To accept a public sector job over a Big4?

[somewhereovertherainboww]

Job offer 1: public sector (finance), central London location so a fairly easy commute, 9-5 hybrid with 2 days WFH

Job offer 2: one of the Big 4, audit, regional office, a 1.5 hour (pricey) commute by train, very long hours and rarely WFH

I am returning to full time employment after years of being a SAHM to 2 DC(4&6 y.o.).

My heart says option 1 is more family friendly and “meaningful” but my head says a Big 4 in my CV can set me up for life, offers better progression opportunities and pay.
DH is not on six figures and my earning potential is definitely higher, which puts pressure on me to go for option 2. DH is happy to do school drop offs and pick up from clubs in the evening to allow me to work long hours but I worry I will barely get to see the children on weekdays.

It's difficult to judge without being able to weigh up the salary difference including commuting costs and longer hours but I will say that I worked in the public sector for a long time for the job security and support with health issues I had at the time so those benefits (in your case flexible working around a family) do have a lot of value. There was also opportunity to progress, work on interesting projects and do extra training which would all help your future prospects. You just need to keep an ear to the ground, say 'yes' to things, keep a log of your experiences for competencies and get yourself known as reliable and keen to learn.

However, as a compromise, in terms of experience, would a year at the big 4 place allow you to go into the public sector at a higher grade thus making up.a bit of the difference money wise?

If the public sector job is what suits your circumstances best for now then grab that and make the most of it, don't run yourself into the ground for the sake of a prestigious name on your CV.

I worry about progression opportunities, should I chose to go down the public sector route

Personally I'd worry more about the overall ethos which too often infests public service - especially the "can't do" mentality and the lack of initiative which can drive brighter employees to avoid it like the plague

If family responsibilities mean all this could be tolerable then it might work, but if you're really keen to progess in a leading company it's worth remembering that some regard past work in the public sector as a definite minus

Personally I'd worry more about the overall ethos which too often infests public service - especially the "can't do" mentality and the lack of initiative which can drive brighter employees to avoid it like the plague

Personally I'd worry more about the overall ethos which too often infests public service - especially the "can't do" mentality and the lack of initiative which can make brighter employees stand out and get promoted into senior roles very quickly.

If you can afford take the option that gives you time to live. Enjoy your kids.

I'm an IT consultant rather than an accountant/finance person, and have worked for two of the B4s (and McKinsey).

I'm childfree by choice and hard as nails, and I found it hard going: tbh, to go from a SAHM to B4 lifestyle would be horrible.

Option 1, IMO.

The public sector is a big place. Finance functions in local government can be poorly staffed with limited investment and with weak control environments, and the accounting rules are complex. Finance functions in health or education tend to be better.

The pace ime is almost always slower in public sector than in private which has advantages and disadvantages. Very few people stay in one corporate all their career but public sector tends to have more lifers. Is that because they love what they do? They get good progression? Because they get good work life balance? The don't want to give up their DB pension arrangements which are worth a fortune when compared to the amount you'd need to buy a comparable annuity? They lack ambition or drive or ability to work in a more dynamic/competitive/fast paced environment? Probably some in all these buckets.