I’m not sure if anyone else here feels the same way, but I’m throwing this out there as this thought often occurs to me, particularly when dealing with HR monkeys that have zero knowledge of the credentials and backgrounds that they are supposed to be looking for in a candidate (come to think about it, many managers of investment groups don’t even know what the true degree of topical coverage the CFA/CAIA/FRM programs provide either – they tend to be 3-bullet-point, “makes sense” bulls**t artists). Anyhow, I am a CFA and CAIA charterholder, and also am in the process of getting the FRM. In addition to my graduate degree, this is going to be like 13 letters after my name. This is not to brag, but rather to see if anyone else here feels that, with non-AF-type audiences, there might be a certain revulsion to carrying so many letters. I’m thinking LinkedIn, resumes, etc. Sometimes I get the thought that anybody doing the “quick scan 10-second sum up” of me from looking at LinkedIn and seeing my youngish face may dismiss me as someone who “just sat for exams” instead of a guy with years of real industry experience. It bothers me because I’m the guy who put in 10-12 hour days the whole time, and studied for all this s**t in my “free time.” That should make me better than the guy who is unemployed but studying, or works full time, but keeps giving me the “married/kids/etc.” bulls**t (full disclosure, I am married, no kids). Any other thoughts would be interesting to hear.
I think you’ll find “AF type audiences” will rip you apart even worse for having a bunch of alphabet garbage behind your name. If you want to pick up some designations, fine, listing more than 1, or at most 2 behind your name (even if you have them) is a huge mistake. And putting any degree other than a PhD behind your name is silly.
This is exactly how I see you. If you were focused on what you needed to be doing instead of picking up relatively meaningless add on certifications, you’d move up more quickly. It’s a fact, distractions are distractions. People want to see real world results, not collections of financial trivia expertise. If I see that, I automatically assume the candidate is too academic, not focused on their actual work, and struggles to achieve real world results.
I’d only list the relevant ones (or important ones if a general thing like Linkedin).
Except it doesn’t. Completing the CFA exams while have young kids at home is not only difficult but also probably more relatable to the person interviewing you. In other words, anyone that has kids can appreciate how hard it is to find time to do anything, much less pass three major exams. Very few people can relate to having half the alphabet after their name.
Granted, good work experience trumps all. I’m just saying I can’t count the number of times I’ve talked to people about having kids and taking the exams. It’s a good conversation piece.
Oh I am, kiddo. The designations are a concise learning experience for me, which is part of “what I need to be doing” for my job. I list them to the degree that they enhance my marketability, but my original point was that I fear that my true objective in seeking these designations is lost.
Have you really seen the full curriculum of either designation (CAIA/FRM) to make that statement?
^ Let the haters hate bro. You’s a G like me.
I’ve skimmed and am familiar with it enough to feel confident about what I said. Look, you can get offended and call me kiddo all you want chief (eye roll), but you came here for advice and seem to have already encountered similar views, so don’t get all butt hurt when you get an answer you don’t like.
I don’t see anything wrong with obtaining multiple certifications that are related to each other and listing them in a certifications section of your resume, but I would not put the letters after my name for more than one or two (unless you want to look like a Realtor) and would never put any degree related letters other than PhD. That’s just me though.
Thanks, cfavmba & higgmond. Black Swan, I am sorry to have interrupted your oligopoly of like the same 6 or 7 posters in here.
I think the problem may not be that you have the credentials but rather the premium of compensation the HR people might assume you are expecting given your pedigree. Those that have gone through the experience can relate with you and understand the time you dedicated to get such credentials, but others (HR esp) may just discount it fully and choose a candiate who they think have similar work exp without the prem compensation expectation. If it makes you feel better, if I were hiring i would consider you.
No problem, I didn’t realize you wanted a pat on the back over an opinion. Have you considered adding a mensa membership to your skills and activities section?
You’re welcome, but I wouldn’t dismiss Swan’s comments just because you don’t like what he has to say. His opinion, although expressed in his abrasive manner that most regulars here find endearing, is just as valid as anyone else’s opinion and I’m sure is shared by many others here and in the world in general.
Thanks, whatsyourgovt, this is the kind of discussion that I was actually seeking with my post. Clearly the premium of compensation issue is key, and I guess I hadn’t thought about it since these “extra” credentials have not been carrying an explicit premium in my corner of the industry as of late. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of how to be seen favorably in that first screen so that they can really see what you’re all about in an interview. So what about the idea that one might see the credentials first, be dismissive, and not actually get into the meat of the person’s experience, i.e., that they would make the judgment “this guy is an academic, because he has all of these things,” instead of, “oh look, he has lots of experience AND these things?” And specifically, I’m saying, assume that they don’t even intend to pay a comp premium. Really what I wanted to understand was how to assess the tradeoff between revealing what you have and the types of audiences which would appreciate it versus not appreciate it.
Yes, actually.
Getting designations for the knowledge is all well and good, but listing a zillion makes you come across as a bit unfocused, which doesn’t fly well in a world obsessed with finding the perfect square peg to place in a myopically square hole. They want to pay as little as possible for you, which means don’t be any more qualified than you absolutely have to be to do the job, but they still want to know you can do it well, so have the experience and qualifications for it. Everyone in HR knows that you can’t stick a cone into a round hole to close it up (or something like that).
That doesn’t always mean you have to hide the designations: they can sit in your “certifications” section of the resume, but probably best not to put them all front and center. Select the one (possibly two) that are most relevant for the jobs you want. Put the rest down further in your resume, or even leave them off.
I revised my resume last year and a friend looked at it and said “my first reaction is ‘I can’t possibly afford to hire you.’” I don’t actually have a zillion letters (one of the reasons I didn’t do an MBA, which might have been a mistake in retrospect), but the ones I do have are fairly large (albeit in the same sized font as my name, no bolding). I wasn’t asking him to hire me, but you don’t want people thinking this when they see your resume, because otherwise you’ll never get the call to come in and convince them why they would want to pay all that money.
Edit: Damn I didn’t see that Bchad wrote basically what I did, but much better.
I think that if you have all these desiginations it makes you look like:
-
You’re trying to over compensate for something
-
At some point your employer would like to to stop focusing on yourself and make money for them
-
It shows lack of understanding the concept of marginal benefit- if you’re a charterholder, FRM adds only a little more to your skill set, add CAIA, or CQF then you’re just invetsing too much time.
I doubt that the potential employer is worried about comp- he prolly thinks you’re severly underpaid or you wouldnt be chasing all these desiginations. If you’re a true academic you be in a phd program
I almost dont want to jump into this one, since im a magnet for flaming. I echo BS comments 100% And add: any guy with the direct relevant experience and references will ALWAYS trump a guy with a bunch of these certs and no direct experience. Too many certs raises a red flag to me, as it seems to me you are either really insecure about your own abilities, or you cant produce results at work and look to collecting these certs to try to prove to others you are good. Producing results at work is what employers pay money for. Certs mean squat in comparison. You just dont see big rainmakers with the alphabet behind their name, bec they are so busy rocking it at work, no one gives a damn if they have letters or not.
When cynical folks think you got into HBS through affirmative action, you damn need those alphabets!
Yeah! I’d rather just hire the smart people. A bunch of letters doesn’t mean the person can think. They should give Mensa some letters. Like John Doe, CFA, SMRT.