Would you consider jumping ship to another institute if you fail fae?

A quick look over this does not do the students' critism justice.

the devil is in the detail

Jim2007 wrote: »

Now that I have taken some time to look into this, I must say that I well come the change. As someone who has spend most of my working life outside of practice, I hope that this change will start to produce more rounded professionals.

this is all very well in theory but the implementation of it is very different.

And at the end of the day this is a chartered accountant exam. Not a general consulting exam. Most of the subjects mirror that of an MBA. Which is what people should do to be a more rounded professional IMO. An accounting qualification is what people should do to specialise in accounting.

Jim2007 wrote: »

On reading the exam paper, my first reactions were that you'd definitely need more than a good knowledge of the accounting topics to pass this one.

As its an accounting exam it really should be a given that you need a good standard of accounting. However the accounting questions account for 1 in 7 of the indicators given (the subject is now called performance measurement which includes FR and mgmt a/c)

Jim2007 wrote: »

In the light of the new syllabus for the FAE, I would say that the exam and it's suggested solution were reasonable.

After coming out of the mock exam, which is a very different experience from just reading the paper and the solutions, I was happy that I had identified all the indicators (questions). And when I got the solutions I was still happy. However when I got the marks and papers back I was very puzzled at how they were marked. E.g. the first indicator was to write a letter to staff who transfered to the new company. I did this but i got marked "not addressed", and subsequently found out (from the head lecturer) that this was because I did not mention that I was in the same position as everyone else who moved (which is debateable as I was on the board of directors and the other staff weren't). This was a partern which was replicated across the script.

This exam doesnt have stated questions and the marking scheme seems to be very very focused. To pass the last indicator you need to get 3 of their points in the solution. How do you know what number of points do you need to get when you have no idea what the question is (and the number of points expected)? and then try doing the same in an exam enviroment. Something i feel those implementing this new syllabus failed to do. Very different from just glancing at the paper.

Jim2007 wrote: »

But having said that I would also acknowledge that it is a big change in gear from what went before it and I can well see why people would have in adjusting to these new demands in a short period.

A big change that was not adequately planned for. The lecturers said openly that they didn't know what was coming up. Some said that it would be a nightmare to correct. Others said that that we should read the questions and allot the amount of time based on the marks beside the question. They clearly weren't briefed properly on the exam. So how are the student then meant to adjust?

An subject that you would be familar with is Information Management Principles. I myself did a large part of my degree in this area, and went to the lecturer more out of curiousity then anything. The lecturer didnt give out notes, went through all the technical jargon, definitions, how one goes about building DBs etc yet and did no practical examples that could have possibily come up in an exam scenario. Most students in the class were left baffled and more puzzeled by the end of the day.

The examiners didn't work with the lecturers and we as students are now clueless, sheep going into a slaughter, would be a little extreme but it does capture the frustration many of us feel with the ICAI. Hence why many including firms are thinking about moving. And would advise others of the same.

Ironically the new syallabus has included change management. Something those implementing the new system is obviously lost on. Why? perhaps because they specialised in accounting and didn't do an MBA....

Jim2007 wrote: »

In terms on technique, the obvious one is to do lots of case studies, not just accounting ones, but Marketing, HR, Operations Management and so on. In addition I would suggest two things:
- broaden your reading material: definitely add the HBR and BusinessWeek to your reading list
- take the time to learn about your clients business, don't just do the audit or the accounts or whatever, take the tour and learn about the total business, not just the accounting issues

Credit where credit is due, yes better reading and an understanding of business should be undertaken by students. I felt I read a lot of business material including FT, reuters, business sections of Indo, IT but only a small bit of HBR. An area I should have looked at more admittedly.

But lots of case studies? Again devil in the detail, we were given a book on FR case studies which was good. but not in the same style as the exam. All had questions at the end. The was maybe 20 general case studies. Not enough at all, particularily in the areas of HR and Marketing and operations as you pointed out. A few weeks before the exam they realised we had no case studies for one particular subject so they sent around an email with one thrown together. Obviously we needed lots of case studies to do, but the ICAI didnt provide us with very many. The mgmt accounting case studies book that we were given, the lecturer told us it was way too detailed for what was expected. Obviously I did every case study possible, but I had to make sure that I didn't do too many at the start so that I had left some to do later in study leave.

The lack of practice questions is something one firm identified, so they obtained questions from Canada, where this exam technique is used. The firm was given out to by the ICAI for this appearantly.

In terms of understanding client business this is very good in theory. But the reality is that financial services have grown in Ireland and this means the many big four trainees do not see every day business. The mock paper includes an SPV question, an area that I am familar with from my work, and again I was happy with my answer after the exam, but as the examiner was looking for an obsure point, I was no given any credit for my answer. So if the ICAI acknowledge the change in some way, it's not implemented in a proper fashion.

I think at these points are more then enough reason, IMO, for people to be annoyed with the ICAI and advise people to move to other qualifications.

Jim2007 wrote: »

The funny thing is that most of the people who have been jumping up and down on the thread have only confirmed my point - lack of technique, the exam is different, not like any think they've seen before..... so the real question is how have they changed their approach to deal with the new situation???

As you said this is a valuable asset, therefore as trainees we have much to loose. So the changes made and the lack of help from the ICAI in the adjustment should be understood in this light.

I do feel that I have tried to change my study technique, I have even read reports on how the canadian students answered the questions and looked at how the exam consultants there advise answering the reading and the questions. But I think the CASSI report sums it up with this line

a lack of clarity in the grading system made it impossible [for students] to have any confidence in their answers.

However I do think that you have every right to post on this topic and I do think many of your views are reasonable (and probably representative of many qualified accountants out there) and appreciate them, although sometimes it may seem like that

Well to be fair to jim I think his views are representative of most qualified accountants who have been so for a few years. His views are probably fairly similar to that of the Institute's too.

He also probably has the same knowledge of the exam as those in the institute, as I would say very few in the institute have actually sat down and tried the exam. I would really doubt if more then one or two have sat the exam to see if they would pass it themselves.

The head of the education board wrote in the CAI publication about the poor pass rate of the CAP2 exams. The reasons she pointed out were poor exam technique and poor preparation by students. Exactly the same as Jim by the way. But at least Jim doesn't have access to find out more if he wanted to. this woman ought to be able to figure out the real reasons, but is she really bothered? Would she or anyone else in the institute really criticise the institute?

Or more importantly would the institute try to fix this mess?

MrMatisse wrote: »

With ACCA you could be qualified in June. If you enrol by Oct 15

Are u sure of that?