Something that helped me immensely when I was preparing for the CKE, and should be helpful to anyone taking a multiple choice test designed by halfwits, was to realize that the test was probably designed by someone who wasn't thinking things through very much. Reading too much into a question is a recipie for anguish and anger. If you make it all the way through this rant you'll pick up a tip that will prove invaluable on your next multiple choice test.
Yes, you may be right when presented with all the possible exceptions to a scenario, but in an ordinary multiple choice question, go with the answer they're "looking for" rather than the answer that shows off how smart you are.
It's sad but true: learning more facts and gaining more knowledge than expected of you can actually end up harming you, when you're presented what the test writer would consider to be a "simple" question.
Right lane, left lane : right answer, left answer.
Step away from the world of accounting and consider a true story from the world of science. A basic question can be designed to test your knowledge of photosynthesis, making you say, "yes, of course it's impossible to generate energy in an ecosystem with light" by answering "True" to a question that says, "can you generate energy in an ecosystem in the absence of sunlight."
Of course, your true or false premise is absolutely destroyed if the student had a teacher in earlier grades who explained the concept of chemosynthesis. Perhaps this particular scenario would be less likely in the present day, since Bill Nye talked up this concept in 2004 according to our dear geek friends updating Wikipedia. But when I was in high school my teacher had no idea, and I had a wonderful fight proving myself right.
The problem is that you'll rarely be in a position to prove how right you are, particularly on professional exams like the CKE, or online courses provided by schools and employers.
The inspriation for today's rant came from a question I saw on an online quiz about driving, asking how badly your fueld efficiency can be degraded if your car's engine is poorly maintained. Your options are something like 5%, 15%, 50% and 75%.
Right off the bat, I felt gobsmacked by the idiocy behind that question.
If you really wanted to ruin an engine, I'm sure the right answer would be infinity, or some other equally grotesque number. Break the car so badly through neglect that it hardly moves but still burns gas and your answer is apparent: the sky's the limit, in non-mathematical terms.
And yet some pompous driving school blowhard expects students to memorize a completely inane "fact". Fortunately there's an antidote for The Stupid: our good friend Google. It'll take you to websites like that of the CAA, which will proudly proclaim the 50% statistic.
Where in the name of all that is holy did they come up with that number? I'd love to see a source for that research but the CAA didn't bother with an answer. No matter, the driving school people are happy to run with it. Heaven forbid you be asked more questions about the proper way to deal with road hazards. No, let's deal with pseudo-science instead. Much more fun.
Once you've had a chance to roll your eyes at what passes for pedagogy, remember that you'll encounter questions like this again and again. You'll be asked what sort of capitalization or expense treatment is allowed under GAAP or IFRS. There may be some freakish extreme scenario that will render all the proposed answers invalid. Ignore that. Go for the most likely answer based on the most likely scenario, and you'll hopefully do just fine on the test. Good luck.
And if you have the luxury of providing a written answer instead of a forlorn hope scratched onto a Scantron sheet, then write out your assumptions. Be happy, while keeping to your time limit, that you can share your knowledge of the extreme scenario which invalidates all answers, as you know the markers will be obligated to consider that comment. If there's ever a fight over the right answer, or whether you're one mark away from passing or failing, the additional written comments will do wonders. Of course, a pure online course is unlikely to give you that luxury, but that hopefully won't stop you from taking a screenshot, dumping it in your favorite word processor, and annotating it with your comments. You can subsequently harp on the course designers to your heart's content with the fact that they designed a test poorly and should fix their atrocity of learning before it's inflicted on more innocent students.
Let's all take a moment to gather around the warm glow of our monitors and study Wikipedia's insights into the concept of a microsite.
Now let's study the ICAO Unification Microsite. You don't have to click away, I'll give you a screenshot:
What exactly is wrong here? There are both technical and semiotic issues at play in their use of the word "Microsite" and how they've deployed it on this page. The quote "I do not think that word means what you think it means" comes ot mind as you scroll around.
I don't claim to be a hugely skilled web designer, despite having built a couple of websites from scratch, but you would think introductory text of some nature would appear. Instead you see a map of Canada that doesn't do much to support the idea of "Unification" by making Ontario pop out with a golden glow, followed by a rack of size links, four very short news clips, and two "upcoming events". Compare this to a list of well-designed sites and your shoulders sort of slouch with despair. What happened here?
If we continue by playing along with Wikipedia's definition, you would expect to see a custom domain or subdomain. There is no such thing as "http://unification.icao.on.ca", or "http://www.OntarioCAUnification.ca" so they really aren't trying very hard to stand out. Of course, web optimization isn't really the ICAO's strong suit. I mean, google for them and the other ICAO is the one that pops up first.
The calendar of events is best avoided. There are only 4 of them left. Hopefully that'll fill up between now and the June vote, but it does look rather sad.
The last technical point is more nitpicky, but it matters: whoever designed that page clearly phoned it in. Look at the top of the page.
See how it says "Uniting the Accounting Profession"?
That's not all it says.
Drift further to the right and note that they were too lazy to remove "Page Title" when they designed the site. Consider the thousands of dollars the ICAO collects from each of its members, you would think they would make sure they're getting a quality product.
Of course, if you're using a "modern" browser that hides the title bar, you wouldn't even notice that. I'll suspect that someone at the ICAO may have opened the page in Chrome or IE9, and not even have noticed that "Page Title" phrase.
It gets deeper
In a semiotic sense, using the term "Microsite" brings forth the connotations of the word "Micro" which are completely out of place. Even if it were technically correct to call the page a Microsite, would you want your visitors to think of it in that manner? This is an issue that touches upon years of education and professional experience, and a "Micro-anything" is being used to "bust" the "myths" that you may have heard?
The tone comes across as either dismissive or combative, especially in the body language you see in some of the videos. It's amusing to see the Myth Busters
section, which is a nice idea, being filmed in what looks like various rooms at the ICAO headquarters, but its insistence on making you sit through
the video is pretty brutal. People in a rush don't want to spend half an
hour digging through clips. Share the transcripts so people can quickly
read along. In terms of accessibility, it doesn't help those with
hearing disabilities. And in terms of communicating your message, you
keep staring at the message while someone is speaking to the
counterargument. How is this an effective approach to countering the
myth?
For example, look at the "This is 2004" clip, which shows "This is 2004 all over again."
I don't see why the third point, 'now we have CPAB' has any effect as
they sort of run otu of time at that point, but I'll let you ponder that
one.
My friends have asked me about my opinion regarding the merger. If you have trouble parsing my view from this commentary it's for a simple reason: I see some of the benefits, but I'm not impressed with the manner in which they're being communicated! Though the site has a very "professional" look to it, there are loose threads sticking out here and there that give you the feeling that things were just a bit rushed and they're sort of scrambling to address the problems that have arisen. We'll see how this unfolds.
Feel free to visit the fan page for this site if you're sitting there despairing over the confirms that didn't come in, or better yet, don't match the balances your client claimed existed. I'm sure you'll figure it out after you hit up this page. Major benefits include an ever more constant intrusion into your daily life and easier ability to comment on posts that appear here. It may be a good place to share "ACS" related links that don't merit a full post but are worth sharing, or germs of ideas that may indeed become full articles down the road. And of course it's always nice to have a convenient outlet to ask questions in case I lose your queries in my spam folders, so enjoy all this for all its worth.
It took a lot of mediation and careful thinking about silly acronyms before finally settling on the "ACountingSchool" part of "https://www.facebook.com/ACountingSchool", since they only let you pick that once, so go ahead and click around.
While Ontario's successful writers of the 2011 UFE prepare to party at the Westin Harbor Castle, the Globe offers its takes on the ongoing merger saga.
Alberta's CAs recently decided to back out of the merger talks, while Ontario drives on towards June's non-binding vote.
Much whinging has alreadyeen expressed about the pros and cons about the idea of merging Canada's three major accounting designations. Talk to people studying in the various programs and you'll get an earful about the different hoops the students have to jump through to qualify for their respective designations. The CGAs and CMAs have tough programs, but most of them will point out that the CAs set their bar even higher, particularly in terms of pre-requisties to be admitted to the program, in both marks and course requirements. The barriers to entry have shifted over time, but they're still a relevant factor to consider.
Is it fair to let everyone to use the same credentials if they represent very different practices?
What makes the entire situation more curious is the fact that the proposed solution would have everyone use both a new "Canadian CPA" designation alongside their "old" designation for at least ten years or so, which arguably makes things even more confusing. I suppose the counterargument is that in 2025 things will be ever so straightforward!
Short-term shenanigans aside, it does seem curious to be held hostage to the decisions made by rival bodies of professionals 50 to 100 years ago, while this country was still evolving and solidifying how doctors and other professionals regulate themselves.
If you've been privy to the subtle drama that's been boiling, it does seem like better communications could have made the process a lot smoother. I've seen a very detailed survey come out gauging my "mood" about the merger talks - but it only arose after the powers that be thought that they had arranged a fait accompli, only to be presented with the CA equivalent of a Large Angry Mob.
And of course this is a sign of an organization engaging in some damage control, trying to recover control of an agenda which was assaulted by a grassroots resistance to change. I've always found it amusing to see young people serving as the vanguard of reactionaries - but I guess that's a Thing. You can learn more about the Party Line at the "unification microsite", which as usual, speaks to an organization that has a weird relationship with the internet. It's such a bizarre webpage I'll devote another discussion just to that.
With all this protesting and opposition you'd be forgiven for thinking you had stumbled upon a strike at the gates of the Parthenon.
Last time we discussed the joy of empty roads and the ability to find a
seat on a subway train when commuting home from work. I of course
glossed over the fact that you can also avoid the rush by leaving before
5 pm, but that crazy notion should seem absolutely foreign to anyone
living in AuditLand so why bring it up?
Sure, an auditor could come in at 7 am instead of 8:30 or 9. Would it
mean they would leave one or two hours earlier? If you think the answer
is yes don't let an actual auditor know that. The bitterness of their
laugh, while epic, may cause permanent scarring. On your soul.
Anyway, long hours. Why bother subjecting yourself to that sort of torture?
You must learn.
Unless you're some mad prodigy who picks up everything on the first shot
perfectly, you need to practice if you are going to have any hope of
getting good at something. And auditors are constantly being bombarded
by new "somethings". An average clerk may spend days or weeks becoming
proficient at a task. Compare that to a CA student, possibly months or
mere weeks out of university, who is tasked with understanding that
clerk's entire job in a few hours. Sure, there are lovely things like
"prior year working papers" which simplify matters. But if the job's
expected to be "easier" because you've been lucky enough to get assigned to an "old" client for which you have
that lovely prior year file, that simply means you'll be expected to
learn things even faster with less guidance.
Tough it out. After a few years this becomes second nature, and that's why an
experienced CA who toughed it out in AuditLand is still considered a
prized employee. They'll figure things out, and do it quickly.
But it's a long road to get there. Not unlike training for a major sport. And you're not keeping to a standard 9 to 5 day in the process either. Practice and all its associated cliched phrases still matter. Stick to it, but be smart about it. A hard working team will learn a great deal. Of course, an exhausted
team quickly becomes useless. Maintain some kind of balance.
When the entire team is zoning out, however, then perhaps it's best to call it a day before the subway shuts down for the night. Be realistic, you may learn a lot during the extra three hours, but after 9 or 10 pm you're more likely to spin your wheels. After midnight you really shouldn't be in the office unless there's a fire to deal with, and you're only going to do it that "one time" before things go back to normal.
Hopefully whoever's in charge of your team knows that. And if they don't, leave this page open on their screen when their computer is foolishly left unattended. This only works if there's more than two people in the room, of course. Otherwise consider leaving print-outs strategically in their mail slot. And leave out the last paragraph: it's the perfect plan.
I was going to compare the punishing hours one experiences in AuditLand
to the more "normal" hours experienced by most other people and make
some lofty defense about the good things that come about from sticking around an audit room while an entire
client site empties out promptly at quitting time. And we'll get to
that. Eventually.
But first let's talk about one entirely practical upside: skipping the 5
pm rush on public transit, particularly overburdened systems like the
TTC is nice. People who go home between 6 pm and midnight are not aware
of what "crush load" really means.
Having said that, the people who are leaving at all sorts of crazy late
hours do miss out on various things, like a healthy and normal meal with
family or the ability to
go out with friends on a weeknight. So it's not *much* of an upside, but
when you're sinking in the ocean, there's no point in turning down a
life preserver simply because the shade of orange on the jacket doesn't
match your shoes. Take what you can get and be happy.
We'll discuss the grand philosophy behind "Long Hours having an upside" in our next instalment.
I received an e-mail inviting me to give free marketing to someone who put a lot of effort into a cute cartoon explaining the job prospects for accounting students. I'm responding publically because I can: I won't do link to your graphic, because you ignored who I am and what I do.
Your cartoon is about the US market, and about the American CPA designation.
This is a Canadian blog, and I when I do get around to writing, it's typically about living life with the CA designation. That's Chartered Accountant, not "certified accountant." I may sometimes also venture towards the CMA and CGA, and the ongoing idea of creating a Canadian CPA designation, all worthy topics among the many that I should write more about. But I typically leave the American CPA to people who specialize in that sort of thing.
Sorry to be so harsh about it, but you work for an accounting exam website, so you asked for it: if writing an e-mail to me could be tortuously contorted into a kind UFE question response, you would've failed at it right there.
The start of a fresh week is an occasion to consider your plans for the coming five days. Or if you're in AuditLand, likely six days given that busy season is ramping up and the joys of full two day weekends are fast becoming fleeting memories.
It doesn't help if your client has a proclivity for only sticking around for four days beford disappearing to work from home on Friday. Given that you may need those client contacts to be present and available, what can you do to encourage people to stick around?
Donuts.
Yummy treats are a surefire winner with all but the most health-obsessed auditees. But if the treat can be enjoyed by world class athletes convening in Vancouver in 2009, something tells me it'll work for you too.
Make it a recurring tradition and you may induce a quasi-Pavlovian association with your Friday treat that may even get them to like you.
Good news!
Especially if you were on the fence about getting a Playbook when it went on sale last month, hemmed and hawed, and then realized it was too late to order one, only to find out you could still get one from Shopblackberry.com, just to endure a cycle of cancellation, re-ordering, more cancellation, frustration with a coda of "well, you can mail us a cheque and then we'll send you one."
Ridiculous.
Fortunately Future Shop, Best Buy, and presumably other fine retailers have it online for their Boxing Day sales, which started last night already.
$249 for a Playbook, which I can use to easily sahre the photos I took the with 5 megapixel camera on my phone? Works for me. Better than the $20 off sale for the $499 Apple tablet - there's many good things about the iOS and iPad products, including legendary customer service, but affordability isn't one of them. I'd rather pay less and solve problems myself, no matter how insane.
Merry Christmas to all!
Once in a while a staff-produced parody video is inspired. This is one of those.
A few points of clarifications. First off, JIT stands for "Just in Time," which at Ernst & Young as well as other firms is a meeting room used for impromptu meetings and other sessions where more privacy than that provided by a standard cubical is needed.
A "TPE" is a Team Planning Event, used to prepare for audits.
The reference to Turley relates to the firm's global CEO, "GAMx" is the E&Y proprietary audit software program, and WBLs are "Web based learning," which are computer-based training courses often used in distance education, and in this case, used by the firm's staff to school them where a classroom session doesn't make as much sense.
Also note how easy to make it look like someone standing at a photocopier is feeling miserable or annoyed.
Thanks again to Going Concern for the tip.
Congratulations to everyone who made it, passing the UFE which means succeeding in the penultimate step to becoming a Chartered Accountant.
The results came out yesterday - and Ontario's successful writers are listed here. Despite my less frequent posting pace, I've always tried to time a post for the reporting of results. Thankfully Going Concern was there to trumpet the news while I was out of the country. Thanks guys.
The CA Institute posted a PDF with a list of all the writers on the national Honour Roll. Ernst & Young's Juliana Yuen from the Toronto office got the highest mark in the country, winning the gold medal for the country, and a healthy dose of pride for both her office and the Accounting Masters program at Waterloo University.
G20 bar patron man salutes you, and the line of police outside the patio
Things suddenly change. Let's see if I end up with deliciously more time for posting, now that my idle thought "I can probably do this from my phone" led to this short post.
You attended all the recruiting events in the fall. You presented your "BBA" or "Bcomm" candidate business cards, asked your clever question, uploaded your resume and cover letter peppered with extra curriculars and top marks, and now you've done it. You've scored job interviews with the Big Four where you hope to fulfill those dreams of becoming a Chartered Accountant, to make your family proud and pay off the massive student debts you've been racking up over the past three or four years.
And you could blow your big chance in the interview by making the most innocuous of statements.
"But I'm so clever, I know I won't ask about the overtime, but will tell them I enjoy working long hours," you respond. You know all the right things to say, you're ready for this.
But do you know anything about the wrong things to not say?
Keep in mind that your answer may inadvertently turn into a hilarious insult.
If you were asked some metaphorical question about what you'd expect after crossing over to the other side of a bridge, you might come up with something clever.
What if the recruiter were to ask you where you see yourself in 5 or 10 years?
"Oh man, I'd be in my 30s. I'd be so old. I don't what life would be like when I'm that old!"
Remember that thing about the inadvertent hilarious insult?
How exactly do you think you'd do, compared to the other straight-A student with a great resume of club presidencies and other volunteer activities if the only thing separating you from each other was that the other candidate didn't make the recruiter feel like you were completely tone deaf to other people's feelings, by making a statement like the one above?
Based on the recruiting events I've seen, the odds are that the recruiter conducting your interview is a lady in or approaching her 30s. Keep that in mind before you stick your foot in your mouth.
After a long day it's nice to unwind and check out news coverage of the protests that is arguably scant - the following links are courtesy of that last article, though at least you can always rely on Google News to provide you with information from various sources. The idea that Yahoo somehow blocked or censored mail related to the protest is weird and troubling though.Oh, and innocent spam filter issue. Right, the only thing their spam filters can stop is political agit-prop. At the same time, my rarely used Yahoo account receives an unending stream of spam, phishing scams and other idiocy that Google rarely if ever lets through.
That aside, it's nice to see the police barricade guarding the 'sacred cow' of Wall Street, though I'm sure there could've been a more impressive picture. Oh, the Daily Mail obliges, while dressing down the event as 'merely' over a thousand people. The Guardian, on the other hand, goes with the estimate of 5000 on the weekend. A hardcore crowd of 200 or so is camping, trying to mimic the drama that transpired in Egypt at the start of the year.
Three cars wrecked. That I know of.
Two people fled away from Canada. For China.
One staff hospitalized. For completely unrelated reasons.
All of 'my people' are now healthy and accounted for, though.
So all-in-all, the first year of life as a manager in my firm went by pretty smoothly.
I was not in any of the wrecked cars when those incidents happened, and I'll ascribe the blame to an unfamiliarity with winter driving and the lack of snow tires on rental cars for all those situations, except one. In that case, it wasn't a rental, and the driver wasn't contending with winter driving conditions either.
None of my staff wrecked their cars during the 2010 Olympic victory parades. That was well before my promotion.
As well, the staff with the medical scare was fine in the end, but it was a good precaution at the time. And you couldn't really blame it on his work; if anything, I'm proud of the fact that my standing rule of, "you don't feel well, you go home or to a competent medical authority, immediately," which happens to directly mirror company policy, worked out well for everyone for all the right reasons.
Oh, and I learned much about development and all sorts of other fancy manager stuff, but it sounds significantly less dramatic at the moment.
Next page »