Are you an accountant if you are AAT qualified?

mrme89mrme89 Banned User Posts: 621
Discuss.
«1

Comments

  • MarieNoelleMarieNoelle Trusted Regular Hampshire/Surrey borderModerator, MAAT, AAT Licensed Accountant Posts: 973
    you took your time
    mrme89
  • mrme89mrme89 Banned User Posts: 621
    I've been busy playing word association.
    MarieNoelle
  • MarieNoelleMarieNoelle Trusted Regular Hampshire/Surrey borderModerator, MAAT, AAT Licensed Accountant Posts: 973
    edited March 7
    Are you an accountant if you are AAT qualified?

    Of course.
    Edit: it depends.
  • BertieBertie West Midlands Registered Posts: 224
    I believe that AAT makes an excellent small business accountant.

    The CPD resources provided by the AAT are excellent for small businesses too, obviously there is always further reading, but it provides enough of a seed to make you aware of changes, and in most cases where to look.

    Personally I'd like to see a level 5 implemented and a rebranding of the AAT.

    Level 5 would include the equivalent of ATT together with FRS 102.

    I know hardly anyone would agree to sit any extra exams yet it would create a strong middle ground between the AAT and ACCA/CIMA.

    Thus ditching the term technician which is where I think some people see confusion.

    To finally answer your question...

    It depends on how much work you put into this industry after you've completed the syllabus. If you think the certificate is enough, then no. If you continue to read and search for further knowledge then yes.




  • readerreader Experienced Mentor MAAT, AAT Licensed Accountant Posts: 665
    I would say a MAAT/FMAAT is a part qualified or trainee accountant. I don't think an MAAT is a fully qualified accountant in the same way an ACCA, CIMA or ACA is a fully qualified accountant. Harsh but true.
  • mrme89mrme89 Banned User Posts: 621
    reader said:

    I would say a MAAT/FMAAT is a part qualified or trainee accountant. I don't think an MAAT is a fully qualified accountant in the same way an ACCA, CIMA or ACA is a fully qualified accountant. Harsh but true.

    Controversial. I like it!

  • mrme89mrme89 Banned User Posts: 621
    Bertie said:

    I believe that AAT makes an excellent small business accountant.

    The CPD resources provided by the AAT are excellent for small businesses too, obviously there is always further reading, but it provides enough of a seed to make you aware of changes, and in most cases where to look.

    Personally I'd like to see a level 5 implemented and a rebranding of the AAT.

    Level 5 would include the equivalent of ATT together with FRS 102.

    I know hardly anyone would agree to sit any extra exams yet it would create a strong middle ground between the AAT and ACCA/CIMA.

    Thus ditching the term technician which is where I think some people see confusion.

    To finally answer your question...

    It depends on how much work you put into this industry after you've completed the syllabus. If you think the certificate is enough, then no. If you continue to read and search for further knowledge then yes.



    Some good points.

    The AAT could introduce another level, but they could also make the syllabus more intense. The current one can be done in < 18 months if you put your mind to it.

  • BeccaLouJ9BeccaLouJ9 Experienced Mentor DevonRegistered Posts: 985
    edited March 8
    reader said:

    I would say a MAAT/FMAAT is a part qualified or trainee accountant. I don't think an MAAT is a fully qualified accountant in the same way an ACCA, CIMA or ACA is a fully qualified accountant. Harsh but true.

    How about someone with 25 years experience but no formal qualifications or 'just' AAT? not an accountant? :)
    B x
    Becca Jones CTA MAAT ATT :)

    Mike Webster
  • mrme89mrme89 Banned User Posts: 621
    > @BeccaLouJ9 said:
    > I would say a MAAT/FMAAT is a part qualified or trainee accountant. I don't think an MAAT is a fully qualified accountant in the same way an ACCA, CIMA or ACA is a fully qualified accountant. Harsh but true.
    >
    > How about someone with 25 years experience but no formal qualifications or 'just' AAT? not an accountant? :)
    > B x
    Tea boy / girl
  • BeccaLouJ9BeccaLouJ9 Experienced Mentor DevonRegistered Posts: 985
    Ah, I thought so. Tea boy MAAT.
    Becca Jones CTA MAAT ATT :)

  • mrme89mrme89 Banned User Posts: 621
    edited March 8
    Tea Boy is something I hope to be in a few years time. It's better than my current role of Number Bitch.
  • BeccaLouJ9BeccaLouJ9 Experienced Mentor DevonRegistered Posts: 985
    Well I'm not going to lie, it's going to be hard work, you'll have to put the effort in... Can you hack it? :/

    B
    x
    Becca Jones CTA MAAT ATT :)

  • mrme89mrme89 Banned User Posts: 621
    Water then milk? Milk then water? Sugar first or after? 3 stirs or 6? Stir clockwise or anti-clockwise?

    Arrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh the stress of it.
  • BertieBertie West Midlands Registered Posts: 224
    Although a good idea I don't believe the qualification as is could be made anymore comprehensive due to it being a level 4 qualification.

    As things stand all level 4 qualifications, whether AAT, IT, Childcare etc, etc have to be on a reasonable, equal, intellectual level to retain the same QCF / UCAS points and such.

    There is a gulf in the distance as things stand between AAT level 4 and ACCA / CIMA / ICAEW which are, on a like for like basis, level 7 when complete.

    Fair enough ACCA, after F9, if completed in numerical order, holds little relevance to small businesses. P6 would be more relevant than certain F papers - I will add.

    So, as things won't change, I would suggest to be an Accountant, one between AAT and a Chartered accountant, complete ATT together with getting nose deep in some solid FRS 102(1a) 105 books.

    If the law was to ever change I'm not sure how AAT would handle the profession being protected, as it is around the world.

    The AAT has a mass of reserves, there is no reason why it could not take the qualification to at least level 5 - it has the funds and it has the students.

    If not increase the qualification at least fight for a Charter. ILEX are, in terms of qualification, level 4 - they gained a Charter, now CILEX - why not AAT?

    It does make it sound elitist but what is the point in standing still if things can be improved?










    Mike Webster
  • NeillawNeillaw New Member RossendaleRegistered Posts: 160
    Anyone know how to work one of them plunger things?
    MarieNoelle
  • MarieNoelleMarieNoelle Trusted Regular Hampshire/Surrey borderModerator, MAAT, AAT Licensed Accountant Posts: 973
    Neillaw said:

    Anyone know how to work one of them plunger things?

    I found some useful CPD here.
  • mrme89mrme89 Banned User Posts: 621
    I thought to complete CILEX and call yourself a Chartered Legal Exec, you had to complete Level 6.

    I heard Katie Price is good with a plunger. Or did I hear that she's a good sucker? I've no idea though. best speak to Mario or Luigi.
  • NeillawNeillaw New Member RossendaleRegistered Posts: 160

    Neillaw said:

    Anyone know how to work one of them plunger things?

    I found some useful CPD here.
    So that's what you use them for!

    Always thought it was to be used in conjunction with a strict credit control system.
  • BertieBertie West Midlands Registered Posts: 224
    mrme89 said:

    I thought to complete CILEX and call yourself a Chartered Legal Exec, you had to complete Level 6.



    I heard Katie Price is good with a plunger. Or did I hear that she's a good sucker? I've no idea though. best speak to Mario or Luigi.

    Apologises.

    You are quite right - on both accounts.

  • readerreader Experienced Mentor MAAT, AAT Licensed Accountant Posts: 665

    reader said:

    I would say a MAAT/FMAAT is a part qualified or trainee accountant. I don't think an MAAT is a fully qualified accountant in the same way an ACCA, CIMA or ACA is a fully qualified accountant. Harsh but true.

    How about someone with 25 years experience but no formal qualifications or 'just' AAT? not an accountant? :)
    B x
    Simple, I would call someone with 25 years experience but with no qualifications an "unqualified accountant". If they had AAT and experience I would call them what they are, e.g. "part qualified accountant".

    People shouldn't take offence to being called "unqualified" or "part qualified" if that is what they are.

    If people don't want to be an "unqualified accountant" or "part qualified accountant" just simply spend circa 4 - 6 years doing ACCA/CIMA. 4 - 6 years is a relatively short period of time given that a lot of people will work from around 21 years old to 68 years old, e.g. 47 years (assuming their job doesn't get taken by a robot).
  • mrme89mrme89 Banned User Posts: 621
    Simple, I would call someone with 25 years experience but with no qualifications an "unqualified accountant". If they had AAT and experience I would call them what they are, e.g. "part qualified accountant".

    I would call them by the well know phrase ‘QBE’.

    If they had AAT and experience I would call them what they are, e.g. "part qualified accountant".

    I would call them ‘Accountant’.

    People shouldn't take offence to being called "unqualified" or "part qualified" if that is what they are.


    I agree. But it would appear that people have a different interpretation to what is unqualified, part qualified and qualified.

    If people don't want to be an "unqualified accountant" or "part qualified accountant" just simply spend circa 4 - 6 years doing ACCA/CIMA. 4 - 6 years is a relatively short period of time given that a lot of people will work from around 21 years old to 68 years old, e.g. 47 years (assuming their job doesn't get taken by a robot).

    I would call people that have done CIMA/ACCA/ACA Chartered Management Accountants, Chartered Certified Accountants or Chartered Accountants.


    Incidentally, I’ve met ‘unqualified’ staff that have been dog shite, and others that have been very, very good. I’ve also met ‘qualified’ staff that have been dog shite, and other that have been very, very good.

    In my experience, there is no correlation between competence and qualification.
  • BeccaLouJ9BeccaLouJ9 Experienced Mentor DevonRegistered Posts: 985
    edited March 9
    Basically any one can be an accountant, and if that's what you want to call yourself, go ahead. Whether others view you as such, is up to them.

    Accountants can be chartered and experienced and still rubbish, in the same way, a 'non'qualified' with experience can be excellent.

    - you can either do your job or you can't! :)

    I am an accountant because that is what I do.

    B x
    Becca Jones CTA MAAT ATT :)

    MarieNoelle
  • mrme89mrme89 Banned User Posts: 621
    I've applied for something completely unrelated to accountancy and tax so hopefully I won't have the predicament of what to call myself in the future!
  • BeccaLouJ9BeccaLouJ9 Experienced Mentor DevonRegistered Posts: 985
    ..... go on...
    Becca Jones CTA MAAT ATT :)

  • mrme89mrme89 Banned User Posts: 621
    No joke (for a change).
  • TreadStoneTreadStone Feels At Home AAT Licensed Accountant Posts: 194
    edited March 9
    To me, the term "qualified Accountant" is a misnomer.

    You only need to be qualified to do the work in front of you. Whether you have no letters or 28 letters after your name makes no difference.

    I feel competent in doing this yet I'm not chartered. I began my ACCA studies and passed the first few exams then quit. Not because they were overly difficult but because I felt the subjects weren't relevant to my current or future work plans.

    There'll be many ACCA/CIMA Accountants who aren't in practice and may struggle to put together a set of company accounts and submit a CT return yet they are still "qualified".

    Having spent almost 30 years in private practice, am I any less qualified than those with the letters ? Only on paper.....

    Just my take :)
    BeccaLouJ9MarieNoelle
  • BertieBertie West Midlands Registered Posts: 224
    edited March 9
    You are what you are by virtue of what you do - I agree.

    CIMA / ACCA is over kill for small businesses, although having a deeper knowledge can't be a bad thing.

    Hence my rationale behind having a level 5 for those who don't want to be ACCA / CIMA - it would be ideal for small businesses.

    Some of the sharpest Accountants I know are QBE, together with AAT and CIMA who no longer renew membership.
    BeccaLouJ9
  • WilloWillo Registered Posts: 10
    I believe this as been discussed for many years, as some of the professional bodies wanted the word 'accountant' restricted (which I do not believe this will happen in my life time).

    I do strongly agree that the word should be Restricted to members of professional bodies (including AAT) as I think the profession needs to be better regulated.

    I have worked with many good QBE's however there has to be a cut off point and perhaps some professional bodies could give them some kind honorary membership should they meet certain criteria, but perhaps downgraded to a certain extend so not to a fend the members that worked hard to pass their exams, I know I would not like someone taking on the letters ACCA or AAT
  • BertieBertie West Midlands Registered Posts: 224
    Well only a Chartered can be a Chartered.

    I wouldn't appreciate a QBE gaining complete exemption from CIMA exams.

    Just like I'm sure the ladies with CTA wouldn't appreciate folk getting full exemption from CIOT exams.

    I suppose the discussion / debate could go on forever, although it is slightly one sided as I'm assuming everyone here is an active member of the AAT :)
  • mrme89mrme89 Banned User Posts: 621
    I'm not an active member of AAT. I'm worthless :(
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.