US
Back in May this young European banker told you about his search for work in Australia, now he’s got another issue on his mind…
Over 1,000 hopeful candidates descended upon the Mooney Valley Racecourse here in Melbourne recently to attempt the infamous CFA exam. Countless hours of studying were put to the test in two gruelling three-hour exams. Such efforts are primarily made in order to receive the prestigious CFA letters after you name on business cards and resumes.
The CFA curriculum definitely provides you with a thorough understanding of finance and related disciplines. But what is the true value of the three letters, and are you a better employee because of them?
Similar questions can be asked about universities and business schools. Learning is always important, but sometimes it feels like the need for the correct name on your CV is more important than what you actually learn. Are you really a better employee because you went to a first-tier university instead of a second- tier one?
Of course, there would be some difference in the quality of lecturers, but ultimately wouldn’t it depend on the work effort of the individual student? Having a good university name on your resume definitely turns heads, but is this justified?
These are important questions to ask because there are huge differences between the price tags of different institutions.
The hype that surrounds certain university names like Harvard and Oxford to some extent also applies to the CFA accreditation. In contract theory in economics, this effect is labeled as “signaling”: how you try to signal to potential employers that you are a productive, excellent candidate.
The interesting part about signaling is that education in itself does not necessarily need to hold any real value. It can simply be a means to separate you from other job seekers by the fact that you’ve done something supposedly difficult. If you are only worried about the end result of getting a better job or higher wage, then having that high-profile name on your resume could be worth the money and time.
However, if you are focussed on gaining skills and knowledge for their own sake, it is worth considering what you get out of paying the premium for the top-tier universities. Are you really getting the extra value for your money, or should you possibly consider a more cost effective way of getting the same skills?
Acquiring new skills by yourself or obtaining them from a less recognised university will not have the same dazzle effect on your resume. The point is that you could very well be an excellent worker and/or student and obtain the same skills, even if you did not get your degree or MBA from the very best university.
If you are just focusing on the skills gained, there could be a lot of money to be saved from doing a quick and simple cost-benefit analysis. This could be food for thought when looking at postgraduate certifications or MBAs.
Are you a candidate looking for work in Australia? Would you like to write an anonymous article for eFinancialCareers giving an honest perspective on your experiences in the job market? Please email: apac.editor@efinancialcareers.com
Click here to subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
The CFA will make you look better, but unless you’ve already got the right experience it won’t magically open doors to areas that you couldnt get into before.
Re MBAs – it’s the pre-selection process that makes a prestigious program worthwhile. Recruiters go to Harvard because the students there were probably already proven successes in their prior careers – not because of the courses and professors…
From an ROI view, I’d take the CFA anytime over an MBA. As the “I” for the CFA is much lower than for any quality MBA program, your “ROI” is many times higher as a result.
It would be different if the MBA from Havard etc. was being used as a self-selecting networking tool for already successful professionals, however.
I am a CIIA, that is the Asian and European equivalent of the CFA, and I have noticed, particularly in the present market, that sometimes recruiters do not consider you on the wrong assumption that as formally qualified you will require a higher package compared to somebodyelse with same experience.
Depending on the current market cycle qualifications can work the opposite way.
I want to do the level one at the end of this year, because I cannot find out any orther competitive edges I have to compete with orther candidators in this industry. I considered RG146. Which one is better to hunt a finance job in Australia? And how about Finsia metoring program? I am wroking as a FX market analyst and advisor in a small team based in Melbourne .
Insert your comment here (under 1200 characters)…I want to do the level one at the end of this year, because I cannot find out any orther competitive edges I have to compete with orther candidators in this industry. I considered RG146. Which one is better to hunt a finance job in Australia? And how about Finsia metoring program? I am wroking as a FX market analyst and advisor in a small team based in Melbourne .