^ I respect your opinion. But let me address your post.
The underlying theme behind my arguments is cost effectiveness. I just want to bluntly mention this, although I sprinkled that word several times in my posts.
My tuition at USC was close to $50,000 if you look at my total tab. $50,000 for a one year program. Cost effective? For a school like Yale or Stanford, sure. USC? Not at all. You mentioned CPA reimbursement by the firms. Their reimbursement is typically $5,000 (for Big 4, even less for mid to local firms) if one passes the test in the first year. The CPA reimbursement cannot even be compared to the ridiculous tuition costs at USC. $50,000 >> $5,000. Again, I'm looking at the big picture from a cost-benefit point of view.
Again, a CPA is
far more important than a MAcc degree. There's evidence in the Big 4's pay structure: Look at masters students' salaries vs non masters students' salaries. The Big 4 pay differential signals how much more valuable they believe a MAcc degree is over a standard accounting B.S. degree. Do you know how small the difference is? Take a look at USC graduates' starting salaries.
Furthermore, look at the long run: the pay difference (as small as it is) converges as experience and leadership roles greatly eclipse the importance of a MAcc. Most graduate degrees greatly advance an individual's mobility--a MAcc is not one of them. At a Big 4, your MAcc degree bows down to experience and leadership history. This is undeniable.
I did not say to just simply go to any school. If you read my posts you'll notice that I recommended attending
cost-effective schools.
While I was recruiting there were UCLA
undergrads, CSUN
undergrads, and even UCR
undergrads alongside me and other USC MAcc students at Big 4 in-house interviews (all applying for the same entry-level position). Students from cost-effective schools can expect to do just as well as USC MAcc students (and avoid $50,000 in debt) as evidenced by Big 4 recruiting history.