Hi,
I’m not sure if this is the right place to post this but i thought i would try my luck anyway. I just started an accounting degree but dont know a great deal about the difference between CA’s and CPA’s.
Are there any accounting people here or anyone else that could shed some insight into these two pro certs?
Thanks for any info.
people that start in the profession tend to do CA, where as people who start in industry tend to do CPA. it’s a load of rubbish really and they should merge them. If your plan is to move the UK it doesn’t make any difference at all. I am led to believe the CA qualification is harder to achieve, but I think that is relative to the quality of the degree that you have undertaken. talk to people who have the qualifications and been working for 10 or so years and see if it has made much difference – consider doing the CA though to cover all bases, just means a few more years locked in the study instead of enjoying your life
http://www.megapropertygroup.comINVESTMENT SALES * RENTAL SOLUTIONS * STRATA MANAGEMENT
CA’s start in accounting firms, usually in tax or audit. If you want to just work as an accountant in a company, you may as well be a CPA, as they wont appreciate any difference. If you are being employed by a CA, they will prefer a CA because they know of the extra study required. There are numerous CA’s who started in accounting firms as auditors who have moved up (or out?) of accounting to be CEO’s of companies such as Virgin Blue Airlines, Qantas etc.There are good and bad CPA’s just as there would be good and bad CA’s.
I’m a CA, can you tell? The CA programme didn’t teach me about investing.Ha.safe as
Hello
I qualified as a CA in 2003 and am currently working in London, where a CA qualification is very highly regarded. The CA program is alot more difficult, but that adds to its prestige, and also ensures you develop skills in core areas which is why employers tend to appreciate candidates who have completed their CA. Although I didnt enjoy the challenge of studying CA whilst working, coming out of it I feel greatly advantaged from the knowledge obtained in studying the units. My view, shared with my colleagues (also accountants) is that the CA qualification is superior to the CPA, and this has certainly been something I have noticed is shared by employers in the UK.
Cheers
CThanks all,
Just out of curiosity, what is the average age of someone who becomes a CA? Is it mostly scchool leavers who walk a straight line through uni, then CA study and work experience then CA qualification or is it people from all walks of life?
And, what would a 25 year old grad be viewed like by experienced accountants. Just thought i would add that i’m 22 and will graduate when i’m 25 and am starting to wonder if it is too late for me.
Again thanks for your comments and any more advice would be great.
Cheers
One or two probably on this forum…..I think one of the guy’s name is Steve something, he was a bean counter in a former life…..before he found the accounting profession about as exciting as a box of dry cracker biscuits. [eh]
Guilty. I’m a CA, qualified 2001.
Majority of CAs would start the CA program right after uni, average 3 – 4 years. So average age would be 25? I qualified early (just b4 I turned 24) but most of my group were 25. Nothing wrong with 25 yo grads as a lot of people switch careers to accountancy. A lot of firms like non-accountancy backgrounds if you have industry experience.
Depends on what you want to do. As others have said, the accting firms require you do CA. In Oz it’s not as big a deal (though arguably big firm experience counts for more, especially if you plan to work in a big corporate). Overseas, the CA is more highly regarded. In the UK, employers equate CA with CIMA (UK accounting qualification) but consider CPA a lesser qualification. If you want to specialise in personal tax, super, etc. (as opposed to corporate and auditing) CPA is just as good.
Personally, I qualified with a Big 4 firm in 2001 and quit immediately. Ran to London, contracted as a financial accountant and ended up making triple what the Sydney firm paid me before I left. Then went to Tokyo and found a job with a US investment bank. 2 years of that, now back in London working for a UK bank. I have to honestly say the CA is just a piece of paper (you learn more in 6 months on the job compared to the exam) but it’s a VERY VERY useful and highly regarded piece of paper.
AlexI started at a Big 4 in 2000 and qualified in early 2003. In my opinion age makes no difference, in fact I think having a few years under your belt will be to your benefit. Myself and the people I started with in 2000 were all aged 20 and had not worked before, having all gone straight to uni from highschool. I look back and think there was a certain level of immaturity to us all for the first 2 years as we were all somewhat still in uni-mode and still getting used to work life, whereas I saw the people who came in as grads but were older than 20/21 got on with the managers/partners better, took their work more seriously, and consequently got promoted quicker!
Thanks for the advice guys
I’ll see where it takes me.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
