CAP2 - Mock Exam

Keany

I sat the CAP2 SFMA Mock exams last Saturday.

I do not like the case study style at all. The compulsory Question was 6 pages long. Difficult to digest in such a short time.I saw people leaving at the earliest opportunity.

Even the exam questions were far from the lectures and exercises questions given during lectures.

My opinion, the past exam pattern is much better.

Any opinions on how anyone else found it?

Onearmedbandit

I thought it was quite good actually especially the auditing paper. The case study is good in they way that although it is a compulsory question there is also different elements to it which means you should be able to answer something.

Idiots at the institute f'd up with the announcement three quarters way through the auditing exam. I had finished that question and had to go back and start again.

Overall not bad papers

maddogcollins

Onearmedbandit wrote: »

I thought it was quite good actually especially the auditing paper. The case study is good in they way that although it is a compulsory question there is also different elements to it which means you should be able to answer something.

Idiots at the institute f'd up with the announcement three quarters way through the auditing exam. I had finished that question and had to go back and start again.

Overall not bad papers

What announcement was made in your auditing exam?

Onearmedbandit

Change in the question due to typo which meant something that was irrelevant had to be answered.

The question was about conflict of interest and your auditors partnership name was Hopkins and the question said something like the following:

"The parter in the Taney partnership has shares in the company being audited"

Now because that is a different partership you can just say that it is not a conflict of interest issue. However 3/4 way through the exam the announcement came on that it was a typo and Taney above should be replaced with Hopkins therefore making the conflict of interest.

It just meant I had to go back and re do that part of the question and considering the time constraints it was a pain in the arse.

Maybe idiots was to harsh a word to use they are just doing their job after all. Looking forward (not) to tax and financial reporting.

maddogcollins

Onearmedbandit wrote: »

Change in the question due to typo which meant something that was irrelevant had to be answered.

The question was about conflict of interest and your auditors partnership name was Hopkins and the question said something like the following:

"The parter in the Taney partnership has shares in the company being audited"

Now because that is a different partership you can just say that it is not a conflict of interest issue. However 3/4 way through the exam the announcement came on that it was a typo and Taney above should be replaced with Hopkins therefore making the conflict of interest.

It just meant I had to go back and re do that part of the question and considering the time constraints it was a pain in the arse.

Maybe idiots was to harsh a word to use they are just doing their job after all. Looking forward (not) to tax and financial reporting.

That is some laugh..I sat it in Galway and we were not told any changes to make..Think an email to the institute will be in order!

Onearmedbandit

maddogcollins wrote: »

That is some laugh..I sat it in Galway and we were not told any changes to make..Think an email to the institute will be in order!

Maybe idiots is the correct word to use then. There was always gonna be teething problems with the new exams anyway. Id say they will just award the points for either attempt to the question. It doesn't really matter in the overall scheme of things but if it was for real there would be uproar.

maddogcollins

Onearmedbandit wrote: »

Maybe idiots is the correct word to use then. There was always gonna be teething problems with the new exams anyway. Id say they will just award the points for either attempt to the question. It doesn't really matter in the overall scheme of things but if it was for real there would be uproar.

Ya thats exactly it, was talking to people who did it at other venues and nothing was said their either..oh well..only mocks..