MyCIMA

Disadvantage of CIMA members due to MOU between AICPA & CIMA

Posted: Friday 23 September 2011 by Ilyasbhai Patel
Replies : 19
Keywords: ACMA, AICPA, career, CGMA, CPA, job market, middle east, usa

Dear Sir

The MOU between AICPA and CIMA will create a designation "CGMA"Hence for the job prospective,  a)  AICPA members will get designation "CPA+CGMA" = CA/CPA+CMAb)  CIMA members will get designation = "CMA+CGMA" = CMA+CMA.

Effectively, CIMA members are not getting designation of CA/CPA but CPA members getting designation "CMA". The ultimate goal of getting such qualifications (after doing lot of hard work / sacrifices ) is to get a good job and take the careers to highest level. To the best of my understanding, the purpose of this MOU is to get entry for CIMA members in to US  job market, and purpose of AICPA to enter in to this agreement is to encounter CMA-USA(IMA).

Now the questions /concerns  is:

1) Whether new designation "CGMA" will get immediate acceptance in US job market ?

2) Whether new designation of "CGMA" will get acceptance in US market as compared to CMA-USA qualification ever ?

3) “CA/CPA+CMA” is far superior combination of qualifications in job market . Here AICPA members getting this combination, but CIMA members not getting this combination of qualification. Why?

4) One of the  the condition for AICAP member is to have three years experience in Financial accounting / management accounting for getting new designation of “CGMA”.  Generally, Financial accounting, financial reporting as per accounting standards, auditing is the area of CA/CPAs where as management accounting / budgeting is the area of CMAs. However, in reality, CMAs and CA/CPAs is playing dual role in organizations. for example, as Manager - Accounts I am performing both the role for my company.

Now the funny part is AICPA members who is having "Financial/management accounting" experience will get   the designation "CPA+CMA", but the CIMA members who is having such dual experience will get designation "CMA+CMA". Why CIMA member cannot get the status of "CPA+CMA" ?

5)  It must be noted that in Middle East and European job market, CIMA qualification is considered as superior qualification as compared to US-CPA and US-CMA, but after this agreement, US-CPA will override the job market of CIMA members as they are getting both qualification US-CPA + CIMA.

I request you to circulate this mail to all CIMA members and get their opinions on this .  I have put this on CIMAsphere discussion board also, however, many members may not be accessing discussion board regularly. 

Thanks ILYAS PATEL

M.Com., ACMA (CIMA-UK), AICWAI (India), CMA (USA) MIPA (Australia)

keep your hair on!

Posted by Polar Bear on Tuesday 04 October 2011 22:27

CIMA members will get designation = "CMA+CGMA" = CMA+CMA.

This is slightly misleading isn't it...CIMA members get ACMA, ie. CHARTERED, the C in CMA is certified so you need to be really clear here...

As a CIMA qualified who spent two yearw working in the states I am constantly amused and bemused by the ever ongoing debate about this MOU. It raises awareness of CIMA in the USA, thats about it, keep your hair on...

If you are American chances are you won't be studying CIMA - fact. IF you are foreign and you want to work in the US, chances are you aren't going to be getting your H1-B or L1 visa basied on your CIMA qualification, rather your work experience.

When I was working in the states I simplied told people CIMA was a cross between a CPA and MBA with 15 exams - that seemed to work :)

 

Clarification

Posted by Robin Fenwick on Tuesday 18 October 2011 17:01

Hi,

Just to clarify - eligible AICPA members and all CIMA members (whether ACMA or FCMA) retain their current letters, and will be entitled to use the letters CGMA in addition. CPAs aren't becoming ACMAs or vice-versa.

Some of the questions above will only be answered over time, and naturally there has been a lot of speculation. If members of AICPA and CIMA act as  enthusiastic supporters of the new letters when they are launched,  I think that will be  the fastest and most compelling route to truly global recognition.

Robin
CIMAsphere moderator

Lots of Passion

Posted by Hayden T Joseph on Sunday 13 November 2011 01:10

@ Ilyas

Polar Bear and Robin were quite right. I note you are a CMA. AICPA made a decision to work with ICMA instead of the CMA, when it determined to create a management accounting designation for CPAs as well as to promote MA. 

In the US the CGMA is for CPAs wanting to specialize in Management Accounting.

In promoting this new qualification, the image of MA would be enhanced in the US and beyond the borders of the commonwealth. 

In the USA, CPA is to accounting like kleenex is to tissues. There is one qualification ensconced in statute...CPA.

1. Robin has answered your first question.

2. I would say it depends on the performances of the early CGMAs.

3. Polar bear has answered accurately. Additionally CPAs are qualified to perform audits and reviews while CMAs and CIMAs are not. CPAs are US tax professionals, while CMAs and CIMAs are not.

4. Each country makes the decision that is in its own interest. It decides what is acceptable and what is not. Its up to the professional to adapt and not vice versa.

5. I am not sure I agree with your assessment. But a qualification does not necessarily indicate ability or performance. However, you might want to take a sample of top performing companies and see whether there is a relationship between performance and the accounting body represented by senior staff. 

Take note that this MOU is between the largest accounting body in the world and an association with a very robust MA qualification. It needs a little time to develop.

Regards

Point to be made

Posted by Aqeel Zeeshan on Wednesday 11 January 2012 18:25
I think we are missing the point here. I think the main post was intended to point out that CPA's will get a management accounting qualification which sure would add to their credentials as they would be using designation for public accounting as well as management accounting. On the other hand ACMA's would again get a management accounting designation in the shape of CGMA. ACMA + CGMA is all management accounting, therefore, in substance there isn't going to be any additional credentials as both of these relate to management accounting. Moreover, ACMA is already well established, much more recognized than CGMA. So what is in it for ACMAs?

The Point was made.

Posted by Hayden T Joseph on Wednesday 11 January 2012 19:25

Hi Aqeel

The AICPA is the largest accounting body in the world. Its 370k membership is 4.6 times that of the CIMA. It realized the absense of a common world recognized credential in management accounting. (as well as an MA add on to the CPA)

CIMA has a well respected credential that is not recognized world wide and has had very slow growth over its long life. AICPA approached CIMA with a proposal that would open the US market to its credential and create an MA credential with initial membership coming from the joint 450k membership.

CIMA had a choice; either sign on or face competition from the new body and the new partner(if one was selected). There was never an offer of CPA equality or facilitation.

Your question is how does CIMA benefit. The credential is now being recognized in the US, as the body with which the AICPA partnered. It is also raising a buzz world wide. To encourage CPA membership, conditions were laid down to attract CPAs with the right experience and or qualifications. Many CPAs are already CMAs or hold MBAs or work as managerial accountants.(this strategy has worked with other add ons)

Thus if you were to apply for a US job today, CIMA/CGMA recognition is more likely. In time world recognition would also be more significant than under the singular CIMA banner.

I find it difficult to understand  members opposing such a feasible decision. The value/recognition of the ACMA has increased significantly and it is now part of a formidable partnership. It is not just being able to use an additional credential.

Point Taken

Posted by Aqeel Zeeshan on Wednesday 11 January 2012 20:06

Hi Hayden, 

You sure have a much better perspective of the US market which is huge in itself. I understand that there are many accounting bodies around the world that offer their membership to members of other professional bodies based on their experience and achievement. So, in a way it is not totally unjustified, if CGMA is offered to the voting members of AICPA with right credentials. The joint venture sure has a potential to become a huge success the world over.

But I still would like to suggest that if a CIMA member wants to or needs to become CPA (USA), it's good if there is a possibility to provide him advantage by offering a direct eligibility to write CPA exams (all four or special exam). I know it might involve a lot of committment and effort as AICPA would have to take it up with the state boards of accountancy in different jurisdictions within the US. You might say this is irrelevant to the proposed joint venture. I would say, prima facie, it might be. But from the perspective of CIMA members, wouldn't it be something they would like to see as part of the new JV or a subsequent arrangement.

re:

Posted by Hayden T Joseph on Thursday 12 January 2012 00:08

Hi Aqeel 

As an ACMA you would find the CPA a very doable exam. Put your trust in your training. The main problem is, that most states require the equivalent of a Master degree and completion of specific subjects, including auditing tax and law. The ACMA and the ACCA are evaluated as being equivalent to a first degree. This means going back to university to complete qualifying subjects.

There are some states that would allow candidates without a graduate degree to qualify, but they are few. All states are moving towards that standard.

It should be noted that the countries that are allowed to do the transitional exam all require degrees for their professional accountants.

Perhaps in the future some special considerstion would be given to CGMAs who would like to sit the CPA exams. That would be a good thing.

The point was made ...

Posted by Adrian Rutter on Saturday 14 January 2012 11:19

I don't want to restart the pages and pages of discussion on this topic, but can't really let Hayden's final paragraph stand without at least an outline of the opposition.

This JV with AICPA is producing a very US-centred view of the world of management accounting, and outside that view there are real fears that AICPA's intentions are significantly different from those of CIMA. To me as a UK-based FCMA with (I hope!) a global perspective and an open mind, all I've seen so far gives me serious worries that AICPA doesn't see CIMA as equal in ability if not in size, just as a very junior partner. We're being allowed in to clean the pool not join the party.

One fundamental difference between the US and UK in general is in the requirement for accountancy candidates to hold a degree. *All* of the UK bodies resist that, because our argument is that anyone who has passed finals and has the required experience is demonstrating their competence in a profession that demands both academic rigour *and* vocational application; it really doesn't matter where you start, everyone finishes in the same place. It's hardly surprising that the AICPA seems to consider ACMAs or ACCAs lacking in those vital office-wall decorations and so not bright enough to be CPAs. (And wouldn't that have excluded Steve Jobs?)

I think you'll find experience showing that AICPA's aim *is* simply to buy-in an MA qualification for CPAs - Hayden's summarised the "offer you can't refuse". The supposed Joint Venture is an empty gesture, and anyone outside the US thinking that becoming a CGMA gives them an automatic hurdle-free entry to the CPA labour market will be very disappointed.

Variation on a theme

Posted by Hayden T Joseph on Saturday 14 January 2012 15:42

I am not sure that the issue was/is ability, or even equality. My take was, as stated in a prior post, AICPA (not CPAs) a body that offers qualifications complimenting the CPA, considered offering an MA credential in the same vein as other supporting qualifications. These qualifications commonly refered to as add-ons are created for CPAs who are AICPA members.( a ready market of 370k  members)

One would have to be an AICPA member to be part of its exam structure. For the most part, voting membership is opened to those who  have passed the CPA exams.

Thus  equality or facilitation was, so far, not a factor.

How could this be effectutated? CIMA a UK body with a formidable, but under recognized qualification was an ideal inclusion, in its effort to not only meet the need for a specialized credential, but to provide an MA credential for the world wide market.

In pooling resources, CIMA would benefit by having recognition in, the US market.(AICPA and US CMA members were all informed of the JV and of CIMA...all 400k) In return CIMA will promote the CPA as the ideal FA qualification in its existing 29 offices.(80k members)

The end result is a re energized CIMA/CGMA and a new specialized MA credential for CPAs.

As for being US centered; control of the US market cannot be ceded and similarly the UK market remains exclusively CIMA. The rest of the world is the JV market 60:40.

With regard to emphasizing the academic aspects of education for CPAs, it is part of an outcome/results oriented philosophy. It simply has been proven to be more successful than its alternatives. I would offer Holland and Germany as EU examples.

Re Jobs and Gates....exceptions do not make the rule. I would concede that good accountants are not normally good CEOs. The skill sets tend to be different.

I have challenged other accountants to select the most profitable companies in the world and identify their senior financial executives and board members.  In the UK the ICAEWs predominate....as for the world wide result....

Academic education brings a more innovative mindset , less compliance oriented, to the student.

Having been educated both in the UK and the USA, I understand and support the bias for academic education. Today an MBA is a hygiene factor, so basic it has become, to professional and executive education. ACCA reacting to this paradigm has partnered with other institutions to afford its students the Bsc Applied Accounting and the MBA.

All this in no way diminishes your point of view, it is simply an attempt to explain the otherside's. 

 

 

The Role of the Degree

Posted by Hayden T Joseph on Monday 16 January 2012 14:57

@ Adrian

The following is a linkedin topic on an ACCA page.....

The writer is refering to the BSc Applied Accounting that can be earned with Oxford Brookes University, while doing the ACCA....

"What is the logic for setting a deadline for Oxford Brookes registration? Why cant we register after ACCA?

Some of us (like me) who didnot initially opt for it and only realized its importance after ACCA qualification, feel like we are being punished for our initial ignorance. I for one thought ACCA alone would be good enough for jobs but ironically in UK itself for a lot of jobs a degree is must alongwith ACCA even though ACCA is considered as equivalent to Masters"

I thought the issue interesting, in the light of our last postings.

Regards

Hayden

Variations and degrees

Posted by Adrian Rutter on Saturday 21 January 2012 13:47

Hayden, your comments here and elsewhere are evidence alone that working alongside CPAs such as yourself can only be good for CIMA people (and I earnestly trust the reverse is equally true). I just wish that our institutes had a better-balanced view of each other.

Re US-centered: my point there was that this whole JV is being promoted as if the rest of the world just can't wait for the US and UK to come along and show them how to do business, while I rather suspect that outside Washington and London the world is going its own way quite happily. For example, digging into the Islamic prohibition against charging interest, I found that the principle is *all* parties to a commercial transaction should share the risk and funders should not expect to take priority; that's a lesson our early social-enterprise pioneers knew well, but has been lost in the US/UK herd instinct of what one of our PMs once described as "the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism".

Re ICAEW members predominating in the UK's most profitable companies, I wonder first which way cause-and-effect are working - do ICAEW people tend to join more profitable companies, or are companies more profitable because they have ICAEW members working for them? - and second if there's an implicit asssumption there that those people are typical of ICAEW members in general.

And finally, re the degree issue, that's precisly why I feel that, instead of wasting time, money and strategic energy in this vanity-project "JV", CIMA and indeed all the CCAB institutes should be promoting the value of our professional qualification(s) as a stand-alone business benefit, combining as it does a level of academic and vocational rigour that adds more to 'employability' than any degree ever could.

With regards, Adrian

A further Comment

Posted by Hayden T Joseph on Saturday 21 January 2012 17:38

Thank you Sir.

Responding to your first point. The British and/or the US have/has taken lead roles in the past in Accounting and because jointly they would make a greater impact, there could be some major benefit to MA from the JV.

Your second point is valid. One can confirm that there is a relationship, although it might not be completely causal. Then again it could be. It is up to the CIMAs to establish their value to these companies. Value, either as viable alternatives or as being better. The present data indicate that this has not yet been accomplished.

Your third point I find interesting. Here is why. Looking at the CIMA syllabus earlier last year, I considered the following:-

Its MA competition comes primarily from MBAs, MS Finance, FAs acting as MAs.

If CIMA (like UK ACCA, I think the Canadian CMA, CA and US CPA also have done) could work with Universities to provide CIMA candidates with the opportunity to earn BS Finance/Management and/or the MSc Finance ( by distance learning); the ACMA can be the final product. Most of CIMA's recognition concerns would then be addressed.

It might mean the addition of research papers and more complex case studies. The final exams for the ACMA would still be the test that validates the knowledge displayed in the studies and research.

It might mean sharing revenues but the move would increase the body of students and members. Every country can relate to a reputable degree and the research can be structured to benefit the unique situations in the varying countries and companies.

I am not sure that CCAB membership would be a step forward. An international body (whether as CIMA or CGMA) should consider that CCAB's value might not extend beyond the UK. It is on the international stage that the JV has a much bigger clout.

Finally, the academic credential would put CIMA in a position to request "transitional exams status only" with the key accounting bodies world wide.

Before I did my Master degrees I held the view that my ACCA was sufficient and University education was a waste of my time. After I had completed them I attempted a Phd. I had found the experience very facinating...it really opened my eyes and guided me to a different approach to reasoning. It encouraged innovation, creativity and proactiveness.

The father of Management accounting Charles Horngren was a US CPA with an MBA and PHd. I would argue that without his academic background MA would not have been where it is today. There are other accounting PHds that have impacted our profession here in the US, but in MA, Horngren stands out.

Degree is important

Posted by Aqeel Zeeshan on Thursday 26 January 2012 21:20

Just want to add a few comments here. Firstly, CIMA has recently left CCAB as it was not value for money for CIMA, so CCAB membership is not relevent.

Secondly, I can't agree more with Hayden over importance of academic credentials and degrees for professional accountants, especially those working internationally. In line with it's global aspirations CIMA too has already recognized the value of a degree and have partnered with universities which are offering degree programs. The degrees can be completed by CIMA students while attaining their CIMA qualification. Besides that CIMA has put in place an arrangement with Manchester Metropolitan University offering M.Sc. Strategic Business Management to CIMA members through distance learning at affordable price. (starting in June 2012).

With varying academic requirements to enroll for professional accounting qualification in various jurisdictions around the globe, it is a good move on the part of CIMA to partner with academic education providers to offer online distance learning degree programs.

Degree's only important to a degree...

Posted by Adrian Rutter on Saturday 28 January 2012 10:52

Interesting points, both!

But I still maintain that, first, CIMA walking away from the only discussion forum for the UK profession as a whole was a serious strategic mistake that is isolating CIMA from fruitful discussions with the remaining CCAB institutes - if CCAB wasn't providing VfM then we should have made it so.

And second, causal relationships again: are employers increasingly demanding degrees because data shows ACMA + degree actually produces a better business contribution, or because of 'qualification inflation', a simple herd instinct and a lack of understanding about what ACMAs actually can do?  At heart, the profession is about getting things done, not talking about them or thinking deep thoughts; just contrast the learning experience of three years of university study with three years on a CIMA QTP programme.

It's interesting that the debate about whether or not accountancy should be a degree-only profession never seems to pick up the fact that (originally at least) the concepts of ACMA and FCMA were intended to reflect differences in operational and strategic focus. Granted, over the years the difference might have become blurred by issues such as status and the growing focus on numbers of students and members, but to me that's where a master's-level understanding of academic disciplines and rigour of thinking should be a prerequisite to a move to the FCMA strategic levels of accountancy.

However, while recognising that some individuals do stand out for their contributions, claiming that Horngren was the father of worldwide management accounting is rather like claiming the Wright brothers were the *only* pioneers of aviation, ignoring people like Lilienthal or even Sir George Cayley. CIMA's predeccesor, the ICWA, was founded seven years before Horngren was born in a different country, and I trust it's not xenophobia or wishful thinking to think that those pioneers also knew a thing or two beyond how to add up £sd.

Hmmmmmmmmm!

Posted by Hayden T Joseph on Saturday 28 January 2012 13:15

CIMAs strategic focus has moved to seeking a global presense. That is beyond the regionallity of the CCAB.

I was looking at some UK Accountancy data and was surprised to see that in the UK and NI, CIMA membership was 55.6k to ACCA 61.3 in 2006. The ICAEW was 110.9k more than the combined total of the two. CIMA has significant UK membership.

ACCAs strength in number arises from its non UK membership where the ICAEW and CIMA are weak.  Why then was the importance of CIMA not recognized on the CCAB..or was it?

Why and how, in your view. should CIMA have stayed and improved the VFM?

After 92 years, its world presence and image were being addressed. In India a mirrored professional qualification had been developed. But in key world markets CIMA was not as well known as it should be.

Even in the 70s, the difference between the dominant UK accounting credential (ICAEW) and others was not only in training but also in the degree requirement;  (it might have been only recommended).

It seemed to have made an impact. Growth and opportunity were part of the CA mystique. ICWA was regarded as relevant more to manufacturing and having the capacity to provide data for the real decision makers. Its graduates were not management accountants but cost analysts. MA was developed as a new paradigm.

In its time, non degreed Accountants met the need; in todays world there is greater competition and risk. It is not the singularly professionally qualified who has broken barriiers, found new horizons, done seminal work...it is the academically qualified. There is a difference. Whether it is Horngren or Yuri Ijiri or Trevor Gambling...so by extension marrying the two worlds has appeared to produce a more innovative and proactive professional.

I would admit to not having referied research in support. But anecdotal evidence and observation should not be ignored. Your counter as to the possibility that the relationship might not be causal is noted. But one would have to concede that successful companies are attracting a certain type of professional. There is a bottom line....you find a succesful company, chances are that you will also find an academically qualified finance executive or a professionally and academically qualified finance executive, at senior or board level.

The ICAEW lay claim that its members hold over 85% or these positions in the UK. (it should be useful to confirm whether they hold additional credentials etc)

Finally, I would support your argument for FCMA, FCA, FCCA etc, to really reflect an acheivement and not just time spent.    

Hmm!

Posted by Adrian Rutter on Thursday 02 February 2012 08:00

Hayden, some short thoughts in response:

You seem rather focused on membership numbers, whereas that's certainly not the only measure of influence and effect. Picture 10 CPAs in a meeting-room with 1 mosquito ....

Chances, anecdotal evidence and (personal) observation certainly have their place, but they make very thin ice on which to skate the thesis that *only* the academically qualified break new barriers or have any sort of original thought or contribution. And even if that *were* true, the causality isn't necessarily "dumb would-be accountant + university degree = paradigm-changing thinker"; it could just as well be the case that enquiring minds seek out academia, and requiring *every* potential accountant to go to university just turns the universities into sausage-machines. Here in the UK we once had a vibrant and effective vocationally-based Further Education sector balancing the numerically smaller and research-focused Higher Eduction universities; melding the two has allowed/forced some very good FE entities to raise their game, but it's also downgraded several very good FE entities into awkward, pale shadows trying to be something they're not. Vocational doesn't mean not as good as academic, it means differently focused.

Ah, that CCAB question. The CCAB was formed at the "request" of the UK Government who were fed-up with talking to numerous bodies all claiming to be the One True Accountants, but who all looked the same, talked the same, wore the same suits and, to the world outside our arcane arguments over CGMA, ICAEW et al, all seemed pretty much the same. And let's not forget the ICAEW and ACCA aren't homogeneous communities - their internal arguments between audit-based practices and members in commerce, industry and government make a Sicilian feud look like a tea-dance run by the Jane Austen Appreciation Society. CIMA walking away has simply handed the profession over to the leadership of a very narrow sectoral interest. We should have been influencing, building networks (with auditors as well!) and generally actually been what we claim to be - thought leaders and strategic advisors.

Re claims: I trust those of *any* institute or trade body about as much as I do those of Internet providers, insurance companies and miracle weight-loss discoverers!

Delayed response

Posted by Hayden T Joseph on Saturday 05 May 2012 15:02

CIMA is more concerned with having its graduates able to utilize FA and other information in the making of management decisions. CCAB is not on that road. CCAB is focused on the role and presentation of FA.

As for the mosquito ...we are partial to repellents. 

Speaking of a criterion of success, one is free to choose one other than membership numbers. The latter usually reflects impact in the market place and it is rather easy to measure. Measurement could be a problem when using other indicators.

Beginning Sept 2012 the CIMA will be introducing a bachelors degree as part of its qualification process. Three universities are partnering in this effort. The market is demanding academic training as part of the professional accounting process. One either complies or perishes.

Hopefully in the future all professional accountants will all be required to have earned a related Masters degree.  Lets raise the bar.  

CIMA

Posted by Shane Wickramasinghe on Thursday 10 May 2012 22:32

The purpose of this JV was to promote MA in the US for UK ACMA holders. CGMA doesn't mean it is equal to CIMA. It just lets foreign employers know we know what we're doing. You could always explain stating the requirements needed for ACMA qualification. Im sure their eyes would light up.

How can the US call ACMA equal to a Bsc in Accounting. In the UK the government ranks it equal to a Msc in Finance but in reality it's a cross between a MSc and MBA mainly because of the experience criteria requirement and the different business areas it covers.

CPA can be completed in 6 months with no experience. CIMA requires completion of 15 exams (5 CBA & 10 Written) and a minimum of 3 years MA exposure which is evaluated by a panel of FCMA's. We are clearly better placed.

Furthermore, CIMA is turning away from being just an accounting qualification by focusing on other business areas such as Marketing, HR and IT which enable us to make better informed decisions in the workforce. It's practically a mini MBA minus corporate finance (which you only really need in an investment bank or a Plc)

CIMA

Posted by Hayden T Joseph on Friday 11 May 2012 00:26

@Shane

You are restricting your evaluation of the CPA to the final four papers. The prerequisite to the CPA is 150 credits or 30 subjects related to accounting, finance, MA, tax, law etc ..... a bachelors and a masters degree before the four part exam. These courses must be done at  recognized universities approved by the State body that is allowing you to take the exam.

Whereas the UK government might have assessed the CIMA as the equivalent to a masters degree, most of the state boards do not. Those that accept it as satisfying the prerequisites are required to conform by 2014. Some states have already begun to completely discount foreign professional qualifications in accounting and are accepting only degrees from recognized universities. I suspect that it is the reason the ACCA and the CIMA now encourage students to earn bachelors degrees while pursueing their professional credentials. Both bodies are also encouraging graduates to complete masters degrees  e.g Ms Financial Management, MS Finance and MBAs..

That would not have been necessary if the credentials were widely accepted as Masters degrees.

The CPA requires only two years experience to sit the exam but to be granted a license you are required to gain at least 1 year post qualification experience.

No one is contesting the examination procedure followed in the UK. But if you would like to work in the USA as a licensed accountant there are rules you must follow. So dispite how you might feel that is how it is.

Best Regards