10-24-2009, 08:40 PM
Sohail
I guess you did not notice the contents of my last paragraph. My brother, we are small economy, we have little resources, we are underdeveloped, we look to other nations for survival, we have least growth; these all are facts. These facts have, we must agree, affected the number of professionals we produce either these are CAs, CMAs, consultant doctors or whatever. However, it is a great acheivement that regardless of its impact on number these could not affect the quality of our professionals.
So having a little number (merely 4243) against the world's output of millions is another issue and having 941 persons settled abroad against total population of 4243 is another issue. I agree that 941 against 1,000,000 could be the rare but 941 against 4243 is not rare at all.
If you have only 4243 CAs, then how can you object that why not millions of ICAP's members are not settled abroad by winning the competition against others who are certainly in millions. I said you have to analyse population for analysing the sample. Had it been one million CA produced by ICAP so far, I find no way except to agree that 941 is a rare case. This is why I gave you a percentage. I mean it would be bit confused if we go like this.
We must have to see that out of 4243 ICAP CAs (which is even lesser than local demand), 941 are settled abroad. So one cannot conclude that ICAP members rarely compete and win such competition when put to task against ICAEW's members. This is what I explained to you.
Now if you have your own definition of "rare", then it would be difficult to convince you. You said that CMAs are supervising CAs. I just don't want to go in this debate to avoid further purposeless discussion otherwise if I will reply it with facts and figures, all of your CMA brothers would say I am biased. You and I both know what is what and who is who. If any one of us does not know, then every one who reads this thread knows. So leave it because there is no cure of misconception, even if it is at my part. I however agree that CMAs are also well versed in their field though there are some facts which cannot be changed.
I am saying it from the outset that my assessment can be wrong if I assume CIMAs are better than ACMAs. Similar can be the case with others. Market is the best judge locally as well internationally.
Regards,
KAMRAN.
Edited for wrong spellings.
I guess you did not notice the contents of my last paragraph. My brother, we are small economy, we have little resources, we are underdeveloped, we look to other nations for survival, we have least growth; these all are facts. These facts have, we must agree, affected the number of professionals we produce either these are CAs, CMAs, consultant doctors or whatever. However, it is a great acheivement that regardless of its impact on number these could not affect the quality of our professionals.
So having a little number (merely 4243) against the world's output of millions is another issue and having 941 persons settled abroad against total population of 4243 is another issue. I agree that 941 against 1,000,000 could be the rare but 941 against 4243 is not rare at all.
If you have only 4243 CAs, then how can you object that why not millions of ICAP's members are not settled abroad by winning the competition against others who are certainly in millions. I said you have to analyse population for analysing the sample. Had it been one million CA produced by ICAP so far, I find no way except to agree that 941 is a rare case. This is why I gave you a percentage. I mean it would be bit confused if we go like this.
We must have to see that out of 4243 ICAP CAs (which is even lesser than local demand), 941 are settled abroad. So one cannot conclude that ICAP members rarely compete and win such competition when put to task against ICAEW's members. This is what I explained to you.
Now if you have your own definition of "rare", then it would be difficult to convince you. You said that CMAs are supervising CAs. I just don't want to go in this debate to avoid further purposeless discussion otherwise if I will reply it with facts and figures, all of your CMA brothers would say I am biased. You and I both know what is what and who is who. If any one of us does not know, then every one who reads this thread knows. So leave it because there is no cure of misconception, even if it is at my part. I however agree that CMAs are also well versed in their field though there are some facts which cannot be changed.
I am saying it from the outset that my assessment can be wrong if I assume CIMAs are better than ACMAs. Similar can be the case with others. Market is the best judge locally as well internationally.
Regards,
KAMRAN.
Edited for wrong spellings.
