[quote=mikebutler222][quote=babbling looney][quote=bankrep1]

No one is interested because to get the CFP now you need a bachelors

Bankrep CFP

[/quote]

Does it matter what your bachelors degree is?  This is a stupid requirement, unless the requirement is that the BA be somewhat connected to the industry of financial adivce.  Is it? I haven't checked.

So, if I have a degree in Mesoamerican Anthropology and a minor in Art with a ceramics concentration (true story) this somehow makes me more qualified to sit for the CFP exam than a person who has been in the financial advisory business for the past 10 to 20 years?** [/quote]

What means, regardless of your major (since a broad-based liberal arts core should be required no matter what your major), is that you've achieved (minor though it may be) an educational level that's more and more becoming the absolute minimum.

[/quote]

The requirement for a degree in order to qualify for the CFP designation is a good one and should have been instituted from the very beginning.

With luck the brokerage industry will wake up and realize that their representatives must be CFPs in order to compete--and then come to the conclusion that they can only hire college graduates because only college graduates will be able to obtain a CFP.

It is a joke that a high school drop out can become a financial advisor.

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

The requirement for a degree in order to qualify for the CFP designation is a good one and should have been instituted from the very beginning.

With luck the brokerage industry will wake up and realize that their representatives must be CFPs in order to compete--and then come to the conclusion that they can only hire college graduates because only college graduates will be able to obtain a CFP.

It is a joke that a high school drop out can become a financial advisor.

[/quote]

Yes every firm has some of these some even make it to GP

Ya know...the best guide is a combination of education AND work experience, not just a degree.

The website says the degree can be in anything, from any accredited school.  It doesn't even say the accrediting organization must be legitimate.  I can probably buy a degree.

There are reasons why NOT everyone gets to go to college, or even when that is an option, chooses to.   Me, I can pretty much blame my own choices to the largest degree.  I actually finished the engineering degree save for a couple of general ed classes I had no interest in taking.

Then I got married, had babies, got divorced and began the treadmill that is single parenthood, which leaves no time for college, especially in high priced silicon valley where just making enough to survive is a challenge.

As to me....I'm debating cramming the last couple of CFP classes in before the end of Nov so I can sit for the exam and have it.   Quite frankly I could probably pass the test anyway with what I know, but they do have the course requirement and I can't afford the boot camp training that preps you in one week to sit.

I think requiring a bachelor degree is a stupid requirement for most jobs.   It should be used only as part of evaluating a potential employee.

Who doesn't know a bunch of idiots that happen to have a degree?  And who doesn't know some amazingly brilliant people that don't?

The requirement is just plain elitism and that's stupid and in limiting the pool of potential candidates, it also limits out some great ones.

[quote=lostintexas]

I think requiring a bachelor degree is a stupid requirement for most jobs.   It should be used only as part of evaluating a potential employee.

Who doesn't know a bunch of idiots that happen to have a degree?  And who doesn't know some amazingly brilliant people that don't?

The requirement is just plain elitism and that's stupid and in limiting the pool of potential candidates, it also limits out some great ones.

[/quote]

There are very few, if any, college graduates who agree that having a degree is stupid.

Who among us did not know that getting a degree is a key to a significantly more secure future, a door opener for the "better" jobs and so forth.

Whenever you encounter somebody who is saying that it's not important, or it's elitism, or any of the other whines you can be sure you're talking to somebody who doesn't have one.

The CFP is on the right track, and their decision will benefit all of Wall Street when the firms can no longer justify hiring a kid without enough gumption to finish school.

I did not say getting a degree is stupid.  It is a smart idea and obviously one that is increasingly becoming a necessity.  I have one daughter in college, one going in a year and a son a few years after that.  All have had it drummed into them that a degree is a must lest they suffer a lack of choice due to not having one.

That said, I do believe that requiring a degree for most jobs is a shortsighted choice because there are many intelligent and capable folks out there without degrees and plenty of stupid people with degrees.

That's what I said.  Not that a degree is stupid, just that posession of one doesn't make you smarter or better qualified for most jobs.

Given you can't read...maybe you're one of the latter???

Oh..and I'm not a kid.  Asking for a degree from a 25 year old who doesn't have any life experience does make sense.   However, I've got 30 years work experience and a solid track record of success including having been executive management for most of the past 6 years.

In most cases that makes me a lot more qualified than a 25 year old, or a 30 year old, even if they have a masters.

I have worked with brand new MBAs (fresh out of a career that consists nearly soley of school) who think they have a clue what management is.  They don't.   That comes with experience.

[quote=lostintexas]

Oh..and I'm not a kid.  Asking for a degree from a 25 year old who doesn't have any life experience does make sense.   However, I've got 30 years work experience and a solid track record of success including having been executive management for most of the past 6 years.

In most cases that makes me a lot more qualified than a 25 year old, or a 30 year old, even if they have a masters.

I have worked with brand new MBAs (fresh out of a career that consists nearly soley of school) who think they have a clue what management is.  They don't.   That comes with experience.

[/quote]

But there is the issue of consequences for life decisions.  When you decided to not get a degree you made a decision.

It is my belief that that decision should have meant that you could never be allowed to call yourself a financial advisor, stock broker, or whatever term you choose to use du jour.

No "career" can become a profession without high standards, and I am in the camp that thinks that the long term survival of the industry is dependend on turning its image from being little more than high pressure sales to being a true profession.

You cannot become a doctor, lawyer or accountant without lots of education, it's criminal that somebody can become a finanical planner even though they dropped out of elementary school.

I realize I am being extreme, but there needs to be a line in the sand, and that line should be a BA degree in anything.  If you have it the door is open, if you don't the door is locked.

Yes the industry might miss a good one now and then, but the reward of not dealing with the riff raff more than offsets the loss of somebody who would have been an asset.

Again, life is not fair and decisions we make should have consequences.

Yeah..well I was in the industry and left it.  I still have all the other credentials and a degree wasn't a requirement for them.   I can still get a CHFC, a CFA or other credential.  The only one about to  be limited is the CFP which is only deemed superior due to the excellent marketing done by the firm that gives it out.

I have met some with that credential that are neither highly ethical or particularly intelligent and that criticism of the fact that such people have the credential has probably led to the new requirement, again a degree doesn't filter out either effectively.  In fact, the three people that come to mind at the moment all have a bachelor's degree.

Perhaps better oversight on their part might be a more solid choice, or elimination of eligibility for those that opted to take one of the quickie boot camps to fulfill the course requirements instead of taking the classic long route.

I know that discussion has been made over the past few years but no.....4 days of cramming for an exam will get you the credential.   I'm looking into that option myself a this point, not because I believe I will learn enough from it (how could anyone really learn in 4 days what most take a couple of years to learn), but because it is allowed.

Do you think the position of "Finanical Advisor" can ever take on the status of a profession as long as a guy who quit school after first grade and has been driving a bulldozer can become a financial advisor?

Life choices--quit school and doors close. Reality is not pleasant, but it's reality.

I would propose that my choice not to go to college and instead work in a real world setting for 4 years gave me much more applicable, relevant and marketable skills than any of my friends who chose to go party for 4 years and cram a bunch of sh*t they forgot into their hungover minds.  I believe that apprenticeship type programs are far more effective at developing a usefull skill base than most academic programs.  The problem of burnouts and unqualified people doing this business should be remedied by an overhaul of how FA's are trained....which I think would be best suited by an apprenticeship type approach (within a team setting perhaps), since developing an investment aptitude is so experiential in nature (not something that books or assignments can really develop) and generally requires being in the trenches for awhile.

BEF it is becoming clear that you are one of the most narrow and petty people I have ever come across.

I used to think that a degree requirement was stupid.  I thought that “degree or equivalent experience” made more sense.  Now I think that I was naïve to have thought that.  Yes, I agree 100% that it is easy to give numerous examples of idiots who have degrees and geniuses who do not.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I didn’t take the traditional path for college.  I graduated high school in 1991 and didn’t receive my undergraduate until 2004.  I tried many times and stopped for a multitude of reasons (availability of high-paying tech jobs, lack of money for tuition, too much time partying).  It was not until I grew up a bit that I decided to go back to school and finally get a degree.  At that time I didn’t go because I felt I needed the degree but more so to be able to say that I was not beaten by college.  A strange thing happened while finishing college at night.  I realized that I loved to learn now that I finally had real world experience to apply some of what I learned in class.  I could have never have gotten that value should I have finished college in the four years after high school.  I liked learning so much that I directly on to earning my MBA.  I can most assuredly tell you that I now see the value of a degree and why many places require it.

Now I’ll try to get to the point of my post.  Regardless of how experienced you are in the real world, you will learn even more while earning an undergraduate or graduate degree.  I’m not saying that every class is applicable to life but instead I’m saying that it broadens your knowledge base and helps you see things in a different light.  I now think that degree requirements make sense but not in absolute terms. 

Maybe you are one of those exceptional people.  The unfortunate thing for you is that you will have to fight the degree requirement with most potential employees.  If you already have so many college credits then my suggestion is that you finish your undergraduate.  There are so many options today that no excuse is sufficient.  I believe that you will find earning a degree easier than having to fight the degree requirement for the rest of your life.  Add to that the feeling of accomplishment that you will have and the return will certainly be worth the investment.

Maybe you can still work something out with Merrill Lynch.  You will have to sell yourself and follow-up with a lot of hard work.  Maybe they will take you on if you come to them with a plan to have both your undergraduate degree and the CFP before you finish POA.

WM

[quote=dude]

BEF it is becoming clear that you are one of the most narrow and petty people I have ever come across.

see post on other thread BEF…oops no capital, darn I must be stoopid.

I understand making it at Merrill is very difficult…need lots more assets than at Jones to be considered good enough to keep.

well, let us not forget that you can't get into this business without passing a series of tests, as well as a background check.  Then you have to prove yourself capable.  This is hardly an easy career track under any circumstances.

Once proven you can survive all that, you shouldn't be held to ANY arbitrary standard.

[quote=peanutbroker]I understand making it at Merrill is very difficult...need lots more assets than at Jones to be considered good enough to keep. [/quote]

True, but the Merrill franchise helps immensely.

Over the years organizations such as The Securities Industry Association have run surveys regarding name recognition.

When asked, "If you found yourself needing professional investment advice how would you go about getting it?" an extraordinary number of people responded with a simple, "I would call Merrill Lynch."

There are few names in American business that have more name recognition, linked to their primary business, than "Mother Merrill."

They are to the brokerage industry what McDonalds is to fast food.

But there is the issue of consequences for life decisions.  When you decided to not get a degree you made a decision.

It is my belief that that decision should have meant that you could never be allowed to call yourself a financial advisor, stock broker, or whatever term you choose to use du jour.

So the fact that I have a degree in Anthropology and Art/Ceramics makes me more qualified to obtain a CFP designation than someone who may have worked in the industry for years, has actual experience is able to study and pass the CFP courses and IS able to pass the CFP test?

I can calculate the frit to flux in a glaze and throw a good piece of ceramics. I can tell you if an artifact is Mayan or Proto Aztec and from what eras.  So what. How does this make me more qualified to use the CFP designation than somebody else.

My contention is that if they are going to require a degree then it should be relevant to the occupation.  The rule is just another way to keep people who are otherwise qualified from competing with the current designees.

Which of my points of view is petty?

Do you think the position of "Finanical Advisor" can ever take on the status of a profession as long as a guy who quit school after first grade and has been driving a bulldozer can become a financial advisor?

It is petty and elitist when you stereotype a person who has done manual labor as being less. Less intelligent, less cultured, less qualified and precluded forever from advancing themselves. 

You also exaggerate

Babbling, if I recall you do not have a degree.  Is that correct?

If so, would you agree that you are hardly an impartial speaker on behalf of those who believe a degree should be required?

Your analogy of having a degree in ceramics versus "X" years in the business is ill formed.  The question is not measuring the relevant skills to be a financial advisor it is attempting to build credibilty for the term financial advisor.

You could argue that a person who can pass the bar exam should be allowed to be a lawyer--be they self taught or from Harvard Law.

The argument may even make sense, but the reality is that the profession we call "The Law" is based on the assumption that lawyers are not self taught.

Wall Street has long wanted to institute an education requirement as a winnowing tool, however the smaller firms who dominate NASD issues were never in favor of it.

What seems to have happned is the CFP people are realizing that if their designation is to have currency among the public they have to have minium standards, and a college degree is not too much to ask of a person who is going to present themselves as an "expert" in financial planning.

I understand that a degree in something unrelated would be worthless background for financial planning--but what it does is prove that the person accomplished somthing worthwhile in their life.

The move is to make this a profession, and professions have standards.

I think if you sat down with the people who push for educational standards you would find that they agree with you that not any old degree should count.

They would favor a BA in a business discipline to even be allowed to sit for the Series 7.

On the other side are those who scream "Who are you to judge?"

So we're at a compromise.  You don't have to have a BA in a business discipline, but you do have to have a BA.

As it should be.  Failing to complete college has consequences, and one of them should be that you cannot offer advice about financial matters.

I understand that a degree in something unrelated would be worthless background for financial planning--but what it does is prove that the person accomplished somthing worthwhile in their life.

The move is to make this a profession, and professions have standards.

I think if you sat down with the people who push for educational standards you would find that they agree with you that not any old degree should count.

[/quote]

Not that my opinion really matters here, but Mr. BEF- it seems you take issue most in this forum when people don't capatilize, spell correctly or use proper grammer so I hafta ask...were you an English Major?

And how does that help you in advising your clients?

Just wondering....

Muny

He doesn't have clients.  He is a failed advisor