to get a job rather than what's on your resume, you have bigger problems. Additionally, anyone competent company hiring an accountant is able to differentiate the skill-sets of someone who had four years of public accounting experience at a Big 4 firm from someone who earned their CMA while working for a single company. Companies will hire to fill positions accordingly. And newsflash, rear end in a top hat, plenty of CMAs & CGAs put in just as much work as you and are as or more competent in their chosen field, and plenty of CAs are morons who might have worked hard enough to pass the UFE but don't necessarily have much to offer because of it. So to answer your questions, no, I don't worry about dilution, because I differentiate myself through my experience and work ethic, and the incentive to work hard comes from the desire to learn and stand out (and the fact that I know I'm not being hosed over - assuming a merger is done correctly). Getting the CA is a great accomplishment that will stay on your resume for your entire life, but passing the UFE is a small piece in a much bigger puzzle and relying on the letters for your professional livelihood is foolish. Buskas fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Nov 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2011 01:37
|
|