Finance Graduate Review

Overall it's been a solid experience with clear strengths and some gaps. The technical exposure through the finance graduate scheme has somewhat valuable, mainly driven by the ACA apprenticeship which has given me a real qualification alongside the work. Where it falls short is more on the graduate scheme side - how it's structured, the networking side, and collaboration across departments has felt fairly average rather than a standout.

My core responsibilities sit in finance and accounting across 3 different yearly rotations. You do tasks like balance sheet reconciliations, clearing and investigating variances, and supporting month-end processes. I enjoy the problem-solving elements most. The routine processing is less engaging but I understand it's part of building the foundation. It would have been good to be allowed to jump into some broader finance roles

I do get the chance to contribute meaningfully on the technical work, and my output is relied on within the team, which is a good feeling. That said, feeling valued is more mixed — recognition and visibility, particularly from senior stakeholders, is inconsistent. On the day-to-day I feel trusted; on the wider scheme level, less so.

Honestly, pay is one of the weaker areas. The graduate salary scale feels fixed and hasn't kept pace with near-qualified status or the responsibility I'm carrying, especially as I approach completing the ACA. Benefits and perks are pretty standard but nothing special. It's fair for an entry point, but it doesn't fully reflect the whole term. I believe pay should be increased fairly based on exam passing.

The role is preparing me reasonably well — the combination of a recognised qualification and hands-on finance experience is a strong platform. What would strengthen it further is more structured exposure to different areas and clearer development conversations about where the role leads after qualification. The technical grounding is there; the career-pathing is more average.

Support has been mixed. My line manager has been the most consistent presence and is approachable on the day-to-day work, which I value. HR contact has been more transactional (if not non existent) — there when needed for process but not proactive. The mentor and buddy side is where it's felt thinnest; the structure exists on paper but the regularity and quality of those relationships is not really driven by the scheme, more the individual. What's missing is a more consistent, scheme-led framework so support doesn't rely on who you happen to be paired with. Also being paired with people who don't necessarily match your career pathway would've been useful.

Work-life balance is one of the stronger areas. The hybrid setup gives me flexibility, and outside of month-end peaks the typical week is manageable and doesn't spill heavily into personal time. Studying for the ACA alongside work adds pressure, but that's expected with an apprenticeship, and study leave helps. Overall it supports my personal time and wellbeing reasonably well. But to be fair, the jobs aren't that challenging and im suprised at how early some staff members tend to finish work. I'd have preferred to be in a more challenging environment.

The culture is generally positive and welcoming. The team-level atmosphere is collaborative and I've felt comfortable from early on. Where it's more average is cross-department collaboration — it can feel siloed, and there aren't always natural opportunities to work with or connect to other parts of the business. So the immediate environment is good; the wider connectedness is patchier.

CBRE clearly has EDI initiatives in place and it's visibly on the agenda, which is positive. I'd rate it as solid but not standout from my own experience — I'm aware of events and networks existing, but few have directly stood out or felt central to my day-to-day. It reads more as a corporate framework than something I've felt strongly embedded in as a graduate.

No

The technical experience doing 3 year rotations at GWS and the ACA qualification are genuine positives, and the work-life balance and immediate team at each point have been good. But I said no mainly because the graduate scheme itself feels underdeveloped — pay isn't great, senior visibility and networking are limited, and cross-department collaboration is siloed. For someone whose priority is the qualification and hands-on finance work, it can deliver; for someone wanting a well-rounded, well-supported graduate programme, with events and a more graduate community feel, I couldn't confidently recommend it as it stands.

I'd put this around a 3/5. The core finance role broadly matched what was described, so no major mismatch on the actual work. Where it fell slightly short was the wider scheme — the networking, structured development and senior exposure implied during recruitment haven't fully materialised in practice.