Firstly, I would like to thank those who set up this site and also thank those who contribute to this site. In the cut-throught competition involved in securing a graduate job it is just plain nice to see people helping each other out. Wikijob has been invaluable in helping me out as I poo myself before interviews. I wouldn’t have known about SARBOX. I wouldn’t have known about practice e tray exercises. I wouldn’t have known about how to get to the point when answering questions. The list is endless and I say well done chaps!
Getting to the point: I have been offered a job at Grant Thornton. I really liked the manager, the partner, the general culture of the place (London Office). Everyone was spectacularly friendly and it was emphasised to me what a great supportive environment it was to study the ACA and gain hands on experience.
However, if I accept, I worry about the long term opportunities Grant Thornton trainees have compared to Big 4 trainees. In the long run do those who train with the Big 4 have better opportunities? Perhaps in the future, I may want to go into another career, say banking or consultancy or corporate finance; i get the feeling that those who trained with the Big 4 will be seen as superior to those who trained elsewhere.
Admittedly, on a shallow and superficial level, I would want to work for the Big 4 because of the prestige involved. I was knocked back by deloitte but have yet to apply to the other three. I really think that the variety of clients, the quicker turnover of clients, the chance to take on more responsibility at an earlier stage, and the better work life balance makes GT look a really great place to work (as well as other factors), BUT, i have a niggly feeling that to maximise long term opportunities I should concentrate on getting a big 4 contract (and working for the Big 4 appeals to my more shallow sensibilities).
I would be grateful for people’s thoughts on this. Why are the Big 4 in such high demand? I want it, but i know I’ll be happier at GT. What would you do?