Is there any point in AAT?. Am I studying to be a 'Cowboy'

2

Comments

  • slackdaslackda Trusted Regular Registered Posts: 460
    faerie9 wrote: »
    Wiki is not set in stone. As I understand it, anyone can edit the entry.
    Ergo, this was clearly written by someone who doesn't appreciate the value of the AAT.

    Some bright AAT Wikipedier should go and edit it.... :D

    made a few changes :P
  • spacysamspacysam Just Joined Registered Posts: 3
    Whats in a name?
    blobbyh wrote: »
    I'd love to see how they could regulate the term accountant since it's not just what you are but also what you do. Doctors don't practise 'doctorancy' or 'doctorism' nor do people automatically assume that everyone who works in the medical profession is a doctor!

    My friend has just finished his doctorate in chemistry and can now call himself a Dr, this does not mean that he can practice medicine just that he can work in a lab with chemicals.

    As doctor can mean so many things, so can accountant.....so I don’t see how they could regulate one term and not anything else!

    My official job title is Financial Administrator but everyone just refers to me as the "Accountant".

    I don’t really care what my job title is; I know what I have achieved and what I can do. So does my employer and that’s all that matters.

    Spacysam
  • blobbyhblobbyh Font Of All Knowledge Registered Posts: 2,415
    But that's my point. They may well one day regulate the term 'accountant' - though I think it's unlikely and almost impossible to enforce - but they can't take the word out of general usage and that's always what other people will still call us even if we don't use it ourselves!

    "What do you do for a living?"
    "Errrrrrrr..........I do accounts..."
    "So you're an accountant?"
    "No, I do accounts"
    "So that makes you an accountant?"
    "Errrrrrrrr......no.........."

    And many bookies will be forced to have new signs if they can't display 'Turf Accountant' over their doors any more!
  • speegsspeegs Experienced Mentor Registered Posts: 854
    I am an Accountant and I am AAT qualified. I do not call myself a Chartered Accountant as that would be deceptive. I just don't understand why the Chartered and Certified lot are getting on their high horses about people like me being called Accountant. Our titles and qualifications are different. If they want to be the only ones called Accountants then why don't they end their studing at AAT level.

    Also the Chartered and Certified lot only have to get 50% in their exams whereas as us AATs actually have to be competent. A big difference in my opinion. Their exams might be harder than ours but getting 50% of a company's accountant incorrect I think is incompetent!

    I not sure if any of that made sense but it did to me and I feel better now.

    Speegs
  • MonsoonMonsoon Font Of All Knowledge FMAAT, AAT Licensed Accountant Posts: 4,069
    speegs wrote: »
    Also the Chartered and Certified lot only have to get 50% in their exams whereas as us AATs actually have to be competent. A big difference in my opinion. Their exams might be harder than ours but getting 50% of a company's accountant incorrect I think is incompetent!

    If I'd been drinking a cup of tea, I'd have spat out a mouthful. As it was I laughed out loud.

    Thanks!

    Good point about 'stopping at AAT level' - if there is a distinction (which there is) between Chartered and non-Chartered accountants, then there must be qualifications that just make you an Accountant. The AAT is one of these.
  • speegsspeegs Experienced Mentor Registered Posts: 854
    Monsoon wrote: »
    If I'd been drinking a cup of tea, I'd have spat out a mouthful. As it was I laughed out loud.

    Thanks!

    Good point about 'stopping at AAT level' - if there is a distinction (which there is) between Chartered and non-Chartered accountants, then there must be qualifications that just make you an Accountant. The AAT is one of these.

    What you said! :)
  • speegsspeegs Experienced Mentor Registered Posts: 854
    blobbyh wrote: »
    But that's my point. They may well one day regulate the term 'accountant' - though I think it's unlikely and almost impossible to enforce - but they can't take the word out of general usage and that's always what other people will still call us even if we don't use it ourselves!

    "What do you do for a living?"
    "Errrrrrrr..........I do accounts..."
    "So you're an accountant?"
    "No, I do accounts"
    "So that makes you an accountant?"
    "Errrrrrrrr......no.........."

    And many bookies will be forced to have new signs if they can't display 'Turf Accountant' over their doors any more!

    Well said!

    Speegs
  • Gill GittingsGill Gittings Well-Known Registered Posts: 121
    Speegs I am Aat and an ACCA level 2 student and from what I read about this subject is the AAT qualifieds are always on their high horse about this issue. Let's face it chartered accountants are , and always will be, more respected than an AAT accountantM I work with hundreds of Aat and Chartereds and the chartereds are extremely good at what they do. The AATers are good as I consider myself to be but I wouldn't say I am as technically able as a chartered/certified.
  • MonsoonMonsoon Font Of All Knowledge FMAAT, AAT Licensed Accountant Posts: 4,069
    Speegs I am Aat and an ACCA level 2 student and from what I read about this subject is the AAT qualifieds are always on their high horse about this issue. Let's face it chartered accountants are , and always will be, more respected than an AAT accountantM I work with hundreds of Aat and Chartereds and the chartereds are extremely good at what they do. The AATers are good as I consider myself to be but I wouldn't say I am as technically able as a chartered/certified.

    The Chartereds are also on their high horse about calling MAATs accountants. It goes both ways. Not all MAATs are accountants. Some are 'just' technicians, some are bookkeepers, some are payroll/ledger clerks. But some of us are accountants in every sense of the word and the fact that 'AT' stands for Accounting Technician should not detract from that.

    As an aside, a MAAT ACCA I know said the other day that the term "Accounting Technician" is outdated and the organisation needs a re-name. I think I agree with her.

    The IFA qualification is a similar standard to AAT and just because their body has the word "Accountant" in its name, implies something greater than the AAT. I don't think this should be the case.

    I agree that the chart. quals. go into a much greater breadth and depth than the AAT does. I would never, ever seek to suggest that I am as good as a chartered in all areas. I know I'm not. But then, I don't do anything on the management side of things and I never want to do audit, amongst other things. The AAT is enough to get people ready for general practice coupled with the right experience. Without that experience it is not enough (as I learned the hard way, and I had enough experience to grant me MiP status).

    I can't comment on Industry as I've never worked in it.
  • SandyHoodSandyHood Font Of All Knowledge Registered, Moderator Posts: 2,034
    I speak as someone who's main income is from training accountants.

    I try and provide help and guidance to firms in addition to my teaching work. I often visit firms where there are accountants working away, some qualified with ICAEW, others with ACCA, some with CIMA, some with AAT, occassionally an ICAS or an ICAI. There are often accountants with no qualifications at all (I'd often say they were qualified by experience ~ not all of them though)

    Now who do I ask when I want information to try and improve the way the business works?

    You guessed it! I ask an accountant who I think will know the answer.
    Knowing the answer, or someone who I believe really knows what he/she is talking about . Exactly what qualifications an accountant has doesn't come into my thoughts.

    What I've found over the years has been illuminating.
    There are accountants with qualifications who I would not ask.
    There are accountants with qualifications I would ask.

    There are accountants with no qualifications I would not ask.
    There are accountantants with qualifications I would ask.

    I comes down to whether I genuinely believe someone can add to information and help me to address the issue.

    So think about where you work.
    Are there people working in accounts who you respect, and others you don't?
    And does your respect depend on what these accountants can do, or on the qualifications they have?
    Sandy
    [email protected]
    www.sandyhood.com
  • jewels.pjewels.p Font Of All Knowledge Registered Posts: 1,774
    In the AAT Qualification's Defence......................I was talking to someone the other day who works with our local Council ( the less said about them the better). She told me that she is studying to become an ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN. I asked her what she was doing thinking it was the AAT the same as me. She then told me that she was doing an HNC in Accounting and this would make her an Accounting Technician.

    Her HNC Course is only for one year once a week for a few hours in the evening. So if they can call themselves an Accounting Technician after studying for that length of time I think we are more than entitled to call ourselves an Accountant when we complete the AAT.
  • LondinaLondina Experienced Mentor MAAT, AAT Licensed Accountant Posts: 814
    jewels.p wrote: »
    In the AAT Qualification's Defence......................I was talking to someone the other day who works with our local Council ( the less said about them the better). She told me that she is studying to become an ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN. I asked her what she was doing thinking it was the AAT the same as me. She then told me that she was doing an HNC in Accounting and this would make her an Accounting Technician.

    Her HNC Course is only for one year once a week for a few hours in the evening. So if they can call themselves an Accounting Technician after studying for that length of time I think we are more than entitled to call ourselves an Accountant when we complete the AAT.

    Good point Jewels, we are different from those mickey mouse courses therefore we should have more recognition!!
    It would be ideal if the AAT should stand for "Association Accountants Technicians" :-)))

    Otherwise we will all ended up to do basic bookkeeping jobs, stuff you study at Foundation level, when actually we also studied taxations, financial statements, management accounts, audit, etc..!
  • JaffasGirlJaffasGirl Trusted Regular Registered Posts: 387
    jewels.p wrote: »
    In the AAT Qualification's Defence......................I was talking to someone the other day who works with our local Council ( the less said about them the better). She told me that she is studying to become an ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN. I asked her what she was doing thinking it was the AAT the same as me. She then told me that she was doing an HNC in Accounting and this would make her an Accounting Technician.

    Her HNC Course is only for one year once a week for a few hours in the evening. So if they can call themselves an Accounting Technician after studying for that length of time I think we are more than entitled to call ourselves an Accountant when we complete the AAT.

    I called a company call pitman training, asking about the Excel courses they do (another string to the bow) and when I mentioned that I was going to soon start the AAT, I was told I could do a course through them, that would take a few evenings, and I would be able to start Level 4 of the AAT....what kind of message is that sending out? that us guys slave away for two years and apparently we're all idiots cause you can learn it all in a few weeks!
  • AndypandyAndypandy Experienced Mentor Registered Posts: 526
    Just thought I'd mention that a colleague doing P2 ACCA is asking ME for advice & DFS notes - they've been rushed through the international standards & group accounts & been told we're a bit better at the technical stuff. Take heart :)
  • BluewednesdayBluewednesday Font Of All Knowledge Registered Posts: 1,624
    I'm not belittling AAT but believe me - having done both P2 and DFS - I can promise you there is no comparison!

    For P2 you need to know all the standards in detail.
  • PGMPGM Font Of All Knowledge Registered Posts: 1,954
    I'm not belittling AAT but believe me - having done both P2 and DFS - I can promise you there is no comparison!

    For P2 you need to know all the standards in detail.

    I'm just doing P2, the level of detail it goes into is mind blowing. The text book is 850 pages.....
  • BluewednesdayBluewednesday Font Of All Knowledge Registered Posts: 1,624
    Good luck with that paper - it's a hard one but the examiner has been there for yonks so the papers are usually very fair!
  • PGMPGM Font Of All Knowledge Registered Posts: 1,954
    Good luck with that paper - it's a hard one but the examiner has been there for yonks so the papers are usually very fair!

    Ah right thanks. I wonder how similar the past papers?

    Not that I'm going off topic.. I found doing AAT that if you did a few past papers and could get your head around them, you'd be fine in the exam. But its a little harder with the larger ACCA sylabus, and the exams more varied.
  • SandyHoodSandyHood Font Of All Knowledge Registered, Moderator Posts: 2,034
    P2 is a much higher level

    But if you compare F1 F2 and F3 with the Technician units Technician is superior.
    On the F6 paper where we have students who passed F2 and DFS, it is the students with the DFS background that understand more. F5 is similar.
    Sandy
    [email protected]
    www.sandyhood.com
  • messedup89messedup89 Experienced Mentor Registered Posts: 1,281
    F5 is hard! I thought F7 would be similar to DFS, which it is, but soooooooooo much harder!
  • AndypandyAndypandy Experienced Mentor Registered Posts: 526
    Kinda' glad I'm doing ACA then:)
  • LondinaLondina Experienced Mentor MAAT, AAT Licensed Accountant Posts: 814
    can we please go back to the subject of the discussions? I'm still thinking if it's worthwhile the AAT or it's just becoming pointless since there are so many mickey mouse courses around and the AAT could pass for one of them just because we are not "chartered".

    Also for the type of job we can find, bookkeepping roles usually, what's the point therefore studying management accounting, taxations, audit, the project if then we cannot apply in a job place? may as well just study Foundation because this is what we will going to do at the end of the day
  • SandyHoodSandyHood Font Of All Knowledge Registered, Moderator Posts: 2,034
    AAT Foundation is fine as a course in its own right

    You can show a prospective employer what you can do

    Completing technician is not for everyone
    Sandy
    [email protected]
    www.sandyhood.com
  • A-VicA-Vic Expertise Guaranteed Registered Posts: 6,970
    Even tho i have zero management accounts expereince when it comes to doing accounts for clients the management papers help in understanding why things are treated certin ways so what people may see as pointless i see as vital. Otherwise how can you advise any future client without all the knowleadge??

    As for the AAT being pointless why is it that there are more AAT level students in employment than Graud students?
  • stevefstevef Well-Known CarmarthenRegistered Posts: 258
    And don't forget many AAT members do not or want to work in practice, but are employed in commerce, industry or the public sector. Where I work AAt is seen as the appropriate body for staff at Officer (team leader) level, with AAT students at Assistant level. This means both members and students carrying out ledger maintainance work, control account reconciliations, preparing ad hoc reports from the ledger, advising budget holders etc etc. Basic data entry to the ledger for most transactions is fairly automated and is carried out by non finance staff remotely.

    I expect my Officers and Assistants to fully participate in the preparation of management accounts and financial accounts, to participate in working parties, to assist auditors, to carry out project accounting and help with system development. I would argue that the syllabus covered by AAT is ideal for my organisations requirements.

    We only have three posts requiring CCAB Accountantants, one is a global corporate strategy and leadership role at Director level, one is responsible for the day to day management of the Finance funcion at manager level, and my role as Head of is in between these two, with overall responsibility for the Finance function, ensuring legislation and regulations are adhered to, representing finance in internal management and committee meetings and representing the authority when dealing with external organisations (but I still play with journals and get to prepare the final accounts - joy!).

    The point of this ramble is to point out that in the environment I work in, we would be lost without our Accounting Technicians and they get to use most things they learn. This is why I am proud to still be an AAT member.
  • jow774jow774 Trusted Regular Registered Posts: 465
    I agree with the above but it seems to me that employers value AAT differently. Some employers ask for AAT qualified for basic purchase/sales ledger jobs and yet some ask for AAT qualified for Semi-Senior and sometimes even senior Accountants.
  • stevefstevef Well-Known CarmarthenRegistered Posts: 258
    Exactly jow774, thats why as Accounting Technicians we should be out their telling employers what membership entails, what an AAT member can do and what levels of work are suitable. Instead of trying to be recognised as being the same as a CCAB Accountants, AAT should be proudly shouting out the differences and the differing roles AAT members could undertake. Why would you employ a CCAB accountant for a role that an Accounting Technician is better suited for. I would suggest that as a body we should be turning our energies to getting AAT recognised by all for what it is, not trying to convince people that it is something that it is not.

    As far as I am aware AAT is the only professional body with the term "Accounting Tecnician" in its title (CAT is not an independant body , but is part of the ACCA family of qualifications). There are many bodies calling themselves Accountants (some Chartered, some not). That makes AAT unique and a way of distinguishing ourselves from everyone else.

    Also, no matter what individual Accountants might say, the Chartered Accounting bodies think highly of AAT, to the extent that four of them sponser AAT and one has an MOU regarding relationships with the AAT which is being continually reviewed.
  • jow774jow774 Trusted Regular Registered Posts: 465
    I just think it should be the AAT who are publicising what we can do rather than us students/members. I can tell an employer I can do allsorts and that my qualification proves that, but whether they believe me or I am telling the truth is a different matter. If the awarding body publicises what we can do an employer is more likely to take that seriously. For some reason some people think of the AAT as a one qualification/level which is a starting point to accounts which foundation is but surely by NVQ level 4 this simply isnt true, there needs to be more publicity by the AAT to all employers not just accountants and big business.
  • PGMPGM Font Of All Knowledge Registered Posts: 1,954
    I've got AAT and nearly ACCA, and I definitely think AAT is undervalued after studying both.

    The chartered bodies have very strong reputations, the question is how do you do similar with AAT?

    Maybe they should have used a better word than "technician", as its never going to sound as prestigious as "chartered".

    But, it really does need AAT to lead from the top and make the brand be better regarded.
  • A-VicA-Vic Expertise Guaranteed Registered Posts: 6,970
    Why Not AAP Assiocation of Accounting Practitioners
2
Sign In or Register to comment.