Qualified/Part Qualified

[Zeno]

I will apologise in advance for what could turn into one of those threads however I do have a sincere reason for asking and would appreciate any comments however I will make clear that this is not a debate on which institute is better, should the profession be regulated etc etc.

What do we understand to mean by the terms qualified and part qualified accountant in the context of a job description for a job in industry?

From my point of view a qualified accountant would be a CA, ACCA and CIMA and a part qualified being anyone in the latter stages of these and AAT members.

Would anyone particulary disagree with this as being the generally held view?

[TraceyAnn]

I would agree with that....many moons ago when I was "encouraged " by the firm of accountants I was working for to become ACCA qualified, my AAT qualification exempted me from the first level so I was working on level 2 which as I understood it classified me as "part-qualified".

[CassioAcc]

I would tend to say that just passing all the exams makes you a passed finalist, but you are not fully qualified until you have completed your experience and your full membership certificate is issued.

[Zeno]

I would tend to say that just passing all the exams makes you a passed finalist, but you are not fully qualified until you have completed your experience and your full membership certificate is issued.

I would agree with that however it is perhaps less clear with the part qualified situation. I have heard graduates claim to be part qualified based on their exemptions from the earlier exams for instance.

[elainec100@cheapaccounting]

My understanding (world according to Clarky):

- part qual - hadn't passed all exams
- qualified - past all exams and can apply / has applied for membership of relevant institiute
- member allowed to practice - past exams, is member and has relevant post qualf experience to practice and has PC to show this


How something changed?

[elainec100@cheapaccounting]

I would agree with that however it is perhaps less clear with the part qualified situation. I have heard graduates claim to be part qualified based on their exemptions from the earlier exams for instance.

but with all due respect what does part qual mean!

Might mean you took some exams and failed them!

I think those recruiting should be well aware of what these terms mean (if they are qualified themselves I suppose) and as for clients well then you do get into the 'any one can call themself an accountant' debate.

[Zeno]

- qualified - past all exams and can apply / has applied for membership of relevant institiute

I would have called this a finalist which I believe is still classed as PQ but we generally seem to agree so far.

The trouble is I am in the middle of a wee dispute between a client and a recruitment agency over this issue and I am trying to get an idea of the current way of thinking before the lawyers get involved and bayonet the wounded.

[elainec100@cheapaccounting]

I would have called this a finalist which I believe is still classed as PQ but we generally seem to agree so far.

The trouble is I am in the middle of a wee dispute between a client and a recruitment agency over this issue and I am trying to get an idea of the current way of thinking before the lawyers get involved and bayonet the wounded.


I suppose for me it was the case that the exams take 3 years - need 3 years experience to apply for ACA therefore when I got the results I could apply.

I was either part qualified i.e. haven't completed the exams

or qualified - when I waiting for the magic piece of paper to admit me to the Institute!

I am not sure I would recognise the term finalist

[Zeno]

I suppose for me it was the case that the exams take 3 years - need 3 years experience to apply for ACA therefore when I got the results I could apply.

I was either part qualified i.e. haven't completed the exams

or qualified - when I waiting for the magic piece of paper to admit me to the Institute!

I am not sure I would recognise the term finalist

Yes, I see your point and it was the same for me and probably most other CA's but I suppose that very technically during that short window, it may be a case of fish nor fowl.

It would appear to be one of these grey areas where the lawyers will make a mint I suppose.

[David Griffiths]

I'll just stir things up by saying that somebody is either qualified or not. Part qualified has no meaning.

If you haven't passed your exams or completed the necessary experience, then that's not qualified.

You don't hear of part qualified doctors. They are called medical students.

It's a bit like saying that somebody is slightly pregnant.

:)

[elainec100@cheapaccounting]

oh no I agree with David!

I hate it when that happens

[GaryMc]

I did my ACA exams in two years and then had another year of experience to be able to apply. I suppose, you could have called me part qualified in that situation (ignoring David's logical answer of course).

[Philip Hoyle]

I also have to agree with David. For me too someone's either qualified or they're not. Though, TBH, I wouldn't be fussed at that distinction either. What's more important to me is relevant experience - I'd far rather take on someone unqualified with 10 years relevant experience than a newly qualified person with just 3 or 4 years. I know from my own experience that having the letters after my name didn't suddenly make me a better accountant - what made me the person I am is the years and years of experience. In fact, the vast majority of the things I had to study to pass the exams has turned out completely irrelevant and never used.

[Zeno]

I certainly don't disagree with any of this however "part qualified" has certainly entered accounting lexicon either as a term or as a notion.

Actually, I bet it was invented by bloody recruitment agencies....

[David Griffiths]

oh no I agree with David!

I hate it when that happens

You've got a good memory! :p

[Maslins]

In my training days (2003-2006) the ACA exams were clearly split into two stages. These were:

The professional stage:
Accounting
Audit
Financial Reporting
Tax
Business Finance
Business Management

and the advanced stage:
Business Life Cycle
Business Environment
Case Study

You were part qualified when you completed all of the professional stage (I think I even got a certificate from the institute announcing me as part qualified...though I chucked it once I got my fully qualified cert).

The logic was that the professional stage taught lots of specific, but separate topics, whilst the advanced stage brought everything together so you had to have lots of knowledge across the board, and understand how it all interacted.

[elainec100@cheapaccounting]

In my training days (2003-2006) the ACA exams were clearly split into two stages. These were:

The professional stage:
Accounting
Audit
Financial Reporting
Tax
Business Finance
Business Management

and the advanced stage:
Business Life Cycle
Business Environment
Case Study

You were part qualified when you completed all of the professional stage (I think I even got a certificate from the institute announcing me as part qualified...though I chucked it once I got my fully qualified cert).

The logic was that the professional stage taught lots of specific, but separate topics, whilst the advanced stage brought everything together so you had to have lots of knowledge across the board, and understand how it all interacted.

well in my days we had PE1 and PE2 - no multiple choice and no case studies. :rolleyes::eek: You couldn't take anything into the exam room (except your quill pen!).

And those were the days ......

[elainec100@cheapaccounting]

You've got a good memory! :p

what because I remembered who you are :p

[Si T]

I'll just stir things up by saying that somebody is either qualified or not. Part qualified has no meaning.

If you haven't passed your exams or completed the necessary experience, then that's not qualified.

You don't hear of part qualified doctors. They are called medical students.

It's a bit like saying that somebody is slightly pregnant.

:)
I think I will respectfully put a spanner in and say that while I get agree with the sentiment of either qualified or not I believe the term part qualified is used to give an indication of where a potential candidate may be in terms of both experience and exams completed.

To take Davids statement to the extreme you don't have only ledger clerks in the unqualified ranks and only financial controllers and above in the qualified ranks. There is a great big area of differing levels of experience etc which carries the blanket phrase of part qualified.

The comparisons could also have been a bit nearer the mark for me to have taken them seriously.

Just my 2p worth

[Maslins]

well in my days we had PE1 and PE2 - no multiple choice and no case studies. :rolleyes::eek: You couldn't take anything into the exam room (except your quill pen!).

No multiple choice in my day either thank you very much...and the case study typically got the lowest pass percentage of any exam! :eek:

Taking in the big IFRS book was also of negligible value. We could take it in, but I didn't bother.

[David Griffiths]

I think I will respectfully put a spanner in and say that while I get agree with the sentiment of either qualified or not I believe the term part qualified is used to give an indication of where a potential candidate may be in terms of both experience and exams completed.

To take Davids statement to the extreme you don't have only ledger clerks in the unqualified ranks and only financial controllers and above in the qualified ranks. There is a great big area of differing levels of experience etc which carries the blanket phrase of part qualified.

The comparisons could also have been a bit nearer the mark for me to have taken them seriously.

Just my 2p worth

Unless I've read that incorrectly, that seems to be extending the term part-qualified to people who have never passed a single exam, but have a number of years experience? I don't think that most people would agree with that.

There are people out there who use the meaningless term "qualified by experience". Qualified to do what, exactly?

[elainec100@cheapaccounting]

I am qualified by experience in many fields :p:eek:

[Hellbound]

This doesn't at all bode well for me. I've only just started my ACCA. I'm also looking for work but there seems to be absolutely nothing for a novice like myself. I don't care about wage, I just need relevant experience!

Ooo what I'd give to be 'part-qualified' right now!

[Jenni384]

I nearly answered this yesterday until I realised the OP was about qualifications in industry, which I know nothing about, really.

Having thought about it, I think PQ only comes into play if someone is mid way through a qualification and has already passed some level of it, be it through previous exams or previous qualifications.

I also can't resist commenting on AAT as PQ - nope, we are qualified thanks :D An AAT or similar is only PQ if they are going on to do a Chartered qual. If not, then they are fully qualified in their particular qualification once they are full members.

That's my understanding of it, anyway. :)

[GaryMc]

You've been quiet recently Jenni

Spending all your time keeping David in line?

[Jenni384]

Gary - yes, it's a full time job! :D

[Si T]

Unless I've read that incorrectly, that seems to be extending the term part-qualified to people who have never passed a single exam, but have a number of years experience? I don't think that most people would agree with that.

There are people out there who use the meaningless term "qualified by experience". Qualified to do what, exactly?

First point I am far from advocating that a part qual is someone who has not passed a single exam, my personal view is that they should be at least at final stage or passed finalist (which by the way is a status CIMA use for people who have passed their exams but are awaiting experience assessment sign off and record them as such on their personal records). My point was that the term can be used by potential recruiters to ascertain that a candidate has at least and started to pursue their professional qualification and begun the build up of professional experience that is required to gain full qualification. This then allows them to decide whether thay are at the level of knowledge required to warrant an interview before they trawl through the C.V.'s

As for the term qualified by experience there are many people out there who have spent a great number of years, especially in industry, actually doing the job but have not got around to sitting the exams. Are you actually saying that it was the sitting of the exams that gave you all the knowledge you needed to be an accountant. Of course not. It was the work that you did both pre and post qualification that gave you that knowledge. The exams gave you the theoretical knowledge to enable you to do it in the first place, nothing more.

Therefore people who are termed qualified by experience will have the knowledge required from actually doing it and just have not gotten around to sitting the papers. The fact you sat them does not give you the right to denegrate the work these people do on a daily basis. From my own perspective the decade I worked before finally starting and completing my exams gave a far better level of knowledge which I could apply to my studies than I could ever have got from a 600 page text book.

Finally no offence meant but if you take it then its up to you. It is a subject I get passionate about when qualified accountants (and I am) belittle those who aren't for the sake of some exams that they forgot the content of the minute the passed them unless they were specific to the work they are involved in.

[Wild Goose]

I haven't seen "time-barred" mentioned.

I always took it that when an agency advertises for PQs they are generally looking to recruit those who have passed some exams and are continuing to study; whereas those who have passed some exams and stopped are time-barred. Or is that outdated now?

[Tom Egerton]

On a day to day basis, I wouldn't disagree with the OP's analysis i.e. "qualified" usually means membership of a recognised professional body. Part qualified usually means some success in the examinations of those bodies.

In a wider context it means next to nothing due to dumbing down of examinations in the past 30 years. In my own case I consider myself qualified (by examination and experience) although I have chosen to discontinue membership of a professional body.

[yorkshirejames]

From a looking for jobs point of view, I used to refer to myself as part qualified from the moment I passed my first CIMA foundation level paper. I referred to myself as passed-finalist once I had passed the final exam, and naturally as Chartered Accountant once my practical experience record had come back as accepted.

CIMA wouldn't let you use the term CIMA-qualified until you had passed all exams AND been accepted as a member.

What is the nature of the dispute with the recruiter? Can you suggest that it is THEY who didn't do their homework/background checking/referencing properly?

[BI Ltd]

AFAIK the terms part qualified and QBE were coined by recruitment agencies and have passed into general use.

Why professional accountants have latched onto these terms is beyond me given that the majority of recruiters I have spoken with have been five minute wonders with no professional standards, little in the way of ethics and a fondness for too much hair product.

My own situation was that I was described as qualified AAT by some recruiters, part- qualified by others and QBE by yet more so it really didn't seem to hold water.

If there were any benefits to becoming chartered then at least it meant that the recruitment companies had a pigeon hole to stuff me into!

[Wild Goose]

AFAIK the terms part qualified and QBE were coined by recruitment agencies and have passed into general use.

Why professional accountants have latched onto these terms is beyond me given that the majority of recruiters I have spoken with have been five minute wonders with no professional standards, little in the way of ethics and a fondness for too much hair product.



Ha ha, love your description. In my experience many of these high-flier recruitment "officers" have been ACCA dropouts or similar.