HELP!! Three year Canadian Degrees??

Re: Re: Re: Re: Three Year Canadian Degrees

Notwithstanding what you've thankfully provided here, folks with CGA designations that were obtained before the changes would still be eligible for admission (with the requisite number of years of experience, of course).

 

I agree. My experience with the two systems (limited) is that the Canadian education system is a little more rigorous. Not only the report mentioned above from GB but also a university web site In Britian that listed international qualifications (wish I had linked it at the time) considered the 3 year B.A. from England and Canada to be the equivalent of the US 4 year B.A. This was probably due to depth of subject matter. Regardless of whether a US school looks at it that way or not that does not change international perception. If you want to use the 3 yr BA you may or may not run into pproblems here in the US.

North

 

<<If you want to use the 3 yr BA you may or may not run into pproblems here in the US.>>



For what it's worth, I am enrolled in the Briercrest BA Christian Studies program. This is a 100 hour program that is considered a 3 year BA. Thus far, I have only contacted one graduate school to inquire as to how the Canadian 3 year BA might be viewed with regard to graduate school admission. The school was Liberty University. Liberty views the Canadian 3 year BA as meeting all of the criteria for admission into their graduate programs.

Pug

 

There is an archived thread somewhere on the forum that prvides comparisons of degrees.

At that time it equated UK ordinary degrees wiith US honours, UK honours with US Masters etc. however given the apparent decline in the UK university system I doubt if this opinion can be reasonably held now.

With regard to productivity, the US does absorb a much higher percentage of the global resources than other countries and should, therefore, be producing more. (assisted by the US patent system, which almost uniquely, allows claims based on other people's work, especially where that work is done overseas).

 

Accounting Designations

As a CA student in the final stages of the CA program, I am responding to Dennis Ruhl's comments.

I will agree with Dennis that the CGA program has several advantages (e.g. earn an accounting designation and bachelor degree by distance learning while working, more flexible ways of gaining practical experience).

However, I disagree with Dennis when he says that the CGA education program is superior to the CA & CMA programs and that the CA & CMA programs "rely on others to teach". While the CA & CMA programs require a bachelors degree with specific prerequisites in accounting, finance, and other business courses, both CAs & CMAs have their own professional education programs which must be completed to earn the designation. By having their own education programs, all three accounting designations ensure high professional standards from their members.

As an aside, all three accounting designations accept roughly the same courses from colleges and universities as credit towards completion of their programs.

The CA program has some unique features:

1. All CA candidates must pass the Uniform Evaluation (UFE), which is considered one of the most difficult examinations in the world (comparable to the bar exams for lawyers and the CFA exams).

2. All CA candidates must work in an accounting firm approved to train CA students for at least 30 months. As well, CA students must work a minimum number of hours in assurance, audit and tax engagements. Although it is probably rare, a CGA or CMA could achieve their designations while being employed as a Accounts Receivable clerk or Accounts Payable clerk (entry level positions which do not require practical exposure to higher level accounting functions such as financial statement preparation).

Due to these inflexible requirements, growth in the CA designation has slowed in the last decade or so and has forced the CA profession to look at other growth strategies (e.g. merger with CMAs).

Finally, I have not heard the rumor that the merged CA/CMA entity will copy the CGA program of professional studies. The CICA has published the proposed certification path, found at:

http://www.cica.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/21510/la_id/1.htm

The certification process appears to be a hybrid of the CMA program (entrance exam before the professional program) and the CA program (uniform evaluation before earning the designation).

In the long term, I believe that the public interest is better served by having fewer accounting designations, as there is less confusion as to what each designation means in terms of qualifications. It is only a question of what the best path is to get there!

Thanks for reading,

Michael Weedon

 

Although a CGA designation can provide a full degree and designation program most CGAs enter the program with a degree and most courses. I took the minimum 4 courses in the program.

Never having written or even looked at the CA uniform final exam, my only comment would be that it isn't so difficult exam. Instead it is a difficult exam to pass. It was merely to limit the numbers in the profession and had bizarrely low pass rates in the low 40 percents at times.

What happened instead of limiting the profession, it caused most provincial governments to license other associations to provide the same services. In Alberta there is absolutely no distinction between the groups, in law.

 

The last Ontario government started to make public accounting available to CGA and CMA. McGinty has promised in a letter to the CAs to finnish the job.

The real impetus for change is the increasing number of Canadian accountants taking the CPA exams. Whither the CA, CMA or CGA is better will be meaningless if the CPA becomes the defacto standard.

 

I totally agree. You are absolutely 100% correct. Anyone who does not agree must be a mill shill.

 

Accounting Designations

The Uniform Evaluation for CA candidates is not a difficult exam from a technical knowledge perspective. The difficulty lies in the fact that all questions are case-based. In these scenarios, the candidate must be able to identify and rank issues, as well as tie their analysis and recommendations to the relevant issues.

Starting with the 2003 exam, the evaluation methodology was changed from a point-marked exam to a competency-based evaluation. Under the old system, the candidate could get points for technical knowledge that was not applied to the scenario (a.k.a. "dumping technical") or pass the exam without addressing an entire technical area (e.g. tax or IT). Under the new system, "dumping technical" may actually work against the candidate, as it reduces the relevance of the report to the user (user may be a small business owner who has little or no knowledge of accounting or tax). As well, the candidate have to achieve a minimum level of competency in all areas covered by the Competency Map (e.g. professionalism and ethics, financial and management accounting, assurance, tax, IT, finance, organizational effectiveness, control and risk management). I believe these measures increase the exam's difficulty, but produce better CAs.

As far as pass rates go, the CA exam has had a pass rate of over 55% for the past several years. These pass rates are similar to some of the level 1 CGA courses (if taken through CGA)! For these reasons, many CGA students take their courses through a college or university and get the transfer credit instead.

In Manitoba, CAs and CGAs can provide auditing services and sign audit reports. CMAs may be able to do audits as well, if they can prove an equivalent level of education and experience.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what accounting designation the auditor may have, as long as they have the education and experience to be able to sign the audit report according to the highest level of professional standards. Traditionally, CAs have provided these services, as this is the only designation that demands a minimum level of education and experience in auditing. With the recent accounting scandals, it is important that the desire to include CGAs and CMAs in audits of public companies does not override the public interest in ensuring the highest quality of financial reporting. This is especially important in Ontario, as most of the largest public companies are listed on the TSX. Of course, I am not saying that CAs are necessarily the best choice, as the CA record has been a bit spotty of late!

I believe there are a number of factors driving change in accounting education. One factor is the increasing number of CAs and CGAs earning their CPA designation. As the U.S. is Canada's largest trading partner and a number of both U.S. and Canadian companies are listed on stock exchanges in both countries, it only makes sense for Canadian accountants to increase their knowledge of U.S. accounting and tax.

The largest factor driving the change in accounting education is the increasing push for global accounting standards. With global trade and capital flows, it is increasingly difficult to have to deal with different versions of GAAP, never mind trying to sort through what all of the accounting designations mean in each country. One of the biggest impediments to investment in emerging economies is the relative lack of accounting standards in these countries when compared to Canada, U.S., and the European Union. It will be a slow and agonizing process, but I believe that in the long term, there will be global accounting standards and a reduction in the number of different accounting designations.

Thanks for reading,

Michael Weedon

 

The CGAs support the institution of international standards. The CAs who developed the Canadian standards have a vested interested in the status quo.

The CICA Handbook was less than an inch thick when I studied it ages ago. It was a general outline of standards.

It got as far as three volumes in length and I think it is only available now on CD. It is the epitome of bureaucratic stupidity.

It states in infinitely petty detail how an accountant should do his job. The standard accounting questionaire was 4 pages when I started and is now up to about 50. Did this lead to better accounting? Just the opposite.

I have downgraded all but a few of my files to the lowest level of assurance, that being no assurance. All firms have done the same. Almost all of my statements say "I have not audited, reviewed or otherwise attempted to verify the accuracy or completeness" and I mean it.

 

CICA Handbook

I agree that the CICA Handbook has grown to a unmanageable size. Most of the sections have limited or no relevance to the typical small business that most accountants have as a client. For these organizations, providing review or audit level assurance on GAAP financial statements is too costly. Instead, some accounting firms are pushing their small business clients to adopt differential reporting when an audit or review is required (e.g. for a financial institution) in order to avoid GAAP requirements like impairment tests for goodwill. For all other clients where a review or audit isn't required, these engagements are downgraded to compilation engagements, where the financial statements don't have to be in accordance with GAAP and no assurance is provided (well, as long as the financial statements aren't false or misleading).

Currently, review and audit engagements are only done when required (e.g. public company, non-profit organization, or for the bank). Considering that there are account managers at major Canadian banks that don't know the difference between an audit, review or compilation engagement, why bother with an audit or review (too much money for the client)?

Michael Weedon