Best Lecturers for ACCA P3 and P4 in Dublin ?

whiz

Hi Guys, I would appreciate advice, I was wondering who are regarded as the best Lecturers for teaching ACCA P3 (Business Analysis) and P4 (Advanced Financial Management) in the the Dublin Colleges ? Any feedback much appreciated.

unas

liam doran is an excellent lecturer, does p4.

JTMan

+1

whiz

Sounds like Liam is the lecturer to attend for this paper but would Paper 4 be seen as the hardest option ?
Also who do people rate as the best lecturer for Paper 3 ?

Brian Fontana

Shane O Grady independant colleges was very good, kept classes entertaining while also getting accross the material with references to everyday examples

JTMan

For P3 just get the books and study it yourself.

Ghost.

Id agree with fungus. For P3 get the books and study it yourself.

ScaldyB

Long time viewer, first time poster..............

There's no doubt that P3 is 'easier' than the likes of P4 as per the OP or many of the other 'P' papers. However, that doesn't make it an 'easy' paper. The international pass rate for P3 is often lower than P2 which is the hardest of all the ACCA papers IMO. For June 2011 it was 50% pass rate for P2 and 47% for P3. BTW, P4 was 30% :eek:. P5 and P7 are the 'easier' options.

Each to their own, and I'm sure that some people are able to do P3 on their own and might find it a doddle but maybe others under estimate the challenge, hence the 1:2 failure rate?

AFAIK the Irish pass rates are only a few % above the international rate so it's not all the students with english as a second langauge that are skewing the P3 pass rate.

JTMan

Look, I am speaking from first hand experience of P3. I got the books, attended zero lectures and got 74% with little study. I did not read the big book, I just read the small summary book and learnt a few things off by heart from this book so I could rabbit in the exam.

Your right the subject is not easy ... it deadly simply. A mate compared it to a junior cert business studies subject ... he's right. (no disrespect to the Junior Cert !!)

Here's how you get good marks:
1) You need good English.
2) You need to be able to write a well constructed point.
3) You need excellent well disciplined time management. (This is where most people fail).
4) You need to focus on rota learning the models in the summary book.
5) You need to remember that it is a point per mark.

Don't waste your money on high priced lectures for P3.

ScaldyB

I'm speaking from first hand experience too. You are fortunate to be in a privileged minority, but it clearly is a minority as over half of the people who do P3 don't pass first time, never mind get 74%.

Your experience is hardly the norm, and shouldn't be taken as a general rule as you're espousing. You're in a tiny minority as your result is the very top end of the scale. A girl in my class was first in Ireland and ninth in the world with 76%.

If it's as easy as junior cert Business Studies then why are people with Business/Accountancy/Commerce Degrees never mind Junior or Leaving Cert Business Studies failing P3 with such regularity!

Should you not consider that others (over 10,000 P3 failures per semester) may not be as blessed with your natural aptitude? Fair dues that you found it so easy but would you not be worried that someone would heed your advice only to find that they are not comparing like with like and can't do P3 easily on their own?

SBWife

It's a pretty big minority, P3 pass rates worldwide are close to 50%.

ScaldyB

Less than 50% is still a minority is it not?

My specific point is that Fungus could be seen as putting himself out there as a benchmark and he's in an even smaller minority with a score that is only 2% away from first in Ireland and ninth in the world!

Is it genuine advice advising people about how to suceed in P3 or other ACCA exams (by avoiding lectures apparently) or is it a case of telling everyone about how great you are that you didn't need to go to lectures. God love the mere mortals that do!

SBWife

I've never taken a lecture for ACCA and never not passed an exam. I personally don't think lectures are necessary, the books layout and explain everything very clearly. Exam questions evolve rather than change radically and time management is pretty straightforward.

ScaldyB

So what about people that have always attended lectures and have also never failed an ACCA paper? Neither proves that lectures are essential or non essential.

Yourself and Fungus are only marvelous but there's no context. How can you give advice to someone that you don't know to study on their own that but have no idea if they have the same level of aptitude, discipline and insight as yourselves.

For my most recent revision course, the lecturer specifically mentioned the large number of people that were doing 'revision only' courses who no doubt had heeded advice similar to your own. Talking to them at the breaks they were warning against that advice as they hadn't followed through by doing much work themselves and hadn't the exam focus on some topics that they previously thought were 'grand'.

SBWife

ScaldyB wrote: »

So what about people that have always attended lectures and have also never failed an ACCA paper? Neither proves that lectures are essential or non essential.

Actually just one person passing without attending a lecture proves that they are non-essential, that's logic for you.

The only thing I'd say is essential is covering the material, practicing past questions then keeping ones head during the exam and not going over time on any particular question. In order to do this some people need to attend expensive prep courses, others, myself included, do not.

ScaldyB

Lucky you never had to do any ACCA questions on correlation with logic like that. At least there's some balance in your reply about your approach applying to some people, those lucky few who live in a rarified world inhabited by autodidacts alone.

I had to laugh at the typical Irish reply to the OP.

• Q - Which lecturer would you recommend?
• A - Buy the books and study it yourself. :rolleyes:

Answering a question that hasn't been asked to make the questioner feel like a moron. It's like asking for directions "Well, I wouldn't start from here".

In terms of it being 'expensive', I'm curious as to your benchmark. The 5 Ps are cheaper than any Masters with far better employment prospects IMO. It's expensive in contrast to your 'free' method as long as you don't value your time. How much more time would you have spent on P2 for example studying by yourself in contrast to someone who attends lectures?

SBWife

Sorry, but it has nothing to do with correlation or causation (which are statistics BTW) but simple logic. If something can be disproved in even one instance you can't say it's necessary, therefore if one individual can pass without going to lectures they are not necessary, helpful perhaps but not necessary.

As for P2 I estimate I spent between 35 and 40 hours on it, which I doubt would be more than someone spending 2 hours a week in lectures spent.

JTMan

Firsly, I had no idea that my result is somewhere near top in the world, if what is posted above is correct. If I hadn't of spent that last 10 minutes of that P3 exam with my feat in the air then maybe I would have got one of those sad awards.

Maybe the best bet is to read the previous exam papers and make a decision for yourself as to the complexity or simplicity of this subject.

On my exam I got this question for 20% of my paper:

Evaluate how e-business might help exploit each of the five elements of the marketing mix (price,
product, promotion, place and physical evidence) identified by the marketing director

I appreciate that foreign language students might find that question hard but to me that questions is extremely simplistic.

ScaldyB

'Foreign Language Students' as you call them (no hint of xenophobia there at all :rolleyes:) read these boards too so maybe you should qualify your previous universal advice of 'just buy the book'.

When you add your dimissal of prize winners as 'sad' and putting your feat (sic) in the air to the tone of your other comments it suggests that you're a bit of troll really. "I found P3 easy, anyone that has to attend lectures is thick or worse still a bloody foreigner, na na na ne na na". That's the really SAD thing!

It's far from sad when you have an ACCA prize on your CV when you're at the qualification stage of ACCA exams, speaking from "first hand experience" to using your own boombast expression.

That's a grand 20 marker alright, a very selective example. Even the examiner himself admits it was the most popular and well answered question in his own report. It's hardly representative of the entire paper is it? What about the 50 marker in Section A and one of the other two questions that you have to do in Section B?

ScaldyB

SBWife wrote: »

Sorry, but it has nothing to do with correlation or causation (which are statistics BTW) but simple logic. If something can be disproved in even one instance you can't say it's necessary, therefore if one individual can pass without going to lectures they are not necessary, helpful perhaps but not necessary.

As for P2 I estimate I spent between 35 and 40 hours on it, which I doubt would be more than someone spending 2 hours a week in lectures spent.

I hope you don't extend that logic into a professional domain If one person leaves the keys in the ignition of their car and its not stolen then everyone can leave the keys in the ignition of their car. Context, correlation and causation are key.

As for 35 to 40 hours to pass P2 :rolleyes:, I think many people that have been through P2 will make up their own mind on the veracity of that and by consequence all of your other posts. In P2 there were two classes per week with 100+ in each and more for revision (all morons it seems using yourself and Fungus as a benchmark). We would have done 40 hours before the 20 hours on the revision course and then personal own study to be on the safe side.

You passed P2 on based on less than 40 hours work, studying yourself In the absence of knowing the specifics of your personal circumstances that allowed you to do that I just don't believe it.

SBWife

I had very good grounding in IFRS prior to doing P2 having been familiar with many of the standards from when they were first implemented in listed companies.

Please, point out where I said you or anyone else was a moron?

I said the information covered in the exams is well laid out in the available books.

I said the exam questions evolve.

I said time management was pretty straight forward.

If you consider those statements as defining you or anyone else who takes a prep course as being a moron, I at this point don't see any reason to argue with you.

BTW you're example regarding the cars is not equivalent, back to Philosophy 101 for you I'm afraid.

ScaldyB

SBWife wrote: »

BTW you're example regarding the cars is not equivalent, back to Philosophy 101 for you I'm afraid.

How so? Having totally ignored the empirical approach associated with the qualification you are pursuing you first cite twisted logic and now move to philosophy?

One person does not attend lectures and passes then attending lectures in not necessary to pass.

is exactly equivalent your logic/philosopy (what's next your reading of the tea leaves?) of

One person leaves key in ignition and car is not stolen then taking keys out of ignition is not necessary to prevent car being stolen.

The logic of one or two instances is fine in a lab (or utopia where you might live) but in the real world where most of us live and breathe you take the keys out and you attend lectures.

SBWife

ScaldyB wrote: »

One person does not attend lectures and passes then attending lectures in not necessary to pass.

EXACTLY, now you get it!

ScaldyB

SBWife wrote: »

I had very good grounding in IFRS prior to doing P2 having been familiar with many of the standards from when they were first implemented in listed companies.

Please, point out where I said you or anyone else was a moron?

I said the information covered in the exams is well laid out in the available books.

I said the exam questions evolve.

I said time management was pretty straight forward.

If you consider those statements as defining you or anyone else who takes a prep course as being a moron, I at this point don't see any reason to argue with you.

BTW you're example regarding the cars is not equivalent, back to Philosophy 101 for you I'm afraid.

Having a "good grounding in IFRS" doesn't even remotely explain less than 40 hours that it took you to pass P2 by studying yourself, it's simply not credible. It also emphasises the need to give advice responsibly as the majority of ACCA students are not fortunate to have a good "grounding in IFRS" while in their first or second year of work and ACCA exams.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you a spoofer, the same way that you haven't called me or others morons for attending lectures but I'm sure you've learned to read between the lines when you did Philosophy 101.

ScaldyB

SBWife wrote: »

EXACTLY, now you get it!

One person does not attend lectures and passes then attending lectures in not necessary to pass.

One person does not use a condom and doesn't get an STI so using a condom during sex is not necessary to avoid getting an STI.

You just keep relying on logic and ignore context, correlation and causation.

SBWife

ScaldyB wrote: »

Having a "good grounding in IFRS" doesn't even remotely explain less than 40 hours that it took you to pass P2 by studying yourself, it's simply not credible. It also emphasises the need to give advice responsibly as the majority of ACCA students are not fortunate to have a good "grounding in IFRS" while in their first or second year of work and ACCA exams.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you a spoofer, the same way that you haven't called me or others morons for attending lectures but I'm sure you've learned to read between the lines when you did Philosophy 101.

Would it make you feel better if I lied and said I spent 120 hours on P2 and took 3 attempts to pass it after paying hundred's of euros to prep schools.

I always point out I'm not a typical candidate. A quick review of my posts here would verify that. In June of last year I took 4 ACCA exams and given my work experience over the years had given me significant exposure to IFRS and the fact I'd taken F7 the diet before I didn't spend allot of time on P2. I passed it (and the other 3) with a credible margin, no places that time round but I'm more than happy with how I did.

ScaldyB

Read the small print is that it?

I studied myself and got on grand, so prep courses are a waste of time and money but unless you trawl back through all my previous posts you will not realise that I'm a fairly unique example and you should actually ignore my advice as it's not relevant for the vast majority of ACCA students.

The fact that anyone, including some of my friends have had to repeat a paper after putting in considerable hours doesn't make me happy. But I do love people bragging about how easy it all was for them.

SBWife

ScaldyB wrote: »

I studied myself and got on grand, so prep courses are a waste of time and money

Again you seem to have problems with reading my posts.

I posted above that Prep courses may be helpful (they probably help keep you on track if you have a tendency to procrastinate and having someone to answer questions in person is potentially useful) but it is possible to pass without taking these courses and as you've so kindly pointed out very possible to fail despite taking the course.

I've suggested in the past that people take a look at the prep books and past papers, then judge whether they are going to be able to cover a topic on their own before automatically deciding to take a prep course.

P3 is in my opinion a good candidate for self study:
-It has a relatively high pass rate (mean of 50.125%, median of 49.5%, sd of 2.9% over the 8 diets since inception)
-The material is reasonably straight forward and compact. Bulk of the syllabus is learning how to apply several common management models.
-The exam is skewed towards common sense answers framed in terms of the covered models rather than overly technical content.