CGA - Is it a good idea?

Lunita wrote: ↑Hi guys,

This is my situation, I'm in my mid 30's with not much work experience, I just found a job as admin assistant for not even 30K a year. I'm tired of getting paid so low and need to make a change to improve.

While I was a student at university (I have a bachelor in business) I wasn't a good student, I was very young and didn't really care about it. Now I see the consequences..After doing some research I think on enrolling to the CGA program. The reason is that typical admin jobs have a customer service side that I hate, that's why I think accounting will spare me that part. Is this really a good idea? My concerns are about:

1) How hard is the program itself? Are grades very important to get a job?

2) How hard is to get a job to fulfill the 2 year work experience requirement?

3) If I take courses in the university of toronto, why would I need to pay the $730 tuition fee per year?

Thanks!

BananaHunter wrote: ↑I have a CGA and my advice is that you should not expect a CGA to magically open doors for you. By the time you get designated, it's really all that office experience that lands you a good job, not your CGA. The things you learn in CGA courses are marginally useful at best in real life setting. I find it criminally wrong that all these advertisement make it seem like having a CGA is the end of the road. It isn't. People should attribute their success to their motivation, and ability. Without these, you don't get promoted and can't get a CGA. You simply can't get your CGA with low level experience unless your manager fudges your experience.

With that said, I'm not saying the CGA is worthless. Going for a CGA signals that you have ambition. It'll make you feel you're wasting your money if you don't make something out of paying CGA thousands each year. That will motivate you to try to build your resume. You should definitely pursue a CGA if you're the type of person that wants to see things from start to finish.

In the long term, pursuing a CGA will pay off. In the short term, you'll be down a few thousand $$$. Remember that once you get your CGA, you're not guaranteed a good salary. You're just LESS likely to be low balled.

Lunita wrote: ↑Thanks guys for the advices!

I understand that this is long-term, but in short term I would like to at least be able to make 40k and hopefully live without roommates. I heard people say that once you put in your resume that you are enrolled to the program it helps you to get at least an accounting junior position.. I think I will take it anyways

Sum_guy wrote: ↑ Agreed. Most of the better companies will not even interview you for director of finance/controller/senior accountant/senior analyst without a designation (CGA/CMA/CA/CFA) or ibanking/consulting experience.

tylaw83 wrote: ↑ Yes but what I said was that a designation ALONE will not do anything. And once you reach a certain stage in your career, your designation doesn't matter because everyone else you're competing with has one. Competent people have no reason not to pursue one. After being designated, it's still all that experience and your interview skills that lands you the job. All a CGA does is SIGNAL to people that you have a minimum level of experience. It also filters out people that are below that level.

You COULD land a controller position without a CGA/CMA/CA. But the reverse is not true: No company will hire a controller with inadequate experience. When I put it that way, I still think a designation is not all that. It's value is definitely much less than the 3 accounting bodies make it seem. Experience is more important than designations but you can have both.

BananaHunter wrote: ↑ I've only met one public company controller without a designation and he had 25+ years of experience to reach that point - he was brought in as more of an operations controller.

On the other hand, I've met plenty of controllers who are pretty much fresh CAs (3-5 years out of school). How else do you think a 25/26 year old lands a controller position? Your designation plays a big part. Having it doesn't set you apart. Not having it does.

Lunita wrote: ↑Hi guys,

This is my situation, I'm in my mid 30's with not much work experience, I just found a job as admin assistant for not even 30K a year. I'm tired of getting paid so low and need to make a change to improve.

While I was a student at university (I have a bachelor in business) I wasn't a good student, I was very young and didn't really care about it. Now I see the consequences..After doing some research I think on enrolling to the CGA program. The reason is that typical admin jobs have a customer service side that I hate, that's why I think accounting will spare me that part. Is this really a good idea? My concerns are about:

1) How hard is the program itself? Are grades very important to get a job?

2) How hard is to get a job to fulfill the 2 year work experience requirement?

3) If I take courses in the university of toronto, why would I need to pay the $730 tuition fee per year?

Thanks!

tylaw83 wrote: ↑
I've only met one public company controller without a designation and he had 25+ years of experience to reach that point - he was brought in as more of an operations controller.

On the other hand, I've met plenty of controllers who are pretty much fresh CAs (3-5 years out of school). How else do you think a 25/26 year old lands a controller position? Your designation plays a big part. Having it doesn't set you apart. Not having it does.

tylaw83 wrote: ↑ I'd argue that CA is very different from CMA and CGA. CA designation seems to have more prestige in the market because most CAs come from the Big 4. Nowadays, the majority of students choose CA as their first choice and only pursue CMA/CGA if they fail to get into CA firm. If you ask people why they chose CMA/CGA, they usually cite a fake answer unless you are really close friends. The real reason is because their grades are not good enough or they lack the social skills to get into a CA firm.

In essence, having a CA tells you more about the candidate than a CMA/CGA does. Having a CA implies that the candidate (very likely) has above average social skills because he/she got into a CA firm. Whereas for CMA/CGA, it's perfectly plausible to have a CMA/CGA without even being fluent in speaking English. CMA/CGAs can also get their designations from anywhere so there's a wide variance as to the competence and background of CMA/CGAs. Combined with the competitive GPA requirements for CA firms, CAs seems to give the impression that they are the best of the best.

So..at the risk of turning this thread into another CA vs CMA vs CGA, I'll concede that CA designation does matter a lot, relative to CMA/CGA. But even after being designated, there will come a point where experience is more important because all the other job candidates have designations. Having a designations will land you an interview at best. You still have to ace the interview.

BTW, yes I've seen some young CAs with relatively high level positions. But I can't say the same for CMAs and CGAs.

BananaHunter wrote: ↑
I'd argue that CA is very different from CMA and CGA. CA designation seems to have more prestige in the market because most CAs come from the Big 4. Nowadays, the majority of students choose CA as their first choice and only pursue CMA/CGA if they fail to get into CA firm. If you ask people why they chose CMA/CGA, they usually cite a fake answer unless you are really close friends. The real reason is because their grades are not good enough or they lack the social skills to get into a CA firm.

In essence, having a CA tells you more about the candidate than a CMA/CGA does. Having a CA implies that the candidate (very likely) has above average social skills because he/she got into a CA firm. Whereas for CMA/CGA, it's perfectly plausible to have a CMA/CGA without even being fluent in speaking English. CMA/CGAs can also get their designations from anywhere so there's a wide variance as to the competence and background of CMA/CGAs. Combined with the competitive GPA requirements for CA firms, CAs seems to give the impression that they are the best of the best.

So..at the risk of turning this thread into another CA vs CMA vs CGA, I'll concede that CA designation does matter a lot, relative to CMA/CGA. But even after being designated, there will come a point where experience is more important because all the other job candidates have designations. Having a designations will land you an interview at best. You still have to ace the interview.

BTW, yes I've seen some young CAs with relatively high level positions. But I can't say the same for CMAs and CGAs.

tylaw83 wrote: ↑That's the problem with everyone's thinking on here. It isn't one or the other. The designation is not a magic key, but it is a very significant complement to your experience. Without it, you will often to passed up on for less qualified candidates and your growth is often capped.

Lunita wrote: ↑So, I guess it would be best to get first an accounting job, even a junior position and then enroll to the program. I just received the results for the credit transfer evaluation by the way, only got two courses exempted. I might just start taking a course in the UofT or a college.

On the other hand, I don't really consider the CMA since I don't see their courses have much of the accounting foundation I need to work/apply for accounting positions.

I have some doubts in reference to what would happen if after two or three years I must stop the course or can't continue i.e. maternity, money, etc..