LETTERS

摘要

I was very interested to read Jan Weber's defence of Pathways to Membership (Accountancy, September 2009, p16) and would like to make the following points:rn1. The 'examination' he mentions may require the same competencies and be marked by the same assessors who mark the ACA exams but it is a far cry from the exams and work experience that I did to qualify as an ACA! It is in fact an 'examination of experience' completed using a standard template and requires candidates to 'review your own work experience and demonstrate your professional competence, skills and expertise'. It is not a formal examination completed under exam conditions ie, no cramming, no invigilators, no time constraints etc.rn2.I don't think that it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that an 'examination' is marked with rigour because the pass rate is lower than that of the ACA exams. The pass rate could be attributable to a number of factors eg, the calibre of the applicants.rnI feel that the scheme remains a back-door route to becoming an ACA and fear that it is undermining the chartered accountancy brand. Rather than trying weakly to defend it, I think the ICAEW should put the scheme to a vote and see what the members think.