CAI (formerly ICAI) pass rates.

Stabshauptmann

This is getting completely out of hand, something needs to be done.

No offense to those who qualified under the old system, but there is absolutely no what the standard of students has dropped this much.

Pass rates went from 70% at Prof II and III to 50% and Cap 1 and Cap 2.
And today, the CAP2 results state only 35% passing all exams sat

Under the new FAE grading structure I have to look forward to there wont even be a breakdown of marks. Just an arbitrary pass or fail.

This is complete BullSh1t!

Its is clearly a case of, well we only need X number new accountants this year, lets just arbitrarily end some poor schmo's career.

Odats

Compensation is a huge factor which is taken out of the new exams which would explain some of the drop in the percentages. But you cannot compare the two as they are like apples and oranges. I think the open book for CAP2 is more of a hindrance to be honest and expects alot more out of the student. I preferred closed book myself done Prof3 last year of old syllabus and now qualified.
With the current climate and firms being trigger happy with leaving students go those who failed will be at more of a disadvantage in finding new jobs especially in another practice.

scouser82

Odats wrote: »

But you cannot compare the two as they are like apples and oranges.

Of course you can compare the two. Its very easy to actually. Just look at the percentage getting through each year and that shows you which exams are harder.

68% getting through the 2008 Prof 3
35% getting through the 2010 CAP 2

For years and years the Prof 3 CAP rate was at a very steady rate. So clearly the same calibre of students is sitting them each year. Then all of a sudden the pass rate drops when the new course comes in.

This is due to one of two things:

1) The students in 2009 and 2010 are much less intelligent than those who sat the exams each year for the last 20 years

2) The exams are much harder to pass now.

Anyone who believes option 1 please get your head out of the sand immediately and wake up and smell the coffee.

pmcc123

scouser82 wrote: »

Of course you can compare the two. Its very easy to actually. Just look at the percentage getting through each year and that shows you which exams are harder.

68% getting through the 2008 Prof 3
35% getting through the 2010 CAP 2

For years and years the Prof 3 CAP rate was at a very steady rate. So clearly the same calibre of students is sitting them each year. Then all of a sudden the pass rate drops when the new course comes in.

This is due to one of two things:

1) The students in 2009 and 2010 are much less intelligent than those who sat the exams each year for the last 20 years

2) The exams are much harder to pass now.

Anyone who believes option 1 please get your head out of the sand immediately and wake up and smell the coffee.

Well yes, you would need to hold other variables such as quality of teaching, content delivery etc constant.

I think its very much 2. No short form questions or compensation is a HUGE disadvantage.

smcgiff

These would be close to, if not below, the equivalent ACCA level pass rates :eek:

pmcc123

More importantly, the FAE pass rate

was 77% last year - I assume that will now be decimated!!

Pisco Sour

pmcc123 wrote: »

More importantly, the FAE pass rate

was 77% last year - I assume that will now be decimated!!

The funny thing is that the people who are setting these papers and marking them qualified under the old course, and many of whom would not have passed under the new course.

A sort of sick twisted irony!

prinz

I wouldn't mind so much if they just owned up to it either, but having been fobbed off a number of times with the party line that 'the CAI aren't deliberately making it harder at all in fact the opposite, and sure, if one aspect is harder another is easier so it all works out the same' it makes me :mad:

Odats

Scouser82 you didn't read my full post. My reasoning behind that you cannot compare the two as being the same are as follows:
Compensation (Know plenty who got through on one good paper)
Open book more is expected from the student (exception being Tax)
If you factored the former into consideration you could reduce the first time pass rates from 2008 and previous by at least 20%. 35% is low but as smgiff says it is in line with ACCA unfortunately.
It seems the CAI want to cap the numbers passing out each year i.e. keep the qualification perception as the best intact (not my opinion here). Plus it makes them more money.

Jadaol

having passed last year, i'd say the reason for such a dramatic fall is partly due to 3 things

1) New course and teachers haven't got their heads around teaching it effectively yet

2) Being harder as some thought cai were losing their credibility and this made them change to people being trained in double entry. It's a disgrace having qualified accountants who don't know double-entry

3) I think this is the most important reason - we're in a recession and it's bad for business having loads of unemployed accountants. For a start if they have no money, they can't pay their membership fees and it looks bad. The legal profession do this and so do the medical profession. Each profession is well known for this, plus they earn more fees with repeats etc. - couple this with not having unemployed accountants not paying membership - this makes for a sound business plan :rolleyes:

Stabshauptmann

Odats wrote: »

But you cannot compare the two as they are like apples and oranges.

I read your second post too. I think its actually you who have missed the point.

You can compare the two sets of students because at the end of the day they hold the same qualification, with the same experience competing for the same positions, but one group had it far easier than the other.

scouser82

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I read your second post too. I think its actually you who have missed the point.

You can compare the two sets of students because at the end of the day they hold the same qualification, with the same experience competing for the same positions, but one group had it far easier than the other.

This

ferike1

Doing these bad boys next year. I don't think it could be any worse than this year. I mean 35% is worse than the average pass rates for the CFA's which is at about 40%. But from what I've been reading about the ICAI nothing would surprise me.

R0N BURGUNDY

passed all 5 cap1s last year first time

failed all 4 cap2s this year first time

what a result

thats about as consistent as the institute


i knew i had failed each exam on the day so getting the figures in the post was of no real surprise to me. open book is really not my thing so i will have to take a look at what i am doing, sort out my exam technique etc. because i knew the stuff inside out and had covered everything. fair enough everyone was on the same boat with this new open book system but im obviously gash at it. the lack of time in the exams was the biggest killer for me so i think im going to forget about the books and just do it from memory. it worked fine for me in any other exam so..

i did well in the continuous assessments so that means i did even worse in the main exams. ah well - its character building. il get them in the resits.

r.dunne7

I think the pass rate has dropped from the professional threes is

1. Ther is no compensation anymore.
2. The exams are about 25% harder

Thats all really there is too it, take compensation from prof threes and the pas rate would be around 35 %.. believe me. MABF was really hard....

A lot of people only really failed one exam really, so taht why the pass rate seems low.

If you ddint include those people that failed one the pass rate iw ould say would be around 55-60% .. pretty much equalivalent to Prof three. Give or take a few %

Stabshauptmann

r.dunne7 wrote: »

I think the pass rate has dropped from the professional threes is

1. Ther is no compensation anymore.
2. The exams are about 25% harder

Thats all really there is too it, take compensation from prof threes and the pas rate would be around 35 %.. believe me. MABF was really hard....

A lot of people only really failed one exam really, so taht why the pass rate seems low.

If you ddint include those people that failed one the pass rate iw ould say would be around 55-60% .. pretty much equalivalent to Prof three. Give or take a few %

You think 55% is close to 77%?

And you're a qualified accountant? Who writes like that?
Really?

Now I know there is no comparison between the standard of CAP2 and Prof III...

r.dunne7

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

You think 55% is close to 77%?

And you're a qualified accountant? Who writes like that?
Really?

Now I know there is no comparison between the standard of CAP2 and Prof III...

If you actually looked the passs rate for prof threes was around 63 %, in 2008 it was 67% the highest ever pass rate.

The FAE for 2008/2009 are 76.1 %.

Get your facts right before you start misleading people.

Sean Bateman

22% of candidates failed all four CAP 2 exams. That's an incredible statistic.

prinz

r.dunne7 wrote: »

A lot of people only really failed one exam really, so taht why the pass rate seems low. If you ddint include those people that failed one the pass rate iw ould say would be around 55-60% .. pretty much equalivalent to Prof three. Give or take a few %

Only 11.5% failed one paper, so no, it wouldn't be around 55-60%. If we didn't include those who failed two exams at CAP2 this year aswell the overall pass rate would still be lower than the Prof3 2008.

Although quite what excluding people who didn't pass an exam has to do with anything I don't know. Sure if we exclude everyone who failed a paper the pass rate would be 100% so that must make the CAP2 piss-easy.:rolleyes:

Ciara471

Nothing's going to change. I really thought it couldn't get worse than last year. This is my third time failing audit and I work in it every day. I'm not the only one in this situation either. So many people I know are thinking about other careers. It shouldn't be this hard. If the institute keeps going like this the pass rate next year will be 2%. The thought of taking the books back out and starting again is a killer

Pisco Sour

Ciara471 wrote: »

Nothing's going to change. I really thought it couldn't get worse than last year. This is my third time failing audit and I work in it every day. I'm not the only one in this situation either. So many people I know are thinking about other careers. It shouldn't be this hard. If the institute keeps going like this the pass rate next year will be 2%. The thought of taking the books back out and starting again is a killer

Tis a joke indeed. And its not like the reward for passing the CAP 2's is the greatest. These new FAE's are even more of a joke than the CAP 2's.

cunning stunts

r.dunne7 wrote: »

If you actually looked the passs rate for prof threes was around 63 %, in 2008 it was 67% the highest ever pass rate.

The FAE for 2008/2009 are 76.1 %.

Get your facts right before you start misleading people.

I think a lot of ppl who did the old course get a bit p*ssed off when ppl say that the old course was easier which is only natural I suppose.

However facts speak for themselves 67 pc vs 35 pc says it all really. Dont think ppl are saying the old course was easy just that the new course is exceptionally difficult.

BESman

There is clearly a question of inequality here as we now have a profession where the vast majority of those now qualified did so under a much different examination system to those currently in the process of qualifying. Is it fair that those training now must undergo a far more difficult examination process than those before? Will those qualifying under the new system receive any greater reward or recognition? I think its a joke. Accountants qualifying under the new system would probably be able to perform brain surgery after they eventually jump through all the hoops.

How does it compare to other professions? Has the training and qualification system changed dramatically over time for solicitors, architects, etc?

hinault

Jadaol wrote: »

3) I think this is the most important reason - we're in a recession and it's bad for business having loads of unemployed accountants. For a start if they have no money, they can't pay their membership fees and it looks bad. The legal profession do this and so do the medical profession. Each profession is well known for this, plus they earn more fees with repeats etc. - couple this with not having unemployed accountants not paying membership - this makes for a sound business plan :rolleyes:

This.

Lots and lots of accountants out of work currently.

scouser82

Jadaol wrote: »

3) I think this is the most important reason - we're in a recession and it's bad for business having loads of unemployed accountants. For a start if they have no money, they can't pay their membership fees and it looks bad. The legal profession do this and so do the medical profession. Each profession is well known for this, plus they earn more fees with repeats etc. - couple this with not having unemployed accountants not paying membership - this makes for a sound business plan :rolleyes:

Well if they keep up what they are doing there will be plenty of unemployed accountants anyway, as the Big 4 will be letting people go for failing exams.

Odats

scouser82 wrote: »

Well if they keep up what they are doing there will be plenty of unemployed accountants anyway, as the Big 4 will be letting people go for failing exams.

It will be extremely difficult to get a position as fully qualified be it ACA,ACCA,CIMA,CPA etc as at the moment from what the recruitment agencies told me they are only looking for part qualifieds with certain industry experience so those being let go would be at an advantage in securing a job (simple reasoning for this is the firms don't want to pay the salary for a fully qualified so are resorting to part qualifieds). Especially with Big 4 on your CV it will do wonders on getting your foot in the door.
These are industry positions btw not practice positions. Financial services experience is also an asset aswell.

r.dunne7

My point was if u took compenssation out of prof threes the pass rate would shoot down, the only reason that the pass rates stud at 63% was because mot people who fialed audit, MABF or FR compensated by doing well in tax hence the high pass mark.

The CAp 2 may not be all that hader its jsut simply that comp is taking away.

e.g FR this yr was easy
TAx and audit hav been the same nearly
While SFMA has become harder yet there is a CA there which the average was 12/15.

I agree that the exams marking has changed but the material itself has not increased significatly

Fiona44

r.dunne7 wrote: »

e.g FR this yr was easy

Haha are you serious?! A number of people I spoke to who qualified under the old system have admitted they would not have passed FR if they had to sit this paper.

Definitely a level above anything that was asked in the past IMO.
'Easy' is the last word I would use to describe this paper.

cunning stunts

Fiona44 wrote: »

Haha are you serious?! A number of people I spoke to who qualified under the old system have admitted they would not have passed FR if they had to sit this paper.

Definitely a level above anything that was asked in the past IMO.
'Easy' is the last word I would use to describe this paper.

rdunne obviously trying to stir sh*t up!! that FR paper was rock hard

R0N BURGUNDY

rdunne has shown he is a joke from his previous posts. his spelling+grammar says it all. there is an obvious step up in difficulty in these exams.

very good rdunne = the compensation being taken away makes a small part of the difference. so what. the increase in exam difficulty makes the most difference so stop going on about it and repeating yourself.

R0N BURGUNDY

35% passed the exams.

11% failed one exam.

provided all 11% were able to use the compensation to pull themselves out of a fail, that would equal 46%. thats generous because probably only 5-8% would have been able to use it anyway.

but anyway: 46% comared to 67% = thats still very harsh.

also = as pointed out above 22% failing all 4 is incredible.

SL10

I sat CAP1 last year and CAP2 this year and in both years in our lectures we were warned not to just study from the prof 2 or prof 3 papers.

For example in Mgt Acc in CAP1 we were told that the level was more on par with the old prof 3 and so the questions we were given to study were prof 3. Similarly with SFMA we were told the same (We were given old FAE case studies to work from for CAP2)

This was the case for both FR and SFMA. Audit and Tax have remained on par material wise but the exams themselves are more difficult to pass due to no compensation and also less of a choice in the exams.

In my oppinion the level of difficulty of these exams is higher than the old syllabus:

CAP 1= Old Prof 3
CAP2= Old FAE

New FAE's- very little new material (most things are examined to the same standard as CAP2's) but they are going to be more difficult due to the lack of requirements etc.

BESman

r.dunne7 wrote: »

My point was if u took compenssation out of prof threes the pass rate would shoot down, the only reason that the pass rates stud at 63% was because mot people who fialed audit, MABF or FR compensated by doing well in tax hence the high pass mark.

The CAp 2 may not be all that hader its jsut simply that comp is taking away.

e.g FR this yr was easy
TAx and audit hav been the same nearly
While SFMA has become harder yet there is a CA there which the average was 12/15.

I agree that the exams marking has changed but the material itself has not increased significatly

This guy is clearly having difficulty admitting that he qualified under easier examinations. Forget compensation or marking or whatever, the new CAP 1 and CAP 2 are far more difficult in every way. Simple as. This fact is no easier demonstrated than by pointing out what the poster above has stated, Institute lecturers have told students that CAP 1 = Prof 3 and CAP 2 = Old FAE.

What more proof do you need? Go back and requalify under the new system to see how hot you are.

Stabshauptmann

r.dunne7 wrote: »

My point was if u took compenssation out of prof threes the pass rate would shoot down, the only reason that the pass rates stud at 63% was because mot people who fialed audit, MABF or FR compensated by doing well in tax hence the high pass mark.

The CAp 2 may not be all that hader its jsut simply that comp is taking away.

e.g FR this yr was easy
TAx and audit hav been the same nearly
While SFMA has become harder yet there is a CA there which the average was 12/15.

I agree that the exams marking has changed but the material itself has not increased significatly

Once is can be put down to haste, twice maybe theres an explanation, but seriously man - learn to write coherent posts.

I don't mean to be a dick, but I had to read parts of that twice to understand what you were saying.

Pisco Sour

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Once is can be put down to haste, twice maybe theres an explanation, but seriously man - learn to write coherent posts.

I don't mean to be a dick, but I had to read parts of that twice to understand what you were saying.

I wonder if this r.dunne punter is the same guy as the ma.long guy who trolled here for ages, writing with grammar just as poor in the process.

Hackysack

Yeah he sounds like a proper wind-up merchant.

r.dunne7

I think you guys are fundementally wrong

You point out and say CAP1 = Prof 3
CAP 2 = FAE

Implying that FAE is harder that Prof three but if truth be told Prof three;'s are a lot harder than FAE's

Pass rate Prof three 64% FAE pass rate 76.1% (2008.2009)

So stop miscomparing stuff as its totally wrong.

I have admitted that the exams are harder now, i said that in my opening post.. but i agree think its not much harder

e.g tax audit pass rates have remained extermely consistent , and even SFMA has pass rate of 55%. If you looked at th exam reports for MABF in Prof three sylabus the pass rate ranges from 45 - 65 % , thats people getting 50% or more without comp.

I agree FR has become slightly harder , but this years FR had decent pass rates.

The evidence is all in the examiner reports in the old prof three syllabus... go read them first before you come on this forum and grunt and moan , how harsh you have it.

I still stick to my main points.

1. The exams have become slightly harder per se
2. The main reason for the massive drop in pass rates is due to compensation being removed.
3. All the answers and proof are in the indivual exam reports for each subject.

BESman

r.dunne7 wrote: »

I think you guys are fundementally wrong

You point out and say CAP1 = Prof 3
CAP 2 = FAE

Implying that FAE is harder that Prof three but if truth be told Prof three;'s are a lot harder than FAE's

Pass rate Prof three 64% FAE pass rate 76.1% (2008.2009)

So stop miscomparing stuff as its totally wrong.

I have admitted that the exams are harder now, i said that in my opening post.. but i agree think its not much harder

e.g tax audit pass rates have remained extermely consistent , and even SFMA has pass rate of 55%. If you looked at th exam reports for MABF in Prof three sylabus the pass rate ranges from 45 - 65 % , thats people getting 50% or more without comp.

I agree FR has become slightly harder , but this years FR had decent pass rates.

The evidence is all in the examiner reports in the old prof three syllabus... go read them first before you come on this forum and grunt and moan , how harsh you have it.

I still stick to my main points.

1. The exams have become slightly harder per se
2. The main reason for the massive drop in pass rates is due to compensation being removed.
3. All the answers and proof are in the indivual exam reports for each subject.

Ya the exam reports prepared by the Institute examiners are not biased in any way.

prinz

r.dunne7 wrote: »

1. The exams have become slightly harder per se

You've already described this years FR as 'easy', so what does that make the old syllabus look like :rolleyes:

cunning stunts

r.dunne7 wrote: »

I think you guys are fundementally wrong


So stop miscomparing stuff as its totally wrong.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miscompare

Miscompare?...is not even a word!! No offense man but you're a lucky boy you got through the old system in the nick of time!!

DolphinTales

CAP1 couldn't be compared to Prof 3 in fairness, there isn't even consolidation on the F.R. syllabus. There's no audit. It's tame enough in all honesty.

CAP2 is a different animal alright, and not comparable to much.

Sort of a waste of energy getting wound up about it before the FAEs though innit? No point in going in a victim, might come out one though......

r.dunne7

The usual responses...

Bad mouth my spelling, criticise my poor use of vocab... while adding not even a shred of constructive criticism or counter argument.

If you actually looked at the individual exam reports you would know that i'm not far off the mark.

So come back with good arguments instead of trying to be little me for my lack of english comprehension ability.

Pisco Sour

r.dunne7 wrote: »

The usual responses...

Bad mouth my spelling, criticise my poor use of vocab... while adding not even a shred of constructive criticism or counter argument.

If you actually looked at the individual exam reports you would know that i'm not far off the mark.

So come back with good arguments instead of trying to be little me for my lack of english comprehension ability.

Richard Dunne, do you realise not one person has come in to back you up in this discussion? That says it all really!

daddydick

Hey everyone, first time poster and long term reader

Passed three exams myself, bit disappointed that I didn't get them all but am confident of getting tax next time round. Just felt that I ran out of steam at the end of a long week and had not done enough work on loss relief. With a bit of work I should be fine for Autumn.

To everyone that passed, well done. The pass rate was the lowest in years so congratulations to all that achieved the pass in all four, it's a great achievement. To those who failed, study hard and with some luck on your side you will get them in October - fingers crossed.

To R.Dunne, while I respect your opinion on the difficulty/lack of difficulty of these particular set of exams, maybe now is not the time to be picking arguments with people. Remember that a lot of these people are very low and are not coming on to boards to argue with somebody who did not sit these exams, they are probably logging on for support from colleagues in the same situation. You should probably take into account the old phrase "if you have nothing good to say, then keep your mouth shut"?

*awaiting argumentative repsonse from R.Dunne about his right to have an opinion etc... yawn* :rolleyes:

smcgiff

Can we please stick to attacking posts and not posters. It's pretty boring to have to read all the posts to see who is the greatest transgressor. While I've read them all I'm coming down on the side of not intervening, but I'll most likely just close the thread if it continues.

Stabshauptmann

r.dunne7 wrote: »

I
2. The main reason for the massive drop in pass rates is due to

Thats the only relevant part of your post.
The massive drop in pass rates.

This is the problem facing students, this is the threat to their jobs.