<p>There are two themes to this post:</p>
<li><p>How do the initial 3-4 years spent as a CPA at a Big 4 accounting firm compare with those same years as an analyst at an investment bank? Specifically, how do the pay, quality of life, work week, and top MBA school chances differ?</p></li>
<li><p>My ultimate goal is to work in investment banking; however, I don’t know whether to work as an analyst or CPA after a combined masters/bachelors degree in either finance or accounting, respectively. After 3-4 years working as either a CPA or analyst I intend to go back to school for my MBA, preferably at a top b-school, and work as an associate at an investment bank. I am concerned about how everyone says IB will burn you out; I am prepared to work 80 or 100+ hour weeks as an associate because the pay warrants it, whereas I feel those same work weeks as an analyst are not worth it. Could someone please weigh in on my thoughts?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>This question has been asked many times because many people consider doing the same thing. The clear answer is if you want to do banking, go straight into banking (or at least try to). If your plan is to go into banking, starting out as an analyst is way better than doing audit, and whoever says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. If you can't get an analyst position with a BB, try going for a boutique. If not a boutique, try going for Big 4 TAS. If not that, then audit won't be terrible. Keep in mind that going to a top MBA is hard enough for the many bankers competing for the schools. It will be even harder to distinguish yourself as a typical Big 4 CPA.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
If not a boutique, try going for Big 4 TAS.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>What does TAS stand for?</p>
<p>Transaction Advisory Services</p>
<p>It's better to pay your dues as an analyst (if that's what you want to do) while you are young, uncommitted, and you have the energy to handle those long hours.</p>