Which is harder, Accounting or Microeconomics? (1 Viewer)

[seremify007]

What I don't get is... what is the point of bragging that your course is supposedly more difficult than ours? You picked it knowing fully well that it would require a lot of effort and dedication so what are you complaining about? What is the point of comparing apples and oranges..., when you picked an apple and we picked the more tasty (to us) orange.

And then as this thread is simply "Accounting or Micro", I dont see why you need to bring in Engineering whatsoever. It's like someone asking "Which is more expensive? A Toyota Yaris or a Honda Jazz?", and then rocking up saying "ahahaha my Benz costs more than both so quit whining"... it adds NO VALUE to the discussion whatsoever. Your comment that we rely on engineers because they were the original facilitators of trade, in line with the analogy, would be "And Benz invented airbags so therefore you owe us for the safety in your cars"...

Bah. Way to troll.

 

[Vagabond]

How can a degree be $#!+ with such high employment rates?

 

[Anonymou5]

Stazi, you say that there are less study hours (I assume that you mean necessary self imposed study hours here) for engineering than the other courses you mentioned as if it is a fact. Where do you get that one from? Sure, one might survive for a semester or two doing the bare minimum and achieving 'decent' marks but if you keep that up in engineering, you'll get burned eventually. Case in point, the example you mentioned who failed a subject.

As you would know, at many unis marks are distributed in accordance with a bell curve. So really, it's nothing special to achieve 'decent' marks, even if you overload.

Elgibility for overloading is generally based on the marks you obtain. Lets not kid ourselves, commerce students generally aren't focused on marks because they don't need high marks, so it's no wonder that science and engineering students find it easier to overload. It has little to do with your (incorrect) implication that commerce subjects are more difficult.

 

[stazi]

No - i can guarantee you that someone who doesn't do any self-imposed study will fail many of their subjects (many commerce subjects have failure rates of around 30%).

Why isn't it anything special to achieve 'decent marks' (by which I mean Ds and HDs) if you overload, and still have an active social life, in engineering? What does the bell curve have to do with it. Surely, he should be at the bottom of the bellcurve, as he's disadvantaged to regular students.

Commerce students aren't focused on high marks? Huh? You know this how? Is it because many graduate employment opportunities are only open to students achieving D averages, or above?

Then you go on to contradict yourself: you need high marks to overload. Yet, marks are distributed via a bellcurve across most faculties and unis. So, the same percentage of students would be on HD, Ds and Credits between science, commerce and engineering. So, why is it that commerce students can't overload?

And where do I say that commerce subjects are more difficult? Nowhere.

 

[Conspirocy]

This is how I see it.

Engineers make stuff. I honestly dont care what it is. Sometimes this stuff is important to human life. If they make a mistake then a bridge falls down and everyone dies.

If a commerce student makes a mistake I can hardly see anyone dying.

So if you look at it like that engineering is more important cause if they fuck up, which they undoubtably will, some miners get stuck in a shaft for two weeks.

That's probably why engineering students have more contact hours. They actually need to know what they are doing. All of them need to know what they are doing.

In commerce, its exactly the opposite. You don't need to know what you are doing. However, if you don't know what you are doing and you stuff up, you get the sack. You are gonskies. You get the blame.

Who creates the market for inventions? Engineers? I don't think so. Sure you're smart you came up with some idea that is useful. If there was no commerce, and therefore no market to sell your idea in, what use would it be.


In conclusion, engineers make shit - commerce students get rich of their ideas and screw them over.

 

[Anonymou5]

[No - i can guarantee you that someone who doesn't do any self-imposed study will fail many of their subjects (many commerce subjects have failure rates of around 30%).

Oh really? I was questioning your assertion that there are more study hours for business and arts courses than there are for engineering courses. I didn't claim that if you don't study then you'll still do well because that's obviously wrong.

Why isn't it anything special to achieve 'decent marks' (by which I mean Ds and HDs) if you overload, and still have an active social life, in engineering? What does the bell curve have to do with it. Surely, he should be at the bottom of the bellcurve, as he's disadvantaged to regular students.

That's an oversimplified view, just because someone overloads, they are not automatically at a disadvantage compared to other students. Others have commitments such as part time work, extracurriculars and the like.

Commerce students aren't focused on high marks? Huh? You know this how? Is it because many graduate employment opportunities are only open to students achieving D averages, or above?

Why don't you take a look at some websites and advertisements of some big firms - a credit average is already considered to be indicative of a 'results driven' individual. Don't kid yourself, in commerce (apart from a few select fields) marks are merely a prerequisite rather than a discriminating factor in the selection process. Further, why don't you ask around at some firms and see how many graduates actually averaged above 75?

So, why is it that commerce students can't overload?

Again, oversimplified view. It's not that commerce students can't overload, it's just that they don't need to. After all, if you don't fail any subjects why would you overload? On the other hand, many (as in not just one isolated example) engineering students overload because of subjects they've failed. Of course, there are other reasons as to why people overload, I'm just pointing out that you take too narrow a view on things.

Edit: If you're really enjoying this life changing argument either start a new topic at the end of the semester or continue on from here. I've just wasted a about an hour of my life on this topic and don't feel like arguing further on such a pointless issue.

 

[Archimedes]

Haha, just skimmed the last few pages. Stop feeding the troll, people!

Edit: Although I must admit, some good entertainment was provided by our engineering buddy. "intellergance". hahaha, love that!

 

[stazi]

ive seen many of the 'troll's' posts and he doesnt usually troll. which is why i thought that he wasn't trolling (most trolls don't just randomly start doing so ages after the creation of their account). anonymous, however, isnt a troll. he's just silly.

 

[stazi]

That's an oversimplified view, just because someone overloads, they are not automatically at a disadvantage compared to other students. Others have commitments such as part time work, extracurriculars and the like.

Yes, it's a generalised view, but we can't talk about each student individually, as there's thousands of students in each faculty. "John who does engineering has five kids, works two jobs, and doesn't overload. He's at a disadvantage to someone who overloads". Generally speaking, a person who overloads is definitely disadvantaged:

• Do they have less time to study for each subject?
• Do they have more exams?
• Do they have more assessments?

The answer to all of these questions is a resounding yes. There is no way around it. However, if you ask a non-overloading student:

• Do you have more work commitments outside uni than an overloader?
• Do you have more extracirricular involvement than an overloader?
• Are you at more of a disadvantage, academically, than an overloader?

The answer to those can be a yes, or a no. More likely to be a no.

Why don't you take a look at some websites and advertisements of some big firms - a credit average is already considered to be indicative of a 'results driven' individual. Don't kid yourself, in commerce (apart from a few select fields) marks are merely a prerequisite rather than a discriminating factor in the selection process. Further, why don't you ask around at some firms and see how many graduates actually averaged above 75?

Ok. The answer will be - the ones that are usually selected first, and easiest are those who average above 75. I know that with my 80+ average, I will easily get past the screening process and given priority for an interview. Think about it, when a company is dealing with thousands of applicants, what is the easiest way to screen? Surely it's not to go through all the details of a CV to see what they've achieved in their life in terms of experience and leadership. They'll look at your WAM.

Again, oversimplified view. It's not that commerce students can't overload, it's just that they don't need to. After all, if you don't fail any subjects why would you overload? On the other hand, many (as in not just one isolated example) engineering students overload because of subjects they've failed. Of course, there are other reasons as to why people overload, I'm just pointing out that you take too narrow a view on things.

A lot of students overload to finish their degree faster, or so they can gain work experience in their final year. As I said, 30% is the failure rate for a lot of commerce subjects (Accounting 1A/1B have a failure rate that is that high).
And yes, I aknowledge that the second reason that people overload is due to failure, but I think they both reasons are equally prevalent for students.

And another contradiction on your behalf - you claim you need high marks to overload and commerce students don't get high marks. Now you claim engineering (and science, for some reason, even though failure rates for a lot of science subjects aren't that high) students fail a lot of subjects, which is why they overload. If they fail, why would the faculty grant them the ability to overload? That would surely drag their average down. This is because they are quite lenient with overloading - as long as you're paying them money for the courses, they will turn a blind eye. If you fail, it's a bonus.

 

[Anonymou5]

There is a difference between being genuinely disadvantaged and simply being unable to prioritise properly. If you want to overload, then you should be able to schedule your commitments accordingly so that you are not at a disadvantage academically. What you've said is the equivalent of saying 'z0mg Billy is at a disadvantage because he overloads and like non-overloaders, he looks after his sick mum, picks up his little brother from school each day, is a debating team member, a community volunteer, has 30 contact hours each week at uni, works 20 hours a week, is an SRC member, overloads, plays sport etc.' Well duh. But that kind of a disadvantage is self imposed and so is irrelevant to the issue.

As for selection processes, you're being hopeful to say the least. If what you say were true, there wouldn't be so many people with 90+ averages who don't even receive interviews, let alone an offer. In short, marks mean next to nothing in commerce. But continue to believe otherwise if you wish. If you get an interview, it won't be because of your marks, but because of extracurriculars.

I never said that engineering or science students fail a lot of subjects. I did say that many engineering students overload because of subjects they have failed but I never said, as you implied, that engineering students generally fail a lot of subjects.

 

[stazi]

There is a difference between being genuinely disadvantaged and simply being unable to prioritise properly. If you want to overload, then you should be able to schedule your commitments accordingly so that you are not at a disadvantage academically. What you've said is the equivalent of saying 'z0mg Billy is at a disadvantage because he overloads and like non-overloaders, he looks after his sick mum, picks up his little brother from school each day, is a debating team member, a community volunteer, has 30 contact hours each week at uni, works 20 hours a week, is an SRC member, overloads, plays sport etc.' Well duh. But that kind of a disadvantage is self imposed and so is irrelevant to the issue.

Does everyone who attends uni work? I don't work, nor do I have many commitments this semester (after having a lot in previous semesters). I also don't overload and find the semester very hectic if I want to achieve around an HD average for it. Does someone who overloads not have a disadvantage (even if they don't work)? The average person won't attain as high marks as I will.

And your analogy wasn't valid. You said that many other students have commitments apart from uni which disadvantage them, or place them in a similar situation to someone who overloads. This often isn't the case, which is what my analogy set out to demonstrate. yes, there are very minute exceptions, but generally speaking peoples commitments are quite similar, despite their academic standing.

As for selection processes, you're being hopeful to say the least. If what you say were true, there wouldn't be so many people with 90+ averages who don't even receive interviews, let alone an offer. In short, marks mean next to nothing in commerce. But continue to believe otherwise if you wish. If you get an interview, it won't be because of your marks, but because of extracurriculars.

The thing is most people with 85+ averages (at least in commerce) do receive interviews and offers. I haven't heard of anyone who doesn't received an interview with such a high average, let alone a distinction average. Hell, I've often heard of students getting contacted directly by the recruitment agencies upon graduation offering them jobs if they achieve high marks.
If they have no social skills and fail the interview, that's another thing. Ultimately, preliminary screening IS done on marks, though for many fields of commerce (such as accoutning and finance [not so much marketing]).
Furthermore, how do you know so much about the grad recruitment process? Are you a commerce student (like I am)? Are you a graduate? Or are you/were you part of the Commerce Society on campus that deals with recruitment specialist on a regular basis (like I was).

I never said that engineering or science students fail a lot of subjects. I did say that many engineering students overload because of subjects they have failed but I never said, as you implied, that engineering students generally fail a lot of subjects.

Then would you say that many engineering and science students do overload?

 

[Anonymou5]

Your false claim that people's commitments are generally similar is questionable to say the least. But even if that were true, an overloader still shouldn't be at a disadvantage if they priortise properly. If you overload, you obviously gain something from it, otherwise there would be no reason to do so. Accordingly, you should then sacrifice another commitment to make up for lost time, if any. Otherwise, it's a self imposed disadvantage.

I know the difference between a semester with and without part time work. If you don't work part time you have a lot more spare time, so you wouldn't be at a disadvantage unless you were completely inept at that subject.

You've been a commerce student for how long? Oh and you need to speak to a recruitment specialist to understand what is blatantly obvious if you read around? It makes we wonder how so many people who don't speak to such people on a regular basis receive offers.

 

[stazi]

How aren't they at a disadvantage? Let me repeat myself:
Do they have less time to study for each exam? YES
Do they hase more assignments? YES

Whether or not they organise their life is irrelevant, as they're at a disadvantage to someone like me, who is aiming to get all HDs and only does a regular full-time load. And I've already sacrificed most other commitments this semester. If I overloaded I wouldnt' be able to make such high marks.

This is my third year of being a commerce student.

And what is so blatantly obvious? What are you talking about here?

What exactly are you studying? Commerce? Again, how do you know so much about the recruitment process, unless you study it or have communicated with the right people in the past.

 

[Anonymou5]

You fail, as usual, to see beyond the mere superficial aspects of the issue. One's life involves more than just uni, so it's not just a simple matter of more assessments = more of a disadvantage. Otherwise, engineering students must be at a huge disadvantage, continuous assessments plus a heavily weighted exam. You need to take more than just the study load into account when you decided whether or not someone is at a genuine disadvantage.

So you're in your third year as a commerce student. But you can't speak as if you are a third year student of the field you want to get into if you've only begun first year studies (eg. first year accounting) in it.

What's obvious? The fact that marks don't mean much in commerce unless you're failing or just scraping a pass in every subject. Knowing this simple fact does not consitute 'knowing a lot' about the recruitment process as you seem to believe. I'd like to see more than just one isolated case of someone with great marks in commerce but no extracurriculars or work experience (relevant or irrelevant) get an interview at a big firm.

What do my studies have to do with anything? An accounting textbook won't tell you about the recruitment process. So your constant reference about the amount of time you've been a commerce student (which would be a hugely misleading comment if you've just transferred to another stream in which case you're effectively a first year student - unless you're graduating this year) does not imbue credibility into what you're saying.

 

[stazi]

You fail, as usual, to see beyond the mere superficial aspects of the issue. One's life involves more than just uni, so it's not just a simple matter of more assessments = more of a disadvantage. Otherwise, engineering students must be at a huge disadvantage, continuous assessments plus a heavily weighted exam. You need to take more than just the study load into account when you decided whether or not someone is at a genuine disadvantage.

You fail to see the merits of generalising when discussing a student body of thousands. It's not superficial to say that people who overload will struggle more to get the same caliber of marks than people who don't overload. We don't have to look at external factors, such as work and extra-curricular activities, as these fluctuate too much between individuals and neither you nor I can predict them. However, simply based on how much work an overloader has vs. a non-overloader, the overloader is disadvantaged. Sure, it doesn't apply to every single person in the world, but GENERALLY speaking, it is true.

So you're in your third year as a commerce student. But you can't speak as if you are a third year student of the field you want to get into if you've only begun first year studies (eg. first year accounting) in it.

You're saying that I can't do a first year subject in my third year? I'm taking Commerce (Liberal Studies) and there is a lot of freedom in choosing when and which subjects I wan to take. I decided to take accounting, even though I wasn't intending on taking it at all until i realised it's use in marketing brand management positions. A field that I will likely go into post-graduation.

What's obvious? The fact that marks don't mean much in commerce unless you're failing or just scraping a pass in every subject. I'd like to see more than just one isolated case of someone with great marks in commerce but no extracurriculars or work experience (relevant or irrelevant) get an interview at a big firm.

I interacted with people in such cases very often being part of the Commerce Society. Asian students (especially international) form a lot of these examples. They often (not all of them of course, but it's impossible not to generalise) don't participate in sufficient extracurricular activities or gain relevant work experience, however, they do get relatively high marks in the field of accounting and finance (and a few other business fields). Yet, they find jobs relatively easily upon graduation in Australia.

What do my studies have to do with anything? An accounting textbook won't tell you about the recruitment process. So your constant reference about the amount of time you've been a commerce student (which would be a hugely misleading comment if you've just transferred to another stream in which case you're effectively a first year student - unless you're graduating this year) does not imbue credibility into what you're saying.

I am graduating next year, as I'm in a four-year degree. Originally I studied B Economic and Social Sciences, doing only subjects that I intended to transfer into B Commerce (Liberal Studies), as I had no intention to continue my course. Therefore, my expertise is as valid as a native Commerce student. Furthermore, as I have said, I was very actively involved in the Commerce Society, and have had the opportunity to speak to people from the Big-4, as well as some banking institutions regarding issues such as this (although I didn't go in-depth, as I am not interested in an accounting/finance degree).

Your studies have a lot to do with it. You claim that since I'm a first-year in commerce, who studied another degree in the past (as per your incorrect assumption), I have no credibility. However, apparently the fact that you're not a Commerce student at all leaves you with credibility. Contradiction yet again. And a huge one at that. I'm not going to talk about the engineering employment environments, simply because I do not study engo, nor have I been involved with any relevant societies, or conversed with employees in the field.
Hell, I'm not even going to claim to be an expert on accounting/finance recruitment (although I will claim to be relatively knowledgable on marketing - which is very different to everything I've discussed in my previous posts, as in marketing, marks aren't the most important factor for recruitment).

So, let me make this contradiction clearer, as I find it quite amusing:

• Argument: a student who only starts a Commerce degree isn't a credible source for recruitment information
• Implication 1: Anonymou5 is a MORE credible source for recruitment information than a student only starting Commerce
• Fact: Anonymou5 isn't a Commerce student
• Implication 2: A person who hasn't studied Commerce for long is NOT CREDIBLE
• Conclusion: Anonymou5 by his own contradiction, is not credible, as he has not studied commerce at all.

 

[Anonymou5]

...

Read as: waah waah I've completely missed the point and am going to resort to drawing ridiculous inferences to prove a false point.

Saying that you have no more credibility than me is not equivalent to saying that I have more credibility than you. God, you're thick.

I guess my point flew way over your head again. Being a commerce student in itself does not make any point you assert, regarding recruitment processes, any more valid than some random on the street. Because like I said, a textbook won't teach you anything useful about recruitment processes. Did any of your textbooks give you detailed selection criteria for big firms? No? It's what you do outside of your studies that enables you to gain knowledge about how firms recruit. So are you telling me that once you enrol as a commerce student you are given some kind of access card which lets you talk to the 'right' people? Because as far as I know, people in the industry are *gasp* free to talk to people outside of it.

Oh and I can really see the validity in your claim that your commerce degree is so strenuous that you need to drop most of your commitments to get HDs in it. After all, you have the time to spend a large chunk of your day on BOS regularly, and make essay after essay of incoherent ramblings in response to simple little posts from me.

 

[stazi]

Either way, I do have more credibility than you. I actually study commerce, I've actually interacted with recruiters...can you see how this makes me more credible?
And you did not imply that we have an equal level of credibility. You keep implying that you're right, I'm wrong. Such an implication means that you do claim more credibility, even though you obviously lack it.
If you are so content with your claim that neither of us know anything about the process then why don't you say so, rather than affirm that "I know more than you do. You're wrong" to me.

My textbooks don't teach me how the recruitment process works, but some great tutors and lecturers have.
And again, as part of the Commerce Society, I interacted with recruiters on a regular basis. I have also attended various seminars given by recruitment specialists.

Do the above mean that I know more about the recruitment process than a random off the street (such as yourself)? YES.

Am I saying that if you get low marks you can't get a job? No. Am I saying that with hgher marks it's easier to get an interview, which could ultimately lead to a job with the right interview skills? Yes.

 

[Anonymou5]

One of the flaws with your ramblings is that the initial part of the recruitment process is not some hugely complicated procedure. You sound like one of those clueless people who need a physics professor to tell them that a brick dropping on your foot will hurt a lot more than a box of tissues doing the same thing.

 

[stazi]

I love how you conveniently overlook my criticisms towards you. Did you or did you not imply that what you were saying was more correct than what I was saying? Even to a fool, this is very clear. It is even clearer that you somehow imply that someone who not only studies commerce, but also had been in regular communication with recruiters for the past 2 years (and also has worked in many marketing positions over the past 2 years, although we're talking about accoutning here) is just as knowledgable about recruitment processes within a relevant industry to them, than an engineering student.

Let me ask you this: are you a better authority for engineering recruitment advice than I am?

And the recruitment process is complicated. Each big-4 company receives thousands of applications. However, they try and make it as least complicated as possible. Do you think it's efficient for them to read through each resume, or don't you think that there is a screening process involved? The screening process does take into account numerous factors. For instance, Ernst & Young has a special quota on the number of women they take in, as they continue to be the employer of choice for women in accounting. Let me guess, you didn't know about this, like I don't know which engineering organisations prefer which degrees, from which unis, etc?

 

[Vagabond]

lol.. wtf.. people are disputing that lower marks = lower chances?

Here's a hint. What is the single objective way that an employer can halve or even quarter the number of applicants? ...

Don't think too hard.