Well, I think I put most of my opinions out there in the “Alphabet Soup” thread.
I think there are four “top-tier” designations–MBA, JD, CPA, and CFA. There are others that are good, but not as good, like CFP, Certified Management Accountant, etc. Then there are the “tack-on” ones, that are really only good if they add onto one of the “Big Four.” (Certified Internal Auditor, CAIA/FRM, etc.) Then there are the worthless ones (AAMS, CRPC, etc.).
For the record, I have two (and hopefully in August, three) of the “Big 4.” I think having MBA, CPA, and CFA is a nice, well rounded group. Any more, and I think it looks like I’m just collecting letters for the sake of collecting letters.
I agree with what the others have said about experience trumping designations. Eventually you have to stop going to school and start making money and “rocking it at work”.
You know what will be a good add-on to all these designations, a cape. Also, start wearing your underwear above your tight pants, it’ll really make you stand out in front of those HR guys.
I’m not surprised you can’t pas the fluff hr screening. Swan et most all give you candid yet actionable recommendations yet you can’t take them for the meaningful action items they are.
How about you keep douching through life, do the cipm, and drop your GMAT on your résumé. Then come back in a year and bitch more about not being able to get into the front office.
Seriously, treat jobs/hr like women. Tailor your pitch son.
Stop being a heuristics-driven lackey and identify where in the string I said that I “wasn’t able to get into the front office.” I AM front office, my son. Who says once you get “front office” (a term that clearly only twentysomething nitwits use as they wonder what it’s like to be in a made position), that you stop growing and trying to branch out? If I had known that I was making a comment in a forum of underachieving bozos who have nothing better to do than disparage others, I would have hit the delete button on my original post. I feel sorry for the employer who pays money for such shallow thinking.
I’m wondering if the problem isn’t too many designations and simply an overly combative attitude. One wants to hire people that are 1) qualified to do the work needed, and 2) reasonably pleasant to work with. The OP seems basically intelligent, but comes with a chip on his shoulder the size of Texas. It may be that “overqualified” is just the easier excuse to offer instead of having to explain that “If we hire you, I don’t want to spend my life constantly arguing with you.”
Look, I may have come off on the wrong foot with my presentation. The combined CFA and the FRM make more sense now - are you on the risk management side of the front office?
Bottom line is that it comes down to reputation and to what extent HR can quantify the value of the reputation. Graduates from MIT and Harvey Mudd could have very similar skill sets , but it can be more difficult for HR to quantify the value of the Harvey Mudd guy because not that many people have degrees from Harvey Mudd (relatively speaking) and even fewer attempt to move from math to finance. Additionally, MIT has a better reputation and is much more widely known.
Similarly, CFA from a reputation perspective is regarded as the “gold standard” and there is decent depth to the compenstation data for CFA charterholders, so the HR people can have a view on both the reputation and legitmacy that the desigation confers as well as the expected compensation for a CFA Charterholder. This is simply not true for FRM or CAIA, particularly since they are relevant to the fields of risk management and alternatives that already have academic designations that typically service them (MFE/MS/PHD and MBA, respectively).
Thanks, Swan. Actually I am on a very fundamentally-based PM team managing institutional money but have recently gotten very interested in the risk management/quant piece - getting into the programming elements, building a roadmap for where models fail and need to be modified, that sort of thing. Not sure where I am going with it but didn’t want to be one of these dilettantes who skimmed the latest business self-help book on why quants are all evil and walk away as if I was some kind of expert. I prefer learning the conversational language first before picking up the swear words, and for me, the FRM was the most efficient, holistic way to do that.
Made man to made man then, my point remains. You’ve got to tailor your pitch. Being a dick has probably benefitted you in your current role, but I doubt will get you where you want to be. Good luck son.
-Guy doing something he prefers over the FO with a mini-alphabet but minimalist resume.
A bunch of letters might actually impress HR (who are generally numbnuts), but eventually you are going to have to impress the actual hiring manager, who is less likely to care about irrelevant cred and more likely to care about 1) can this person think, and 2) do I want to work with them.
