Class was better today. Father-of-twins was quieter and we progressed faster into harder material, some of which still has me spinning. Professor got off on LESS tangents then yesterday and we were at a good cruising altitude. About 11 am we took a break and while walking out with Government-guy, he looked a little bewildered, I asked if he was okay and he just said it was a lot to cover. Back to class, more learning, finally time for lunch. Again, zipped down the road to get Paradise Bakery, half sandwich and salad - very yum, plus snickerdoodle cookie AND chocolate chip (but only ate snickerdoodle to make Dietician (not Nutritionist) happy). Apparently Nutritionists and Dieticians aren't the same thing, was scolded by Meanie Christinie, so must clarify. Nutritionist will now be referred to as Dietician. :) (LOVE YOU MEANIE!)
Starting again in class...afternoon passed rather quickly and
So in yesterday's blog, I mentioned that Father-of-twins in my class didn't have a wedding ring on. I feel the need to clarify here. I'm not against people out of wedlock having children, whatever works in your situation, go for it. Just not a fan of those not giving Wifey credit where credit is due, or Girlfriend, Fiance, Mistress, whatever. Obviously he didn't give birth, unless there's new technology out there that I am not aware of. So when Father-of-twins never said "we" or "she" when he mentioned the babies, just "I just had 2 new babies," so struck me as odd. Finally, heard him today mention his "wife" and then the no ring thing made me a bit angrier. I'm not a fan of the wife wears a ring but the hubby doesn't. How is that fair? Just seems like a lack of respect to me. What are your thoughts Bleaders?
Now to comment a bit more on this, and maybe I am reading too far into Father-of-twins situation. J doesn't wear his ring to work and I am fine with that. Mainly, because of his job it is a safety hazard and if the metal touches hot metal, he could turn into a 9 fingered man instead of the 10 fingered man---where I'd much rather he be! So I get that. J always wears his ring on the weekends, well until lately...it doesn't fit anymore. His fingers have gotten a little thicker it seems. I won't tolerate it much longer, we'll get the ring fixed or tattooed or something! Maybe Father-of-twins has the same issue, his ring doesn't fit. But for whatever reason, it just bothered me. Thoughts folks? Ring or no ring?
Whenever I explain the CFP to someone, I explain it as the Bar for Financial Advisors, because few people outside of the industry or without Financial Advisors know what it is, but everyone knows what the Bar is. When class started yesterday and we were discussing the CFP (for those new comers CFP stands for Certified Financial Advisor and is a 18 month to 4 year process, 6 years in Father-of-twins situation and about 2.5 in mine, that is one of the hardest credentials to get in my field, very good to have), and as we were discussing how the test is about to change (adding a 6th class, and having the comprehensive test include essay instead of just multiple choice) I said it sounded more and more like the Bar exam. The class agreed.
My BFF passed the Bar last year (YAY MELSLAW) and I don't know if comparing the Bar to the CFP offends her (she has never said so and believe me, she would - we have a very honest relationship) for any reason. I don't know why it would. From what I understand, the Bar is 1)required by law, 2)isn't all multiple choice, 3)takes 2-3 days, 4)takes forever to grade, and is 5)very painful and hard, with varying degrees of difficulty depending on the state it is taken in. The CFP is 1)not required by law, 2)is all multiple choice, 3)takes 1.5 days, 4)takes forever to grade, and is 5)very painful and hard, but the same in every single state.
Some might think that since the CFP is multiple choice it might be easier than an essay test, which the Bar has some/all of. Having never taken either, I can't say which is easier. But I can say that the testers of the CFP like to make tricky questions that test your ability to test, and somewhat you know about the actual questions. However, the difference that was brought up yesterday is that the Bar is all about the law. ALL about aspects of the LAW. The CFP is about some law (the parts that we as CFP can discuss), some accounting, some taxes (the parts that we as CFP can discuss), some financial planning, some estate planning, some insurance, some investments, some group benefits, some calculations, some retirement planning AND how all those things come together to build a comprehensive financial plan for a client. All crammed into 300 some odd questions and 10 hours of test. Wanna join me yet? :)
So if anyone doesn't like me comparing the Bar to the CFP, please don't take offense, I just use that to explain to Joe Schmo what I am doing, but for a different industry. I did it when I was a Paraplanner too, since no one knew what that was, but they knew what a Paralegal was. Financial advice is not a new field, but definitely newer than Attorneys. And hopefully just as respected...well, maybe a little more respected (no offense meant - just joking!). :)