Is the accountancy profession just for the privileged?

sarhar82

Hello people,

Does anyone here think that the accountancy profession is mainly aimed at the more privileged in our society?

Take the IACA - you must sign up for a 3 yr contract in order to get qualified and whilst tied in to this contract the employer can legally pay you less than minimum wage because you are a trainee.

These trainee rates still apply even if you have a degree in accountancy!

I am thinking that for anyone to survive their training they would need additional financial support and also the support of family and friends.

I know there are people who have come from awful backgrounds and still qualified and I applaud them for it but is it fair to say that the majority of qualified accountants come from better off backgrounds?

Let me know what you think?

prinz

I am doing just fine thanks. Without any additional financial support.
That said I do believe it would be impossible if I had a family or a mortgage. Especially in small firms, wages are rubbish, but not prohibitive.

Hackysack

I agree with Prinz. You just have to manage your money better. I'm not getting any additional financial support. It's manageable while training but it's nowhere near smooth sailing.

But I really disagree, I don't think it is aimed at the more privilaged in society. I'd have an opinion like that regarding lawyers, particularly due to the sheer cost of obtaining some of their books, even at undergrad level.

prinz

Hackysack wrote: »

I'd have an opinion like that regarding lawyers, particularly due to the sheer cost of obtaining some of their books, even at undergrad level.

Now THAT I can vouch for.Remeber spending €120 on a Criminal Law book for uni. After that I told myself never again. Library from then on and did me no harm. The only books I have now are that Crim Law book and a load of Nutshells study aids

partyguinness

People from less well off backgrounds generally have no interest in school/futher education and drop out early an dtake up menial jobs. Lack of motivation which stems from the parents.

Thats why all the BS about free 3rd level fees. The abolition was supposed to increase particiaption from the lower socio economic groups.
Thus implying that there was a whole load of poor people/working class leaving cert students that cldnt get into 3rd level because of the cost. Uttter tripe.

The statistics have no shown that there has been no increase in the numbers of intake from poor background.

The reason that is such poor intake from lower socio economic backgrounds is because they have no interest. Full stop.

That is why. Nothing to do with money.

LightningBolt

partyguinness wrote: »

People from less well off backgrounds generally have no interest in school/futher education and drop out early an dtake up menial jobs. Lack of motivation which stems from the parents.

Thats why all the BS about free 3rd level fees. The abolition was supposed to increase particiaption from the lower socio economic groups.
Thus implying that there was a whole load of poor people/working class leaving cert students that cldnt get into 3rd level because of the cost. Uttter tripe.

The statistics have no shown that there has been no increase in the numbers of intake from poor background.

The reason that is such poor intake from lower socio economic backgrounds is because they have no interest. Full stop.

That is why. Nothing to do with money.

I'm sorry but that's b.s. It's not generally as you put it. I know plenty of people who just can't afford the luxury of going to college because they have to help contribute to the family income. Perhaps if fees were mean tested there'd be more assistance available to people from disadvantaged socio economic backgrounds. In my opinion there's just as many people who have no interest in going to college from a poor background as there is people from a well to do background going to college just for the sake of getting pissed. I've seen it throughout my college years.

To the OP, if you want to succeed at something you need drive and determination. If you have those qualities and a bit of luck you'll be able to do an awful lot, extra support, be it financial or otherwise is an advantage but don't see it as an obstacle if you don't have it.

Throughout college I juggled the college and study itself, 15-20 hour a week pt job and 4 days of rugby whilst having a social life. It can be viewed favourably in interview if you can show that you can manage a lot of different tasks/activities compared to someone who shows up for an interview and all they have is their education details along with some "work experience" during transition year.

tipptop2008

Think from doing accounting during college and training contract the vast majority of people are from the middle to upper classes. Don't think its just for the prilvaged cause this probably just reflects the make up of people going to college. Also can't just argue cause of low wages and being tied into a contract means only the privalaged can afford it. Sur if that was the case there wouldn't be any apprentices either and think most of these are probably paid a lot less than trainee accountants.

shewasoctober

I'm managing to live pretty good on my salary in my 1st year in my contract at a Big4. My paycut brought me down to just over what I was offered at a small practices, which was between 20.5K-22K. Most people I work with are doing just fine, and they aren't staying in every night of the week either.

Also, many trainees come straight from college, so they are accustomed to living as a student, and the wages surpass that. My housemate lived on about €7000 a year while in college. It's doable. If you have a degree, you have a good chance of making at least 20K a year when you start. With the cost of living down (just got my rent dropped by €300 p.m.) it's becoming very doable.

It's all about budgeting. You can budget a life into your salary.

prinz

LightningBolt wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's b.s. It's not generally as you put it. I know plenty of people who just can't afford the luxury of going to college because they have to help contribute to the family income. Perhaps if fees were mean tested there'd be more assistance available to people from disadvantaged socio economic backgrounds.

Except it is generally Have you ever paid any attention to the CSO releases on this point?

LightningBolt

Statistics can tell any story you want.

I'm telling you that there is plenty of young people who are interested and would like to go to college but can't because of their financial situation. I'm from one of Dublin's disadvantaged areas and know first hand plenty of people who wanted to go to college but couldn't because it just wasn't feasible. There's definitely a lot of people who have no interest whatsoever in going to college never mind holding down a job but when you use the word generally I take it you mean the majority which just isn't true.

To be honest it's more partyguinness's tone that I have issue with. Are bricklayers, plumbers, electricians etc. menial jobs? If so I better tell friends who still have work in those areas that what they're doing is pretty worthless.:rolleyes:

prinz

LightningBolt wrote: »

Are bricklayers, plumbers, electricians etc. menial jobs? If so I better tell friends who still have work in those areas that what they're doing is pretty worthless.:rolleyes:

I wish I was on their money

partyguinness

LightningBolt wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's b.s. It's not generally as you put it. I know plenty of people who just can't afford the luxury of going to college because they have to help contribute to the family income. Perhaps if fees were mean tested there'd be more assistance available to people from disadvantaged socio economic backgrounds. In my opinion there's just as many people who have no interest in going to college from a poor background as there is people from a well to do background going to college just for the sake of getting pissed. I've seen it throughout my college years.

To the OP, if you want to succeed at something you need drive and determination. If you have those qualities and a bit of luck you'll be able to do an awful lot, extra support, be it financial or otherwise is an advantage but don't see it as an obstacle if you don't have it.

Throughout college I juggled the college and study itself, 15-20 hour a week pt job and 4 days of rugby whilst having a social life. It can be viewed favourably in interview if you can show that you can manage a lot of different tasks/activities compared to someone who shows up for an interview and all they have is their education details along with some "work experience" during transition year.

Great, you point out that I used the word "generally" and then ignore the point I am making. Of course not everyone but the majority and you are in the minority...good for you...bet they are very proud of you back in the 'hood..:D

You are also putting words in my mouth..I never said that bricklayers, plumbers etc are menial jobs...in fact, as you have brought it up, those jobs are not menial and I am surprised that you think so...unskilled workers have menial jobs.

The statistics are there to back it up (afraid I dont have a link) to show that since the abolition of 3rd level fees in 1995/1996 there has been no marked increase in the number of "poor" people going onto third level. If it was such an issue then surely the numbers would have gone up??

Now the building boom may have sucked a lot of these people into FAS etc. But still.

LightningBolt

partyguinness wrote: »

Great, you point out that I used the word "generally" and then ignore the point I am making. Of course not everyone but the majority and you are in the minority...good for you...bet they are very proud of you back in the 'hood..:D

You are also putting words in my mouth..I never said that bricklayers, plumbers etc are menial jobs...in fact, as you have brought it up, those jobs are not menial and I am surprised that you think so...unskilled workers have menial jobs.

The statistics are there to back it up (afraid I dont have a link) to show that since the abolition of 3rd level fees in 1995/1996 there has been no marked increase in the number of "poor" people going onto third level. If it was such an issue then surely the numbers would have gone up??

Now the building boom may have sucked a lot of these people into FAS etc. But still.

I've seen those statistics. The point you're making is that free fees did nothing whatsoever to increase third level participation amongst those from lower socio economic backgrounds. You're correct. What I'm saying is that whilst free fees made it possible for more people to avail of the option of going to college, many couldn't due to financial circumstances which meant they had to take up full time jobs instead. The free fees scheme failed in my eyes as it gave those with the means already an easy ride through college.

We're going a bit OT

Climber

The free fees scheme failed in my eyes as it gave those with the means already an easy ride through college.

I agree with that point.

I also think that the 'free fees' reduced the value of a degree. Nowaways, 'every body has a degree', so, all the 'free fees' has done is make it more difficult to find a job for the very people that the Government tried to make it easier for

sarhar82

I wasn't saying that it couldn't be done and believe me I have done it.

I understand that yes you can manage on a budget but do you think that it is worng that trainee accountants are being paid less than minimun wage even if they have a degree and/or previous work experience.

Say for example if you were a person with a house and kids, how could you possibly get in to the profession - you simply could not!

prinz

LightningBolt wrote: »

The free fees scheme failed in my eyes as it gave those with the means already an easy ride through college.

Climber wrote: »

I agree with that point.
I also think that the 'free fees' reduced the value of a degree. Nowaways, 'every body has a degree', so, all the 'free fees' has done is make it more difficult to find a job for the very people that the Government tried to make it easier for

So what you're saying is people "with the means" shouldn't get degrees because they should be reserved for those the Government try "to make it easier for"? On one hand you're bemoaning the fact more people don't get to college and on the other hand you're saying too many are

jon1981

sarhar82 wrote: »

Say for example if you were a person with a house and kids, how could you possibly get in to the profession - you simply could not!

+1 i agree here...

but in fairness if you have been working in x industry for 10 years and want to transition to Y industry you can pretty much expect a heavy drop in salary unless there are some mutual skills/experience you can transition with...

e.g. for me I would love to move in to finance/tax area but I can't afford to take a drop, unfortunately as my salary went up, so did my cost of living! had i known 2-3 years ago that i wanted to switch careers i would never have took out loans that i have now.

prinz

sarhar82 wrote: »

Say for example if you were a person with a house and kids, how could you possibly get in to the profession - you simply could not!

Definitely. Going to be caught in that trap soon myself. Getting married in December and OH is coming from abroad If she doesn't get work here (likely) I really don't know how we'll get on tbh, two people living on one trainee salary :rolleyes:. Especially now that given the "current economic climate" wage reviews have been shelved. Was expecting be be on in the region of 5k more this year than I am at the moment.

browne_rob5

sarhar82 wrote: »

I wasn't saying that it couldn't be done and believe me I have done it.

I understand that yes you can manage on a budget but do you think that it is worng that trainee accountants are being paid less than minimun wage even if they have a degree and/or previous work experience.

Say for example if you were a person with a house and kids, how could you possibly get in to the profession - you simply could not!

A trainee with a big 4 firm will start on more than €20K wchich will rise to close to €40K before they qualify. They also get 2/3 months paid study leave each year and their firm must pay €4k is course fees each year.

Given these factors I cant see how you would expect a firm to pay a trainee more. The firms are a business and these are real costs for them. Most people who begin an accountancy profession would be 21/22 so wouldnt have a mortgage or kids so would easily survive on the above pay. I suppose want to be an accountant you would have to put off a mortgage until later in life. Not too big a sacrifice.

prinz

browne_rob5 wrote: »

A trainee with a big 4 firm will start on more than €20K wchich will rise to close to €40K before they qualify. They also get 2/3 months paid study leave each year and their firm must pay €4k is course fees each year.

Given these factors I cant see how you would expect a firm to pay a trainee more. The firms are a business and these are real costs for them. Most people who begin an accountancy profession would be 21/22 so wouldnt have a mortgage or kids so would easily survive on the above pay. I suppose want to be an accountant you would have to put off a mortgage until later in life. Not too big a sacrifice.

A friend of mine started with G.T. on €13k p.a. Just sat my CAP2 and I'm on €21k. I don't think I'll be hitting €40k by the time I qualify. Nowhere near it.

LightningBolt

prinz wrote: »

So what you're saying is people "with the means" shouldn't get degrees because they should be reserved for those the Government try "to make it easier for"? On one hand you're bemoaning the fact more people don't get to college and on the other hand you're saying too many are

Nowhere did I say too many people are going to college. What I did say was that free fees allowed some people an easy ride through college ie. instead of parents paying fees they'd give their son/daughter an allowance every week. That in turn meant they didn't have to worry about working part time. Compare that to someone who was entitled to free fees but would have had to work part time to help pay for family basics. They're the people who I believe should have been targeted for assistance, not people who could afford to piss away their parents money. I'm well aware not everybody did this but in my class there was about a 1/5th or so who could live off their parents. Surely if they could live off their parents the money used to pay their fees could have been allocated to others in greater need.

It's not worthwhile debating this much further (god knows you could talk till death about it) because like it or not fees will be reintroduced in the near future.

LightningBolt

prinz wrote: »

A friend of mine started with G.T. on €13k p.a. Just sat my CAP2 and I'm on €21k. I don't think I'll be hitting €40k by the time I qualify. Nowhere near it.

€13k:eek: Was that in Dublin and was your friend starting without exams? I'd a friend start there two years ago on €24k with his CAP 1's completed. €13k if in Dublin is scandalous. I'd have to revise my original statement if they can survive on €13k.

prinz

LightningBolt wrote: »

€13k:eek: Was that in Dublin and was your friend starting without exams? I'd a friend start there two years ago on €24k with his CAP 1's completed. €13k if in Dublin is scandalous. I'd have to revise my original statement if they can survive on €13k.

It was down the country. With exemptions. He jacked it in before long obviously. Moved to Dublin after a year to one of the Big4 and jumped almost €15k.

I know where the point is coming from though. I've often thought about it. It is fairly ridiculous the money smaller practices and industry pay to trainees. I'm mid 20's and I'd love to live on my own for instance but close to the city it's virtually impossible with what I'm on. So end up sharing a house with 19 and 20 year old college students. Makes me feel like a sad act at times. Working your ass off for nothing as a trainee. The cost of living in Ireland has a lot to do with it. I'm getting by ok now, but tbh it's cutting fairly fine month after month. Haven't got a lot of cash left over. No debts though which I'm happy about.

shewasoctober

Climber wrote: »

I agree with that point.

I also think that the 'free fees' reduced the value of a degree. Nowaways, 'every body has a degree', so, all the 'free fees' has done is make it more difficult to find a job for the very people that the Government tried to make it easier for

I agree that paying for your education may make it more valuable but charging fees still doesn't solve anything. If fees are to be charged, they should be reasonably small. I'm from the States and the tuition and fees are ridiculous. Even though people from low income families, if they stay in state, can get full federal funding for tuition and fees, student loans are still necessary for housing and other living expenses of which will run you an average of $7,000. Of course that will increase if you attend a university in NYC, Chicago, LA and other expensive areas. Many students who complete a 4-year degree are $25,000+ in debt. Also, federal funding makes matters worse for middle income families as the household income cut-off is very low for federal grant which is the most helpful grant and are left to student loans. Private scholarships are usually very competitive and even some of the best students are left out.

I come from a low-income family and had to put myself through school and am in a lot of debt because of it. I'm glad they recognise the ICAI programs as an internship/residency program so I'm able to defer my loans for another 2 years allowing me to complete my training and earn decent money to pay them back. It will take the full 10 years to repay them unless I win the lotto or something.

In the end, fees or no fees, it's up to the individual to make it valuable. Fees aren't going to change that. I say make all degrees cumulative. That might make it more valuable. Not saying everyone fraks off during their first 2 years, but I know people who did and then graduated with a 1st. That would be impossible in the US. I pretty sure 3-4 years of hardwork would make more people value their degree.

I agree on the point that people from less well-off backgrounds have little interest in the so-called professions, accountancy merely being one of these.

That point might not go down well with some folks here, but my own experience would concur with it. I am an ACA btw, who also lectures in the profession.

As already said, living on an ACA trainee salary would be next to impossible if you have mortgage and/or kids, regardless of your demographic.

I don't see how this fact makes it more difficult for people from disadvantaged areas to join the profession.

Climber

In the end, fees or no fees, it's up to the individual to make it valuable

Correct

So, just by throwing degrees at people like confetti at a Mob wedding, (as a result of making 3rd level education free and the relative ease it is to pass most college exams: exam tips anyone! )will not result in everybody getting nice management jobs with above average salaries.

It's down to each individual person.

djk1000

This has to be, without a shadow of a doubt, the most animated thread I've seen on this forum in ages. An economic philosophical debate in the accounting forum! Well, I never!!!:P

I was always under the impression that accountancy was the one profession that didn't really require privilege to get into. It was the one profession where you could get paid while you learn and although the pay wasn't much, it made a good career option for people that could never stump up the cost of a college/university place, let alone for the Law Society or College of surgeons eta al.

Anyone with a poor background, but a bit of aptitude could have a graduate level career and get paid along the way

Keano

As someone who ended up working in Finance/Accountancy for the last number of years but without any accounting qualification it really is down to each person. I had many chances to start my CIMA but in my heart I always new I did not want to be in the field all my life. I'll be leaving my present job soon with nothing to go to and would take another similar job only down to the fact that the market is bad.

It is not for everyone but some people really excel in the area.

djk1000

djk1000 wrote: »

Anyone with a poor background, but a bit of aptitude could have a graduate level career and get paid along the way

Spot on.

No excuses about economics circumstances etc wash with me. Either work at it and prosper, or don't, and find something else.

Slippers

I came across this while looking for something else and thought of this thread:
www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1016430.shtml

It's about the UK, but might still be interesting.

"The report suggests privately educated people took the lion’s share of jobs in some professions, despite accounting for only 7% of the population. Three-quarters of judges, 70% of finance directors and 45% of top civil servants went to independent schools, for example."

LouOB

LightningBolt wrote: »

To the OP, if you want to succeed at something you need drive and determination. If you have those qualities and a bit of luck you'll be able to do an awful lot, extra support, be it financial or otherwise is an advantage but don't see it as an obstacle if you don't have it.
QUOTE]

jon1981 wrote: »

e.g. for me I would love to move in to finance/tax area but I can't afford to take a drop, unfortunately as my salary went up, so did my cost of living! had i known 2-3 years ago that i wanted to switch careers i would never have took out loans that i have now.

For any kind of long term study, especially part-time you need a bag of determination. People in big4 or other have the luxury of lengthly study leave but myself I had to eat into holidays. So, long nights and days studying with no holidays left to take and a mortgage. And I did it

If you want to get into that area you could transfer from your present position (depending on your organisation). But most companys, regardless of size, would have an accountancy dept. Ask for transfer

I dont come from affluent backround. But I could see the benefit down the line of have a number of qualifications and experience. I dont want to be working 40+hours a week in ten years time. But due to the nature of promotion I prob will have to - but getting paid more for it.

People who didnt take up the free fees scheme was due to 1. fear 2. laziness. I was in that category and didnt take it up. I went another route doing AITI full time, only deciding to do BA/ACCA etc later on. But my company paid for those.

If you are in the family way i.e. kids/mortgage and want to go into accountancy you are better of getting a transfer into accoutancy dept or getting into stable company that offers educational assistance.

Dyr

partyguinness wrote: »

Great, you point out that I used the word "generally" and then ignore the point I am making. Of course not everyone but the majority and you are in the minority...good for you...bet they are very proud of you back in the 'hood..:D

You are also putting words in my mouth..I never said that bricklayers, plumbers etc are menial jobs...in fact, as you have brought it up, those jobs are not menial and I am surprised that you think so...unskilled workers have menial jobs.

The statistics are there to back it up (afraid I dont have a link) to show that since the abolition of 3rd level fees in 1995/1996 there has been no marked increase in the number of "poor" people going onto third level. If it was such an issue then surely the numbers would have gone up??

Now the building boom may have sucked a lot of these people into FAS etc. But still.

Third level fee's were abolished by Niamh Breathnach as a sop to the labour partie's middle class vote, the abolition ensured that more students from middle class families would be able to go to college and squeeze out even more students from poor backgrounds, most "poor" students didn't pay fee's in the first place.

Your stereotyping really adds to the little little lord muck rep that the accountancy profession suffers from, ironically enough.:o

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

Your stereotyping really adds to the little little lord muck rep that the accountancy profession suffers from, ironically enough.:o

Little lord muck rep? That's news to me In my experience, it's one of the more democratic and accessible professions. If you're good enough, you'll succeed.

secman

Believe it or not there are many CPA, ACCA and ACA members in ........ I dare say it......... places like Tallaght, Clondalkin, Finglas ..........

As one previous poster put it, it is probably the one profession that it does not matter where you come from....... Thank God

Secman

The CCAinsider

Sorry for this, but a bit of history, ACCA was set up 100 years ago because then, only the wealthy could do accounting. At the time your parents had to pay an accountant to take you on as a trainee Chartered Accountant. The ACCA ethos was that anybody could do accounting and become an accountant if they had ability and determination but not necessarily wealthy parents. The ethos is still there today, while the exams are harder than Chartered, anybody can attempt them and you do not need a 3 year contract. 3rd world students are sitting ACCA exams with home study and out of date text books - VERY few pass but if they do it is like winning the lotto for them. In Ireland we are spoiled for choice for tuition, but using a home study option, ACCA is a relatively inexpensive qualification that can be attempted in your spare time while holding down a job, including a non accounting job. CPA has a shorter pedigree but offers the same option now as well. I don't believe that accountancy has to be restricted to wealthy people. Many ACCA students are in the IFSC or corporate sector on big salaries and doing ACCA part time. About 1/3 of ACCA students are in practice starting on minimum wage but getting a more rounded experience. Within 2-3 years they will be on good money also.

The CCAinsider

The CCAinsider wrote: »

Sorry for this, but a bit of history, ACCA was set up 100 years ago because then, only the wealthy could do accounting. At the time your parents had to pay an accountant to take you on as a trainee Chartered Accountant. The ACCA ethos was that anybody could do accounting and become an accountant if they had ability and determination but not necessarily wealthy parents. The ethos is still there today, while the exams are harder than Chartered, anybody can attempt them and you do not need a 3 year contract. 3rd world students are sitting ACCA exams with home study and out of date text books - VERY few pass but if they do it is like winning the lotto for them. In Ireland we are spoiled for choice for tuition, but using a home study option, ACCA is a relatively inexpensive qualification that can be attempted in your spare time while holding down a job, including a non accounting job. CPA has a shorter pedigree but offers the same option now as well. I don't believe that accountancy has to be restricted to wealthy people. Many ACCA students are in the IFSC or corporate sector on big salaries and doing ACCA part time. About 1/3 of ACCA students are in practice starting on minimum wage but getting a more rounded experience. Within 2-3 years they will be on good money also.

Agree with the gist of what you are saying. Not too sure about the ACCA exams being harder than Chartered though. Says who? I would see ACCA and ACA as being at broadly the same levels. I am a bit biased though, as you might have guessed...

mr_edge_to_you

I'm in industry and get very little study leave, I get said accordingly. If I sit an exam 3 times I get refunded the full cost of one exam upon passing. My salary reflects this, I get more than a p/q in practice. If you factor in the significantly better study leave in practice it goes someway towards explaining the lower salary earned. But back to main point accounting is not solely for the priviledged, it is open to everyone. Anyone can register, the colleges are open to anyone. Many people who attend BPP and DBS do so at the company's expense. If I have to repeat a course I pay for it and adjust my lifestyle accordingly. Don't see how priviledged or not is an issue.

The CCAinsider

I am an ACA and an ACCA, so I am not bias and still think ACCA is harder. CIMA in my opinion is the hardest.

The CCAinsider

The CCAinsider wrote: »

I am an ACA and an ACCA, so I am not bias and still think ACCA is harder. CIMA in my opinion is the hardest.

Okay. Can't agree with you on that. I'm ACA and have taught ACCA, and I would rate them as equally challenging. It all comes down to opinion really.

Btw, you must be the first person I've ever encountered who is both ACA and ACCA. Fair play, you must love the study

Running Bing

The CCAinsider wrote: »

I am an ACA and an ACCA, so I am not bias and still think ACCA is harder. CIMA in my opinion is the hardest.

Why did you do ACCA and ACA? Which did you do first?

seven-iron

I know a director working in industry. He's a heavy hitting cima type, sound bloke, absolute gent. sh*t smart. He always says to me "not bad for a man from tallafornia". and its true.

I also know guys from school, a supposedly posh one and after five years since the day they finished their last LC exam have not achieved jack sh*it. Its mind boggling when you think about it. They have not advanced in anyway shape or form in almost five years.

Like secman says, it has nothing to do with where you come from and anyone who says otherwise is a w*anker.

peace out - i love you all

dogwhomadeit

The privilege begins long before they begin their accountancy training, from the preschool to the extra tuition they recieve.

The ICAI 3 year contract has 2 primary roles, one is to avail of cheap educated labour ie paid less than minimum wage in most cases and two is to filter out the lower working class participants because they will be unable to support themselves for 3 years on such a low budget. Only a hand few of the poor will qualify in the end, not because they cannot pass the exams but because they cannot afford to live on this wage that is less than social welfare.

People need additional help from family and friends and it is probably difficult for people here who read this to contemplate that some people have no one in this world, no family or friends.

With regard to the 3rd level grant, lets face it its pathetic and would'nt send a monkey to bananna college. The well off get everything paid for them, i know this because i went to college with them. In summer the poor work in meat factories while the rich kids do their manditory visit to OZ.

I also applaud poor people who become full qualified chartered accountants because they become the best type of accountant i.e. real life experience mixed with a good education and these types excel above and beyond the norm once they have crawled through the tunnel of middle class crap that was laid in the pipe line of nepotism before them.
It is not impossable for the poor to become wealthy but it is rare and extraordinary.

seven-iron

The IACA 3 year contract has 2 primary roles, one is to avail of cheap educated labour ie paid less than minimum wage

Where are you going with your "less than minimum wage". Im starting on €12.10 an hour. Minimum wage is €8.65. And given that the cost of living is coming down thats good. Straight to barber college for you my friend.

dogwhomadeit

dogwhomadeit wrote: »

The privilege begins long before they begin their accountancy training, from the preschool to the extra tuition they recieve.

The IACA 3 year contract has 2 primary roles, one is to avail of cheap educated labour ie paid less than minimum wage in most cases and two is to filter out the lower working class participants because they will be unable to support themselves for 3 years on such a low budget. Only a hand few of the poor will qualify in the end, not because they cannot pass the exams but because they cannot afford to live on this wage that is less than social welfare.

People need additional help from family and friends and it is probably difficult for people here who read this to contemplate that some people have no one in this world, no family or friends.

With regard to the 3rd level grant, lets face it its pathetic and would'nt send a monkey to bananna college. The well off get everything paid for them, i know this because i went to college with them. In summer the poor work in meat factories while the rich kids do their manditory visit to OZ.

I also applaud poor people who become full qualified chartered accountants because they become the best type of accountant i.e. real life experience mixed with a good education and these types excel above and beyond the norm once they have crawled through the tunnel of middle class crap that was laid in the pipe line of nepotism before them.
It is not impossable for the poor to become wealthy but it is rare and extraordinary.

What on earth are you talking about? Have you actually done a training contract? (And it's not called 'IACA' btw). What you are saying bears very little similarity to any training contracts I have done or supervised. I am certainly not from a 'privileged' background, but I have done alright.

And 'poor perople become the best kind of accountants?' That's the most patronising thing I've ever read on this forum

dogwhomadeit

Hi Seven-Iron,
I'm happy that you have begun your training at €12.10 an hour as this is a good wage.

The average contact I have come across is 3 years bound to the one company/practice at an average of €5 per hour!

With regards to study leave and tuition/exam fees being paid, given the pay is miniscule it's irrelevant, you are still cheap labour.

Seven it is possible to live on €12.10 per hour but the cost of living coming down is a poor argument to justify anything less than minimum wage which would actually be a pay increase for most of the trainees I know! and fyi landlords have not reduced their rents according to the economic downturn and esb metres are still calibrated at peak rates even though there is a reduction of 13% in electricity prices.

Taking everything into account, accountancy is primarily aimed at the privileged.

dogwhomadeit

dogwhomadeit wrote: »

In summer the poor work in meat factories while the rich kids do their manditory visit to OZ.

I learnt recently that the summer I stayed home to save money (~10 years ago) - the lads who went to Europe were paid such good wages they saved more.

Hanley

dogwhomadeit wrote: »

Hi Seven-Iron,
I'm happy that you have begun your training at €12.10 an hour as this is a good wage.

The average contact I have come across is 3 years bound to the one company/practice at an average of €5 per hour!

Average salary across the 3 year period? Bullsh!t.

dearg lady

dogwhomadeit wrote: »

The average contact I have come across is 3 years bound to the one company/practice at an average of €5 per hour!

I don't know anyone in the accounting field i Ireland on a rate even close to as low as this. I'd have to completely disagree with you. Training contracts don't pay fantastically well but it is enough to live on.

I'm from a working class family, did a three year degree, worked a few years and have an accounting training contract at the moment. Ive never once had to get money from family, everything's been paid for by me, and my current job(training contract covers course expenses)

I don't buy into this 'just for the privileged' bullsh*t. It's open to anyone who's willing to put the work in.

dogwhomadeit

Basicly every accountant i have worked with has started on well below minimum wage, FACT, cannot be disputed.

All of these people had a degree in business or related area on entry to the profession, FACT, cannot be disputed.

To have people with a degree working for minimum wage is wrong but for less than minimum wage with a degree is criminal, immoral, inhumane and a let down to this country.

I put this question to the room,
Do you want to work for minimum wage as a professional?
And if you are getting better than minimum wage are you happy for other trainees to be working on that income?

dearg lady

dogwhomadeit wrote: »

Basicly every accountant i have worked with has started on well below minimum wage, FACT, cannot be disputed.

All of these people had a degree in business or related area on entry to the profession, FACT, cannot be disputed.

To have people with a degree working for minimum wage is wrong but for less than minimum wage with a degree is criminal, immoral, inhumane and a let down to this country.

I put this question to the room,
Do you want to work for minimum wage as a professional?
And if you are getting better than minimum wage are you happy for other trainees to be working on that income?

just because you put fact in capitals doesn't make it any more true! Can you prove this to us in any way? Cos otherwise, nah, not believin it at all.

As I said, from my experience, know of no one on less than minimum wage. that is just my experience though!

I also know of several people who do not have business related degrees currently pursuing professional accounting qualifications. Some have unrelated degrees, some have no degree.

seven-iron

and fyi landlords have not reduced their rents according to the economic downturn

Are you kidding me?