Professional qualifications - a scam?

[rymanani]

I work in the finance field, where is highly encouraged to study an accounting qualification. These cost in the thousands, with each exam and the tuition very expensive - even where someone has an exemption, the fees are still applicable.

Since being identified as a retention risk at work (lots going on the market, current company has very uncertain future), there's been a lot of pressure for me to pursue a qualification, sponsored by the company, as they claim I'll be almost unemployable without one.

The catch of course is, that by taking on the sponsorship, I'll be committed to stay 2 years after completion, or have to pay the costs back.

Since the future of the company has become uncertain, I've noticed many of my colleagues taking up the qualification.

I have a strong desire to learn, however this type of intense studying just seems to be regurgitating facts and memorised information on an exam, rather than really understand and learn a topic. I've found so far that it's just a talking point in an interview, but nothing more.

I've been offered a job at a larger bank, and they didn't ask for a qualification, add I showed enough enthusiasm, and an ability to plug my knowledge gaps from the first round, and be able to fully explain the technical aspects I was lacking.

Long term however, are they worth the study? I've met many qualified people that would have gained much more on working on their soft skills, or their computer /excel skills!

[vexed87]

It depends if all employers in your field are asking for these.

Try and think why would your current employer be worried about your employability outside their organisation at all? Sounds like a retention ploy to me. With uncertainty, companies worry that staff will start jumping ship, thus crippling the organisation. Plenty of golden handcuffs on offer here too.

I have been sent on many courses just because there was money in the budget that had to be used, the courses were draining and took time up outside work, I've decided unless I benefit personally and it will have a long term effect on employability, I turn most of them down. I haven't learnt anything new on my courses.

[Tyler9000]

I've always personally felt that many professional qualifications these days are more about excluding competition than about raising the bar. Don't rock the boat, or we'll kick you off. But some fields do require them and I can't speak for yours.

In any case, I'd be very suspicious of an employer pressuring me to sign up for a 2-year commitment. Claiming you'll be unemployable without one is a bold statement. Will they fire you if you do not agree? Was it a requirement when you hired in? Redefining something that clearly benefits them (possibly more than it benefits you) as "looking out for your best interests" concerns me.

One idea: ask the new employer if they also offer financial assistance with the qualification. Perhaps they do and you'll still have the option to do it in the future if you choose. Or maybe they won't because they've found it's not worth it.

[Noided]

I am already employed but I am taking a Masters and the CFA exams at the same time. And I have to agree with you, I could learn a lot more if I just read a few books on the main topics and actually started working. But no, you have to have qualifications or else you won't even get the job... And then you have to waste time writing a CV using some guidelines from the "experts", and then you have to waste more time writing a Cover Letter using more guidelines...

Today I started considering just dropping my studies and starting to learn to code on my own and just roll with it. It would probably save me time, money and it is much more enjoyable. Even if I eventually failed at coding and never got a better job in my life, I am 23 and I save around 60% of my income, I will be fine. But because I want a job where I feel engaged, I decided to get back to university. Oh well, I think I will try to comfort myself by believing in the sunk cost fallacy "I already studied 1 semester and spent a lot of money, just continue".

[jacob]

Sounds like the CPA?

Be aware that some/many of these certifications require annual fees or N credit hours of classes to maintain the cert.

Racket lock-in! Sunk cost!

To some degree (ha!) they're a response to the lowering of standards of academic educations. If you can't count of someone with a traditional degree to know their stuff, the next step would be to require the certification, and so on ...

[Summer]

What's wrong is racking up multiple qualifications without an end. If you have one big terminal qualification you should be fine. If you don't even have that, you should really consider getting one regardless of your revolutionary ideas. You won't regret it ERE or otherwise. If you hate professional qualifications so much get an academic degree instead. Education is a prized necessity in this world that many people can't have so its a tragedy to put your opportunities to waste. If you have problems with your employers, try fixing them instead of blaming education professional or otherwise because of your employer. Just my two cents.

[GandK]

I can't speak to other career fields, but in mine (IT) these are almost useless. About six months after each certification is unveiled, there is a "practice test" available for purchase somewhere online that uses actual test questions that have been stolen from the test itself. Work through it enough times and you've memorized the test. Anyone can do this, and many do. It's an inexpensive and effective way to pad a resume.

And most employers are ignorant of this. All they know is that they frequently hire IT people who have the entire alphabet trailing after their name but who can't be relied upon to fix their network, upgrade their database, or write their web app without taking ten times longer and ten times more money than had originally been planned.

Now, all IT professionals are not charlatans. But a hiring process that relies upon credentials is subject to manipulation. Especially in a highly competitive market and in a career field where most people job-hop to raise their salary every 3 years or less.

The fix for this is for businesses to use knowledgeable consultants to vet incoming IT staff. When you're hiring someone who claims to be able to do something that you yourself cannot do, and that no one else at your organization can do well, the proper thing is to find someone who can. That person can present multiple hypothetical situations to the individual and gauge by his answers whether he's prepared to fill the role in question.

But that, too, costs money. And it frequently does not occur to HR departments that this might be necessary when the credentials people hold are from reputable international companies (Micrososft, Oracle, etc.). What's been happening lately instead is that the HR departments purchase software that gives incoming applicants yet another test. One that's supposedly more secure. But again, all it takes is for a few exiting applicants to pool their questions and they can sell the result to the next applicant.

So the cycle continues, and the business still isn't examining the right skills: critical thinking, imagination, and willingness to both follow the existing procedures and to implement emergency protocols when necessary. Their only focus is on technical fluency. Which is the least important thing to focus on, honestly. Any given fact can be Googled in a pinch. Someone who has no ability to roll with the punches, or to handle an emergency without making it worse, or to think outside the box, or to write well, or to interact politely with customers, deferentially with senior management and kindly with his subordinates, will not magically attain these abilities later. He will remain the main they hired: an ignorant jerk who happens to be the only one in his Wednesday night D&D group who doesn't have to look up obscure C# syntax minutiae online before implementing it.