CMA vs MBA

[2.2vtec]

Before I begin yes i know a CMA is more accounting focused then an MBA but what is better in the long run and what is more needed in the Oil and Gas industry. I'm working in accounting now but I can't see myself doing all this number crunching for a long time. Given that what is more prefered by employers now a days?

Any personal experiences will be greatly appreciated.

btw I have an undergrad b.comm degree in finance.

[BrknFngrs]

not interested in the CA route?

[blah23]

What do you want to be doing in the oil and gas industry?

[Xtrema]

IMO MBA are a dime a dozen and it's not really worth it until you have some business experience.

CMA probably better, but CA will open even more doors.

[in*10*se]

it depends what your first degree is.

if you have a p.eng w/ an mba you have a killer combo

if you have a B.Fine Arts w/ mba, you're still kinda useless. i'd recommend an accounting designation.

[ragu]

I'd say CA; but do what you really like and if you're good at it you'll open doors for yourself.

[BananaFob]

MBA = Master of Bugger All

[AG_Styles]

Originally posted by ragu
do what you really like and if you're good at it you'll open doors for yourself.

^^truth.

[blownz]

Start with CMA and then go for an MBA later.

MBA likely won't help you for the first 5-10 years of your career.

And for the guys saying CA will open more doors. Only if you are looking at working for an accounting firm. For accounting and finance jobs in industry they are almost always looking for CMA's first and CGA's second. CA's are more for the firms and the large companies that are looking for a specialized person for something like tax. If you are looking for Controller, or VP Finance jobs I think you are best off with the CMA designation.

[The_Rural_Juror]

^ what do you do again?

[urbannomad]

why not try the CAMBA route?

:poosie:

[KappaSigma]

Originally posted by blownz
Start with CMA and then go for an MBA later.

MBA likely won't help you for the first 5-10 years of your career.

And for the guys saying CA will open more doors. Only if you are looking at working for an accounting firm. For accounting and finance jobs in industry they are almost always looking for CMA's first and CGA's second. CA's are more for the firms and the large companies that are looking for a specialized person for something like tax. If you are looking for Controller, or VP Finance jobs I think you are best off with the CMA designation.

Most controllers and VPs of large firms are CAs and not CMAs. I worked for an extremely large OG company and the big boys were CA not CMAs.

[blownz]

Originally posted by The_Rural_Juror
^ what do you do again?

Accountant. Specifically controller for a small (40-50mil a year) company.



Originally posted by KappaSigma

Most controllers and VPs of large firms are CAs and not CMAs. I worked for an extremely large OG company and the big boys were CA not CMAs.

You are correct in the biggest companies CA's are more prevalent than CMA's a at the top.

The only problem is that CA's typically only start out in accounting firms and that doesn't sound like what the OP is looking for. If he is looking at getting into accounting/finance/management and moving up in a company, then I think a CMA designation is better for him. Add an MBA (from a decent uni) later and it will help get further.

[The_Rural_Juror]

I smell another bean-counter catfight. :rofl:

CFA FTW since the OP was a finance major and is above doing journal entries. :rolleyes:

Edit: Nevermind. The OP doesn't like number crunching.

[Mckenzie]

CMA hands down. MBA maybe later in life or to COMPLIMENT an LLB / P Eng.

MBA = More Bitterness Ahead
(Read- MBAs will be crying for jobs while any accountant will be mopping up the mess).

If you think you can handle the pain, go for a CA. The income ceiling does not exist and the opportunities are much more diverse since you will see such an array of businesses and experience so much in your articling. You will also be able to move into the CFO role much easier. Also, bean counting is the role of your workers when you are a CMA / CA.

I feel CMA is good for industry jobs, but in the bigger companies, you will move up much faster with a CA and not be limited to financial analysis since you will need to know GAAP / IFRS in and out. CMA is somewhat pigeonholing you to only know bean counting, while a CA will open doors that may lead to analysis and management roles.

I think a CA will kill an MBA anyday because the training for a CA is all on the job and is all case based (like the Harvard MBA).

Stay away from the MBA , especially with a B Comm. (its only 10 Business classes different than a bachelor of commerce and your other 10 classes will be outside the faculty).

[KappaSigma]

Originally posted by blownz


Accountant. Specifically controller for a small (40-50mil a year) company.




You are correct in the biggest companies CA's are more prevalent than CMA's a at the top.

The only problem is that CA's typically only start out in accounting firms and that doesn't sound like what the OP is looking for. If he is looking at getting into accounting/finance/management and moving up in a company, then I think a CMA designation is better for him. Add an MBA (from a decent uni) later and it will help get further.

CA's start out in accounting forms because you need the articling time for the designation. A ton move from public pratice to industry upon completion.

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by Mckenzie
CMA hands down. MBA maybe later in life or to COMPLIMENT an LLB / P Eng.

MBA = More Bitterness Ahead
(Read- MBAs will be crying for jobs while any accountant will be mopping up the mess).

I totally disagree. I recently had a conversation with a Finance manager about this. She stayed away from CMA's and CGA's for her team since she has noticed that they lack "complete" business understanding. Every Dept needs some accountants, but if everyone on a team is an accountant, you're in for a world of hurt.

Accounting is great, and we need it.... but it doesn't "drive business".


If you think you can handle the pain, go for a CA. The income ceiling does not exist and the opportunities are much more diverse since you will see such an array of businesses and experience so much in your articling. You will also be able to move into the CFO role much easier. Also, bean counting is the role of your workers when you are a CMA / CA.

I feel CMA is good for industry jobs, but in the bigger companies, you will move up much faster with a CA and not be limited to financial analysis since you will need to know GAAP / IFRS in and out. CMA is somewhat pigeonholing you to only know bean counting, while a CA will open doors that may lead to analysis and management roles.

I think a CA will kill an MBA anyday because the training for a CA is all on the job and is all case based (like the Harvard MBA).

Make a very valid point. CA is the cream of the crop for sure.


Stay away from the MBA , especially with a B Comm. (its only 10 Business classes different than a bachelor of commerce and your other 10 classes will be outside the faculty). [/B]

:facepalm: For a BCOMM, an MBA just moves things towards a case study basis, with a greater degree of difficulty. In a perfect world it would be best to have a CA/CMA/CGA and an MBA......

[DJ_NAV]

I don't think you need CA and MBA. They are both business minded designations. I think that MBA is great for non business grads.. eng, arts etc etc. But for business grads(act, finance, econ) CA is the probably the best.

[Mckenzie]

Originally posted by liquid1010


I totally disagree. I recently had a conversation with a Finance manager about this. She stayed away from CMA's and CGA's for her team since she has noticed that they lack "complete" business understanding. Every Dept needs some accountants, but if everyone on a team is an accountant, you're in for a world of hurt.

Accounting is great, and we need it.... but it doesn't "drive business".



Make a very valid point. CA is the cream of the crop for sure.



:facepalm: For a BCOMM, an MBA just moves things towards a case study basis, with a greater degree of difficulty. In a perfect world it would be best to have a CA/CMA/CGA and an MBA......

I guess if you already possess good business accumen / understanding, then pursuing an MBA would be worthless since it attempts to teach that. That being said, you would benefit from a technical skill set to compliment your higher understanding, such as a CA, CMA, CGA, CBV or CFA.

If you do NOT posses an understanding of business as a whole and are more technically focussed, an MBA would be great.

I have a solid understanding of business mechanics / dynamics at a higher level but lack technical skills. That is why I pursued a CA.

And IMO, accounting is the language / structure of a business (it does not drive it, but does capture, measure and explain it). Case in point- A friend of mine went to lunch with Dick Haskayne to discuss doing a CA or an MBA (his aunt knows him very well). He gave an example of a meeting he was in where a person who (ironically) had an MBA and was trying to discuss a situation that involved using basic accounting terminology. Apparently this person gave the impression that they knew jack shit about business and the situation because the had no knowledge accounting terminology...the person completely botched the situation / presentation. His advice to my friend was that a CA gives you an immense understanding of the nuts / bolts of business and the systems that make it work. It lays a great foundation for you to build off of.

I do feel though that if you are not looking at a career involving crunching numbers then a CMA is not a great choice. However, keep in mind the job market for MBAs is horrendous right now so having a CMA or any accounting designation is a great backstop in times like these.

[Gi0]

if you can get an MBA at some ivy school or top 40 b-school go for it

why not get CFA, since you have a finance degree?

BTW i also have a finance and MIS degree and am working towards my MBA in a couple of years

[riceboi]

Originally posted by DJ_NAV
I don't think you need CA and MBA. They are both business minded designations. I think that MBA is great for non business grads.. eng, arts etc etc. But for business grads(act, finance, econ) CA is the probably the best.

One thing I'd like to add here is that the career path that has the most difficult entry barrier is the career that will provide you the greatest earning potential, here are few examples by rank in my opinion:

MD - only a few of you will get admitted and become doctor (enuff said..)
LLB - not that hard but getting in is hard (awesome career potential, corporate or private)
CA - top of the line in their industry--getting this designation is challenging (high earning power, well respected in the corp world)

MBA - more like a fad, if you have a bcomm then forget about this...good for non-business background guys.

[Sadboy]

Originally posted by riceboi


One thing I'd like to add here is that the career path that has the most difficult entry barrier is the career that will provide you the greatest earning potential, here are few examples by rank in my opinion:

MD - only a few of you will get admitted and become doctor (enuff said..)
LLB - not that hard but getting in is hard (awesome career potential, corporate or private)
CA - top of the line in their industry--getting this designation is challenging (high earning power, well respected in the corp world)

MBA - more like a fad, if you have a bcomm then forget about this...good for non-business background guys.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.
You are comparing apples with oranges with all these credentials.
How do MDs have the greatest earning potential?
How are MBAs good for non-business backgrounds?

Please clarify.

[Mckenzie]

Originally posted by Sadboy


I don't think you know what you are talking about.
You are comparing apples with oranges with all these credentials.
How do MDs have the greatest earning potential?
How are MBAs good for non-business backgrounds?

Please clarify.

1/2 of the MBA at U of C is undergraduate level intro courses and the rest are graduate level, strategy focussed courses. Therefore, if you already have a business degree, you will be paying tens of thousands of dollars for only 10 courses that are different.

An MBA is great for an engineer or lawyer or political science major that wants business experience at a graduate level without having to go and do just an undergrad degree. I think you are way better off with a technically focussed designation (CA, CFA, CMA, CBV, CIRP, etc.) on top of a business undergrad than wasting 2 years and thousands of dollars on 10 courses and a piece of paper that means jack $hit in this job market.

[Sadboy]

You are generalizing MBAs, you can specialize and avoid courses you have already taken.

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by Mckenzie


1/2 of the MBA at U of C is undergraduate level intro courses and the rest are graduate level, strategy focussed courses. Therefore, if you already have a business degree, you will be paying tens of thousands of dollars for only 10 courses that are different.

An MBA is great for an engineer or lawyer or political science major that wants business experience at a graduate level without having to go and do just an undergrad degree. I think you are way better off with a technically focussed designation (CA, CFA, CMA, CBV, CIRP, etc.) on top of a business undergrad than wasting 2 years and thousands of dollars on 10 courses and a piece of paper that means jack $hit in this job market.

You can bypass MBA courses if you have the requisite undergrad courses completed... so you're not taking 10 courses that "are undergrad level". Plus, MBA courses (even the intro ones) go through things at a deeper level. Not to say they're really difficult, just different than undergrad.

The same arguments could be levelled at CA's though. The vast majority of what you learn is never really used. Most CA's I know are Risk Management, etc......

[Mckenzie]

Originally posted by liquid1010


You can bypass MBA courses if you have the requisite undergrad courses completed... so you're not taking 10 courses that "are undergrad level". Plus, MBA courses (even the intro ones) go through things at a deeper level. Not to say they're really difficult, just different than undergrad.

The same arguments could be levelled at CA's though. The vast majority of what you learn is never really used. Most CA's I know are Risk Management, etc......

I was not making the argument that MBA's dont use what they learn- on the contrary I think that if the MBA is pursued for the right purpose, it will likely utilize most of the material taught. All I am really trying to say is that an MBA does not really do much for you right after completing an undergrad in the same subject (business). MBA skills are soft skills that many people posess naturally. I am also advocating for people to pick up a technical skill that is recession proof at this time because the fact is, MBAs CANNOT command the money / jobs they could have 5 years ago. There have been many articles out there be leading publications saying the same thing- MBAs are having a real tough time finding work. If MBAs were that great to have, they would be hired everywhere. The fact is, just because you have an MBA does not mean you can go in and command $80-$100k plus per year. On the contrary, boom or bust, any professional, whether lawyer or accountant, can do that and more.

MBA's are great for an executive who is looking to the upper echelons of senior leadership, but is really pointless for a recent undergrad IMO, especially given people's unrealistic expectations of what they are worth with an MBA. The networking opportunities are fantastic however, and I will not downplay that.

Also, since you are not in the CA / CASB program, I'm not sure how you have the expertise to comment on how much knowledge is actually used in practice by a CA. I do not know one CA in risk management. The CA covers 7 areas- audit, financial accounting, finance, taxation, management decision making, governance, strategy and risk management (and pervasive qualities being 7). Every single business case in the world involves aspects of all of those areas, with the exception of audit sometimes (although every business decision will likely be audited). The technical knowledge, as with any designation, comes and goes around test / exam time, but the exposure to the technical material and concepts, in addition to the case-based / on the job education on business strategy, are what makes a technical designation like a CA / CMA much more valuable than learning strategy in a class for 2 years.

Back to the original topic, CMAs are always employable, MBAs are a dime a dozen, especially now. I think an MBA would nicely compliment a CMA in the future once at a position to utilize what an MBA has to offer (ie. senior management).

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by Mckenzie



MBA's are great for an executive who is looking to the upper echelons of senior leadership, but is really pointless for a recent undergrad IMO, especially given people's unrealistic expectations of what they are worth with an MBA. The networking opportunities are fantastic however, and I will not downplay that.


Agreed that most MBA's have very unrealistic expectations. VERY unrealistic!


Also, since you are not in the CA / CASB program, I'm not sure how you have the expertise to comment on how much knowledge is actually used in practice by a CA. I do not know one CA in risk management. The CA covers 7 areas- audit, financial accounting, finance, taxation, management decision making, governance, strategy and risk management (and pervasive qualities being 7). Every single business case in the world involves aspects of all of those areas, with the exception of audit sometimes (although every business decision will likely be audited). The technical knowledge, as with any designation, comes and goes around test / exam time, but the exposure to the technical material and concepts, in addition to the case-based / on the job education on business strategy, are what makes a technical designation like a CA / CMA much more valuable than learning strategy in a class for 2 years.

Back to the original topic, CMAs are always employable, MBAs are a dime a dozen, especially now. I think an MBA would nicely compliment a CMA in the future once at a position to utilize what an MBA has to offer (ie. senior management).

Since when does an MBA focus on strategy for two years? You CAN focus on strategy, but only two or three mandatory courses focus primarily on strategy.... be careful of believing everything people tell you. I'm doing an MBA/CFA simply because I believe that the CFA doesn't provide a broad enough picture of what business is actually about. CA's technical skills are a HUGE asset, that's no doubt. But there is the old adage that some designations are a mile deep and an inch wide, and others a mile wide and an inch deep.

Maybe we spend time in different crowds, but I stand by the fact that most CA's I know very rarely use their technical skills (their words not mine). Most are involved in Risk management.... that's simply those I know (granted it's a small sample size).

I'm getting tired of this pissing contest, so I'm done. :thumbsup:

[Sadboy]

MBA/CFA combo here too,

CFA is like a very deep narrow pool, MBA is a wide shallow pool.
But they complement each other very well.

[Mckenzie]

Haha ok :D

I think a CFA / MBA is a great pairing BTW as you combine technical knowledge in the CFA with a higher level of understanding about business as a whole in an MBA. I think you will be very employable with a CFA / MBA combo.

That is what I feel an MBA is fantastic for as my last point, to compliment other more technically-focussed skill sets with business knowledge. I guess I just dont see the value as a stand-alone degree, unless you are in I-banking or management consulting, which both pretty much require / desire you to have an MBA at some point.

[liquid1010]

So it's agreed, the best idea is to have a CA/CFA/MBA/Phd in Econ Combo. Done! :D

Every designation has it's strengths and weaknesses.

[The_Rural_Juror]

Originally posted by liquid1010
So it's agreed, the best idea is to have a CA/CFA/MBA/Phd in Econ Combo. Done! :D

Every designation has it's strengths and weaknesses.

Don't forget NAMBLA.

[urban.one]

Theres some good info in this thread but also a lot of misleading and innaccurate info as well. Theres a ton of great sources out there. Vault.com is one of them. If youre a student, your school should have access to the paid sections. Theres also many forums specific to each of the designations and degrees which google will help you find quickly.

Theres a perpetual shortage of accountants. Youll always be able to find some sort of job if your an accountant (designated or not).

Most designations for any profession publish salary surverys which you should be able to readily access. This gives you a chance to see the types of roles you can end up in and the type of money to be made.

For a CA, your starting point is pretty set - you start out with an accounting firm as an articling student.

For CMA,CGA,MBA,CFA, your starting points are unlimited. You could be an engineer, a book keeper, a banker, a scientist, a salesman, etc. For the CMA, CGA, CFA, where you start from will have a bigger influence on where you end.

The MBA offers more a chance to advance your career or change your career. You go to b-school for two years, and then a ton of opportunities open up that you didnt have before. B-school isnt as much about learning small details about finance or accounting or marketing. Its about going to a school with a good reputation and getting access to a good alumni network and meeting a lot of other successful people.

A professional deisgnation tells people you know your stuff about a particular area and have some expertise. An MBA isnt that.

[riceboi]

Originally posted by Sadboy


I don't think you know what you are talking about.
You are comparing apples with oranges with all these credentials.
How do MDs have the greatest earning potential?
How are MBAs good for non-business backgrounds?

Please clarify.

In all professions out there MDs have the highest annual incomes, this is not an opinion, this is fact. I'm not trying to say one thing is better than another (it's up to the individual and his/her lifestyle)..what I'm trying to say is that every job/career/level education has a starting point. The one with the most difficult entry will have the best ROI/rewards. There are exceptions for each case but these are just small percentage.

[riceboi]

Originally posted by Sadboy


I don't think you know what you are talking about.
You are comparing apples with oranges with all these credentials.
How do MDs have the greatest earning potential?
How are MBAs good for non-business backgrounds?

Please clarify.

In all professions out there MDs have the highest annual incomes, this is not an opinion, this is fact. I'm not trying to say one thing is better than another (it's up to the individual and his/her lifestyle)..what I'm trying to say is that every job/career/level education has a starting point. The one with the most difficult entry will have the best ROI/rewards. There are exceptions for each case but these are just small percentage.

[urban.one]

Your statement is too general and is without any context. I wouldnt argue that a medical degree is the degree with highest expected average income. But for professions, theres a lot of professions that have high average incomes that would rival and exceed what doctors can make. Two examples, which im familiar with from working in these fields, are investment banking and securities law.

A doctors earning potential is somewhat limited and one limiting factor is the type of medicine they practice. Im not sure about Alberta, but many provinces release the amount of billings for doctors in the province. The highest ones are high but quickly drop off into the low 6 figures. From those amounts you then have to subtract the cost of running a practice.



Also, Tuesdays globe and mail had an MBA section in it if anyone wanted some more info.


Originally posted by riceboi


In all professions out there MDs have the highest annual incomes, this is not an opinion, this is fact. I'm not trying to say one thing is better than another (it's up to the individual and his/her lifestyle)..what I'm trying to say is that every job/career/level education has a starting point. The one with the most difficult entry will have the best ROI/rewards. There are exceptions for each case but these are just small percentage.

[Mckenzie]

I think you are confusing professional designations with jobs.

An Investment banker may be a CA / LLB / CFA / CBV, etc. and a securities lawyer will always be an LLB at minimum, but neither are actual professions to be used in the type of comparison you are responding to. A securities lawyer is a branch of the legal profession as is family divorce law- same profession, way different income levels.

I know both make a boat pile of money, but they are not professional designations. Their average income would well exceed an MD / CA / LLB, but again, those are outliers of THEIR profession. There is only a small percentage of each profession that are employed in these highly lucrative fields.

If you want to compare income rates of different jobs, that is one thing, but I think you cannot compare an investment banker with a CA / / CFA / LLB to a tax lawyer with the same letters. Same profession, different job.

Apples to apples comparison would be ALL LLBs to ALL MDs to ALL CAs. That is a much better way to eliminate outliers and account for the 'average' professional in each respected profession.




Originally posted by urban.one
Your statement is too general and is without any context. I wouldnt argue that a medical degree is the degree with highest expected average income. But for professions, theres a lot of professions that have high average incomes that would rival and exceed what doctors can make. Two examples, which im familiar with from working in these fields, are investment banking and securities law.

A doctors earning potential is somewhat limited and one limiting factor is the type of medicine they practice. Im not sure about Alberta, but many provinces release the amount of billings for doctors in the province. The highest ones are high but quickly drop off into the low 6 figures. From those amounts you then have to subtract the cost of running a practice.



Also, Tuesdays globe and mail had an MBA section in it if anyone wanted some more info.

[urban.one]

No Im not confusing the two. I was pointing out that distinction.

The poster i quoted said :
In all professions out there MDs have the highest annual incomes, this is not an opinion, this is fact.

The other part of what your saying is "how general or specific do you categorize a profession?"

Sure securities lawyers and divorce lawyers are part of the legal profession. Just as doctors and personal care assistants are both part of the healthcare profession.






Originally posted by Mckenzie
I think you are confusing professional designations with jobs.

An Investment banker may be a CA / LLB / CFA / CBV, etc. and a securities lawyer will always be an LLB at minimum, but neither are actual professions to be used in the type of comparison you are responding to. A securities lawyer is a branch of the legal profession as is family divorce law- same profession, way different income levels.

I know both make a boat pile of money, but they are not professional designations. Their average income would well exceed an MD / CA / LLB, but again, those are outliers of THEIR profession. There is only a small percentage of each profession that are employed in these highly lucrative fields.

If you want to compare income rates of different jobs, that is one thing, but I think you cannot compare an investment banker with a CA / / CFA / LLB to a tax lawyer with the same letters. Same profession, different job.

Apples to apples comparison would be ALL LLBs to ALL MDs to ALL CAs. That is a much better way to eliminate outliers and account for the 'average' professional in each respected profession.

[riceboi]

Originally posted by urban.one
Sure securities lawyers and divorce lawyers are part of the legal profession. Just as doctors and personal care assistants are both part of the healthcare profession.


Based on this the bank teller would probably tell me "why should you study hard to be an engineer, look at me I'm in the most well paid profession" :D and a bunch of personal care asst probably walkout from their jobs since doctors are paid way more in the same profession...makes sense

Btw, for your comparision to be more valid: it should be lawyers +filing clerks versus doctors + personal care assistants...but it was close enough anyway
:rofl:

[7thgenvic]

Jesus what a long read!

For myself, I am enrolled in CFA at the moment and finished my B.Comm in Finance. I am currently in Europe at Copenhagen Business School taking a few masters classes. It is really funny how well they sell a CA/CFA designation back home in Canada, compared to in Europe. I was recently doing job interviews and internship review boards here in Denmark, and non of the interviews even knew what those designations were. Then again, this was a review board for general internships.

I think the best way to go is getting a CFA/CA combo. That is my plan. I will take the remaining accounting classes I have through athebasca and pursue my CA when I am finished my CFA

[urban.one]

Im not sure what you are arguing about. Are you disagreeing with the definition of the term "profession" and how narrow or broadly it should be used?

Bottom line is there are professions that make more than doctors.


Originally posted by riceboi


Based on this the bank teller would probably tell me "why should you study hard to be an engineer, look at me I'm in the most well paid profession" :D and a bunch of personal care asst probably walkout from their jobs since doctors are paid way more in the same profession...makes sense

Btw, for your comparision to be more valid: it should be lawyers +filing clerks versus doctors + personal care assistants...but it was close enough anyway
:rofl:

If you get your CFA designation it would mean you have four years of work experience in the field. If youre working in a good position such as equity research or portfolio management, it would really be useless to go pursue a CA unless you really wanted a career change and wanted to work in a CA firm.


Originally posted by 7thgenvic
I think the best way to go is getting a CFA/CA combo. That is my plan. I will take the remaining accounting classes I have through athebasca and pursue my CA when I am finished my CFA

[riceboi]

Originally posted by urban.one
Im not sure what you are arguing about. Are you disagreeing with the definition of the term "profession" and how narrow or broadly it should be used?

Bottom line is there are professions that make more than doctors.



Sure.. drug dealers make more $$ than doctors :D

I think we're in for a long argument if we have a different definition on what's a profession..what's a job...

here's what I found from webster:

job - a specific duty, role, or function
profession - a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation

Fair enough, it's safe to say a job is different from a profession.

A doctor can be an investment banker. Do you want your investment banker to perform surgery on you? but that's another argument.