02-25-2010, 06:00 AM
Dard
Here we are not discussing whether or not ACCA students possess quality knowledge. Rather, I explained that the preference that one can see in current situation is not for quality reason. We are discussing reason only.
Quality, competition, knowledge etc will only be compared when rest of elements will come at par so that selection can be made by any one on qualitative terms.
As far as ACCA students are concerned, I don't want to go in a controvercy by declaring anything absolute.
However, ACCA affiliates are different and far better than ACCA part qualified people; and CA Inters are Far Far better than ACCA part qualified students.
ACCA affiliate can give a good competition to CA Inters if selection has to be based on qualitative terms and ACCA affiliate has good personality attributes. Yet I believe ACCA part qualified are too behind in the quest, if quality is under question.
I am not in favor of discrimination; however, I advocate a perfect competition environment.
As far as stipend is concerned, I am of the view that ACCA chapter should be proactive to finalize UNIFORM predetermined stipend rates with the firms in various categories. Personaly, I don't feel that stipend rate of ACCA students/affiliates should be more than CA Inters unless the firm decides paying a higher rate at its discretion. However, I am not a decision maker so my feeling does not carry any weightage.
The categorization of approved employers is the most "failed" concept of ACCA chapter; and perhaps you don't know how they categorize and how much pursuance and monitoring they do. I know it personally so there is no room to listen arguments. Certainly, they are at a very initial step and bargaining is their limitation and not of the employers. I hope you will understand what I am saying.
BTW, Odyssee (a member of forum) went to PRL (an approved ICAEW employer/organization) for training placement and met the head of HR department. To his surprise, no one at PRL was even knowing what ICAEW in fact is and what is meant by "approved organization" or "training placement".
So dear theoratically things are always good but practically there is always something different.
I simply tell you that as far as ACCA students are concerned, there is no explicit code of conduct for them developed by ACCA chapter that should specifically govern the training issues in Pakistan.
Unlike CA, there is no registered training contract; there is no specified minimum period that a student commit to serve in training so they are always unpredictable with firm's point of view; mentor is never known to ACCA Chapter in advance since there is no registering of training arrangements; (oftenly necessity becomes mother of invention and mentors are created and ficticious training particulars are got signed and submitted which are never verified by chapter); ACCA chapter has not prescribed restrictions applicable to trainees not to engage in conflicting business; no uniform stipends are precribed creating disparity and confusion among students; office's general conduct is not clarified; no active monitoring of the training activities is done; ACCA chapter has no means to ensure that students are actually rotated in various departments; training structure is not uniform and is never discussed by ACCA chapter and ficticious training particulars are submitted to ACCA; so on and so forth. A long list can be produced simply by making comparison with ICAP's training regulations.
The reason is obvious, chapter is not in a bargaining position.
However, it should pay attention where it is feasible.
Let's see, things may improve over the time. Afterall chapter is youngster with reference to age and will certainly be addressing these issues in future.
Regards,
Kamran.
Here we are not discussing whether or not ACCA students possess quality knowledge. Rather, I explained that the preference that one can see in current situation is not for quality reason. We are discussing reason only.
Quality, competition, knowledge etc will only be compared when rest of elements will come at par so that selection can be made by any one on qualitative terms.
As far as ACCA students are concerned, I don't want to go in a controvercy by declaring anything absolute.
However, ACCA affiliates are different and far better than ACCA part qualified people; and CA Inters are Far Far better than ACCA part qualified students.
ACCA affiliate can give a good competition to CA Inters if selection has to be based on qualitative terms and ACCA affiliate has good personality attributes. Yet I believe ACCA part qualified are too behind in the quest, if quality is under question.
I am not in favor of discrimination; however, I advocate a perfect competition environment.
As far as stipend is concerned, I am of the view that ACCA chapter should be proactive to finalize UNIFORM predetermined stipend rates with the firms in various categories. Personaly, I don't feel that stipend rate of ACCA students/affiliates should be more than CA Inters unless the firm decides paying a higher rate at its discretion. However, I am not a decision maker so my feeling does not carry any weightage.
The categorization of approved employers is the most "failed" concept of ACCA chapter; and perhaps you don't know how they categorize and how much pursuance and monitoring they do. I know it personally so there is no room to listen arguments. Certainly, they are at a very initial step and bargaining is their limitation and not of the employers. I hope you will understand what I am saying.
BTW, Odyssee (a member of forum) went to PRL (an approved ICAEW employer/organization) for training placement and met the head of HR department. To his surprise, no one at PRL was even knowing what ICAEW in fact is and what is meant by "approved organization" or "training placement".
So dear theoratically things are always good but practically there is always something different.
I simply tell you that as far as ACCA students are concerned, there is no explicit code of conduct for them developed by ACCA chapter that should specifically govern the training issues in Pakistan.
Unlike CA, there is no registered training contract; there is no specified minimum period that a student commit to serve in training so they are always unpredictable with firm's point of view; mentor is never known to ACCA Chapter in advance since there is no registering of training arrangements; (oftenly necessity becomes mother of invention and mentors are created and ficticious training particulars are got signed and submitted which are never verified by chapter); ACCA chapter has not prescribed restrictions applicable to trainees not to engage in conflicting business; no uniform stipends are precribed creating disparity and confusion among students; office's general conduct is not clarified; no active monitoring of the training activities is done; ACCA chapter has no means to ensure that students are actually rotated in various departments; training structure is not uniform and is never discussed by ACCA chapter and ficticious training particulars are submitted to ACCA; so on and so forth. A long list can be produced simply by making comparison with ICAP's training regulations.
The reason is obvious, chapter is not in a bargaining position.
However, it should pay attention where it is feasible.
Let's see, things may improve over the time. Afterall chapter is youngster with reference to age and will certainly be addressing these issues in future.
Regards,
Kamran.
