Given that the CFA is probably more difficult to attain, why is a law degree like a passport to work in law while the CFA guarantees nothing when it comes to employment in investment analysis?
WTF? A CFA charter isn’t more difficult to attain than a law degree. A law degree requires years off your life to go to law school + big tuition dollars.
I would totally disagree… The CFA basically gets you to a certain common minimum level of knowledge. It happens to be a pretty high minimum but once you get it, everyone from Toronto to Turin knows what you are [or should be capable of]. With a Law Degree you could graduate from Yale or Last Chance Legal and have career opportunities that range from the sterling [defending Conrad Black for instance] to the silly [fighting my parking tickets]… granted the later role is probably more steady given my complete disregard for parking notices in and around the GTA but my point remains. I think the fact that CFAs have to deal with heavy competition is because the jobs most CFAs want pay about what a decent mid-career lawyer makes anyway, so the distinction is one of perspective. Secondly, you cannot just get your CFA and stay “that’s it I’m done”. I took 4 courses subsequent to CFA, in financial modeling and what not. Willy
A better comparison would be the CFA and an LLM, although still far from perfect. But hey, lets not let common sense get in the way of your comparison.
willy, what courses did you take? I was unaware that courses had to be taken after the CFA charter…
Law degree is harder to obtain as JDV says. more money and more time. an MBA would be a better comparison. CFA doesn’t offer any legal rights as opposed to a Law degree. with legal rights come a set of monopoly type earnings that can’t be bid away as fast as in a purely competitive market (CFA market). It is also easier to find work as a CA/CPa then as a CFA. i’m just wondering if you actually paid to take the courses. I use to sit in on some mathematics lectures and the prof had no idea that i wasn’t a student in the class. if i ever have time, i want to sit in on some fin. mathematics courses, but sitting in on grad courses usually is harder since they will know for sure i’m NOT in the program.
FrankArabia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Law degree is harder to obtain as JDV says. more > money and more time. an MBA would be a better > comparison. > > CFA doesn’t offer any legal rights as opposed to a > Law degree. with legal rights come a set of > monopoly type earnings that can’t be bid away as > fast as in a purely competitive market (CFA > market). It is also easier to find work as a > CA/CPa then as a CFA. > > i’m just wondering if you actually paid to take > the courses. I use to sit in on some mathematics > lectures and the prof had no idea that i wasn’t a > student in the class. if i ever have time, i want > to sit in on some fin. mathematics courses, but > sitting in on grad courses usually is harder since > they will know for sure i’m NOT in the program. If you just ask the professor if you can sit in the back of the class and not say anything, most professors won’t care at all. Also, being sure that a professor knows who is in the program is not warranted. Some of these guys come home and some woman greets them ‘I am your wife, remember?’
Too many lawyers… that’s the problem with America. I had an arguement with my wife the other day that went like this: Let’s say you’re some average person out of college with a crap job and you want to move up in the world and make some more $$$. You hate math and you hate medical stuff. Thus, you’re choice is (1) real estate or (2) law. That’s why we have so many damn real estate agents and lawyers. Real estate and law are the only 2 relatively riskless careers that pay big $ and don’t require math skills.
Real estate careers are riskless?
virginCFAhooker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Too many lawyers… that’s the problem with > America. I had an arguement with my wife the > other day that went like this: > > Let’s say you’re some average person out of > college with a crap job and you want to move up in > the world and make some more $$$. You hate math > and you hate medical stuff. Thus, you’re choice > is (1) real estate or (2) law. That’s why we have > so many damn real estate agents and lawyers. Real > estate and law are the only 2 relatively riskless > careers that pay big $ and don’t require math > skills. that might make sense in the short run, but not in the Long Run if economic logic is at all correct. In any case, your scenario is not riskless considering the fact there could be a flood of entrants lowering your rate of return in either sector.
Your economic logic is not correct for the legal profession. The existance of more lawyers actually creates the need for more lawyers to combat those lawyers. It self perpetuates. The way to fix the lawyer problem is to make them all pass an algebra test to get into law school. I don’t care about real estate agents. Real estate agents have a relatively riskless career because they don’t invest their own capital.
virginCFAhooker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your economic logic is not correct for the legal > profession. The existance of more lawyers > actually creates the need for more lawyers to > combat those lawyers. It self perpetuates. > > The way to fix the lawyer problem is to make them > all pass an algebra test to get into law school. > > I don’t care about real estate agents. Real > estate agents have a relatively riskless career > because they don’t invest their own capital. i want to understand your assumptions iwth regards to your theoy that more lawyers requires more lawyers. i understand that with more lawyers you will need to hire more lawyers for protection. However, we’re dealing with a fixed client base and from waht you’re saying, each client can potentially have 100 lawyers to protect them from the lawyers. there exist a limit as to the number of lawyers one needs depending on what you can be sued for i guess. what kind of model are you working with here? or do you just find the idea intuitively appealing?
- The client base is not exactly fixed (growing population). - Each client can have a different lawyer for every different problem they have (real estate, criminal, beverage law (who knew there were specific lawyers that focued on beverages like coke, snapple, etc) -There is also the mindset that everyone hates lawyers, so a new lawer can be “different” from the rest. I always wanted to find a good lawyer that was cheap.
You guys are cracking me up. This is not to knock lawyers, but a lot of people I know who couldn’t get jobs after college with the top tier firms wound up in law school. After graduating from Law school they all landed 150k jobs. Granted, they have a lot of loans to pay back, but these were the people who couldn’t cut it on wall st. initially so they stayed in school and now are cashing in. Generally I find that lawyers get too much respect for what they do…they pass one test (LSAT), have decent undergrad grades, and are willing to cough up 150k for tuition and voila, now I’m a respectable professional?
What about the bar? Plus any job that requires a licensure has to pay for that credential. The CFA is not a license to practice anything, and hence, no liability either.
FrankArabia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > virginCFAhooker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Too many lawyers… that’s the problem with > > America. I had an arguement with my wife the > > other day that went like this: > > > > Let’s say you’re some average person out of > > college with a crap job and you want to move up > in > > the world and make some more $$$. You hate > math > > and you hate medical stuff. Thus, you’re > choice > > is (1) real estate or (2) law. That’s why we > have > > so many damn real estate agents and lawyers. > Real > > estate and law are the only 2 relatively > riskless > > careers that pay big $ and don’t require math > > skills. > > > that might make sense in the short run, but not in > the Long Run if economic logic is at all correct. > In any case, your scenario is not riskless > considering the fact there could be a flood of > entrants lowering your rate of return in either > sector. Lawyers do know how to divide by 3 
BosyBillups Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lawyers do know how to divide by 3 LOL. Yes they do.
lawyers are important to our economy. They’re the enforcers of our law, whihc is the glue that keeps the investment bankers in their Ferraris. lets not insult any lawyers here, they serve a big role. so what if they’re not as mathematically inclined as some finance geeks, they don’t have to be. George Bush problably can’t do probability either, but he has the muscle to bomb a nation and control world affairs.
> lawyers are important to our economy. One could argue that we wouldn’t have western economic success without laws and lawyers in fact. http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/iet/20040801/cover.pdf http://agande.cox.smu.edu/Course_materials/LLSV(jpe98).pdf