What counts as being part qualified?

Say you have a degree that gives 8 exemptions from ACCA and 3 from CIMA would that could as being part qualified?

Would saying so be misleading?

Reply 1

Tokyoround

16

The fact you're asking shows you already know the answer. It is misleading.

In my experience for ACCA anyway, I take part-qualified to mean passed all the F levels (of which there are 9 not 8).

Reply 2

M1011

19

For ACA part qualified = 12/15 exams complete

Reply 3

AW1983

10

I'd never been aware of a strict rule before. I just thought it meant someone who had started their exams! I've come across plenty of people who interpret the definition more liberally, although this definition would make sense.

Reply 4

snakesnake

10

Original post by M1011

For ACA part qualified = 12/15 exams complete

So basically only if you've done everything except for the TIs and Case, you're good to call yourself part qualified?

Reply 5

M1011

19

Original post by snakesnake

So basically only if you've done everything except for the TIs and Case, you're good to call yourself part qualified?

That's always been my understanding of it. Either way - part qualified in itself means nothing. There's nothing you can do as a PQ that you can't do without ever having taken an exam, so it's a bit of a pointless title. From an employment perspective, they're going to ask exactly what exams you have/haven't done, so they're going to base their decision on the facts.

Reply 6

AW1983

10

Original post by M1011

Either way - part qualified in itself means nothing.

Wow, I agree with you on something :smile:

More seriously, I have heard it said before that it's not necessarily a good thing to be looking for work as a part qualified ICAEW/ICAS/ICAI. The theory is that you normally get a training contract for the entire qualification that you're meant to stick to so to not do so indicates something has gone wrong (exam fail, chosen to drop out etc). Normally, the protaganists of this theory are talking strictly in the sense of going from one accounting role to another. I'm not sure if anyone has any clarifying views on this?

ACCA and CIMA are less affected because these qualifications don't tie people to a strict training contract (and in the future, it looks like ICAS and ICAI won't either, for their experienced professional routes). However, I have also heard that getting exams under your belt for ACCA and CIMA don't really boost your job prospects. Again, it would be interesting to get clarity on that.

Reply 7

M1011

19

Original post by AW1983

Wow, I agree with you on something :smile:

More seriously, I have heard it said before that it's not necessarily a good thing to be looking for work as a part qualified ICAEW/ICAS/ICAI. The theory is that you normally get a training contract for the entire qualification that you're meant to stick to so to not do so indicates something has gone wrong (exam fail, chosen to drop out etc). Normally, the protaganists of this theory are talking strictly in the sense of going from one accounting role to another. I'm not sure if anyone has any clarifying views on this?

ACCA and CIMA are less affected because these qualifications don't tie people to a strict training contract (and in the future, it looks like ICAS and ICAI won't either, for their experienced professional routes). However, I have also heard that getting exams under your belt for ACCA and CIMA don't really boost your job prospects. Again, it would be interesting to get clarity on that.

I thought the day would never come :tongue:

Yea - usually indicates an exam fail. That said, I've always found that exam fails aren't a good indicator of someone's ability to do the job - my intake lost several quality people over a bad result. But yea, it can be worrying, especially if you've failed early on.

Reply 8

AW1983

10

Original post by M1011

I thought the day would never come :tongue:

Yea - usually indicates an exam fail. That said, I've always found that exam fails aren't a good indicator of someone's ability to do the job - my intake lost several quality people over a bad result. But yea, it can be worrying, especially if you've failed early on.

I've always thought termination of a training contract for one fail was not only harsh on the employee but short sighted by the firm. As I've mentioned before, I was a 'victim' of the same treatment.

Looking back at my time at Deloitte (I was with them for 2 years) and what happened to my colleagues, most of whom stayed until qualification, I've increasingly come to the conclusion that the reason the big firms are so harsh is because the average trainee is on a conveyor belt and is thoroughly expendable. I even had a colleague who were 'advised to leave' when their training contract came to an end! The law of averages mean at the end of three years the firms will have enough people of sufficient standard to manage audit work, even if they are not the very best that they could have had without the exam rules. For any gaps, they can hire in.

It's hard in my position not to sound bitter of course and people can come to their own conclusions. My recommendation is to try and do an internship around about the time that exam results come out! However, without any intentional malice, I do believe the work experience at my current firm is more meaningful. Based entirely on my own experience the three key differences are:

1) Being directly managed by an established senior person (normally a VP) rather than an audit supervisor (2 years into a training contract);

2) Flexibility around not only exam performance but also the professional exams that a candidate chooses to do (with the exception of some specific schemes we run);

3) More one to one mentoring and buddying with other members of the firm both amongst the direct team assigned and the wider business.

However, we all know the pull of the ACA.... my firm can't offer that! That said, ICAS' professional entry route might change all that....

Reply 9

Enoxial

16

Original post by BT31

Say you have a degree that gives 8 exemptions from ACCA and 3 from CIMA would that could as being part qualified?

Would saying so be misleading?

Being already enrolled in ACCA and passing 9 papers is generally part qualified.

BUT you can't write Part Qualified with your name. You can only write:
1 ACCA (Passing all papers + PER)
2 FCCA (Being ACCA for 4-5 years)

Reply 10

AW1983

10

Original post by Enoxial

Being already enrolled in ACCA and passing 9 papers is generally part qualified.

BUT you can't write Part Qualified with your name. You can only write:
1 ACCA (Passing all papers + PER)
2 FCCA (Being ACCA for 4-5 years)

You can't write it with your name, but if you pass all ACCA's exams but have not yet finished PER, you're allowed to call yourself an ACCA Affiliate.

Reply 11

Enoxial

16

Original post by AW1983

You can't write it with your name, but if you pass all ACCA's exams but have not yet finished PER, you're allowed to call yourself an ACCA Affiliate.

"ACCA Affiliate" and "ACCA Part Qualified" are informal tags so that the people get a sense of accomplishment, ACCA and FCCA is the real deal.

Reply 12

AW1983

10

ACCA Affiliate isn't informal in that it's an institute grade for those who have passed the exams but haven't finished the PER. However, without the PER, the exams don't tend to count for much.

Reply 13

Pipsico

14

For CIMA, as I understand it you, you are 'part qualified' once you've passed the management levels (11 exams in)

But really, it's an all encompassing term - very open to interpretation.

Posted from TSR Mobile

What counts as being part qualified?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you