Does anyone else feel the licensing exams are unnecessarily meaningless, waste of time and difficult?

Based on the most helpful WSO content, your sentiment about licensing exams being a mismatch with the actual job requirements is not uncommon. Many professionals have expressed frustration over the disconnect between the skills tested in these exams and the practical skills needed on the job. For example:

1. Legal and Regulatory Focus: Licensing exams, such as the Series 79 or Series 66, often emphasize legal and regulatory knowledge, which may not directly align with the day-to-day tasks of slide-making, modeling, or financial analysis. This can make the exams feel irrelevant to the core responsibilities of roles in banking or finance.

2. Time Commitment: Preparing for these exams requires significant time and effort, which could otherwise be spent honing practical skills like financial modeling or industry-specific knowledge.

3. Job Realities: As highlighted in WSO threads, many roles, especially at the junior level, involve tasks like PowerPoint edits, administrative duties, and straightforward modeling using templates. The exams, however, focus on broader regulatory and compliance topics that may not be immediately applicable.

While the exams are a necessary hurdle for regulatory compliance and client interaction, the disconnect between their content and job realities is a common critique. If you're preparing for these exams, it might help to view them as a box to check rather than a reflection of your actual job skills.

Sources: Licensing For Dummies, Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) Exam Overview, Modeling as a professional vs. as a student, The Efficient Career Hypothesis: Almost All Jobs Are Priced In, Ask CompBanker