CAP 2 Exams 2012

i did the FR in CGS & thought it was good at the time, but prob too focused on individual standards then consols.

what is difficult is that if you want to use dave o donoghue's method, all the past paper solutions & other consol question you try to do will be done using a different method.

national express wrote: »

Audit is the only one I'm not doing.

Does anyone have any advice on chosing between Institute Course v CGS c Griffith? I have to choose which to use by tomorrow.

I did find the CGS helpful for FR but as I said, still failed.

Did anyone use the institute course last year? It does claim to be exam focused which is a change for them.

you've done these lectures before & going to pay for them again?
would actually like to do it as a refresher but not for 400e. especially when i have their notes already which is prob big part of the cost

Thanks for d advice.. Im thinking of not going to any course for auditing cos when you ad in d accommadation amd travel and food itll prob cos me 300minimum for that weekend alone.. Where as that cud be better spent on one to one grinds (probably cheaper too). Auditin is such a tough subject u really just hav to dumb it down to d last wich is why its not d nicest exam.. Everyone is trying to show dr smart so usually leav out d obviois answers ha ha! All look into getting d icai notes.. Hadnt thought a dem.. At d same time too many notes just isnt helpful.. Anyone got any gud exam technique advice for d exams..

I agree, you need to get a method to tackle a consol ques at CAP 2 FR. Without a strong method you would be in serious trouble

srm23 wrote: »

you've done these lectures before & going to pay for them again?
would actually like to do it as a refresher but not for 400e. especially when i have their notes already which is prob big part of the cost

amber.mc wrote: »

Thanks for d advice.. Im thinking of not going to any course for auditing cos when you ad in d accommadation amd travel and food itll prob cos me 300minimum for that weekend alone.

Lets look at this like accountants :-)

Cost of failing = losing your job for most people; losing your increment and delaying FAE increment for another year for everyone else.

Two very bad financial consequences to failing.


The question of whether or not to attend a revision course or grinds should be based solely on the quality of the course and whether you need the help. Ignore the cost - its pittance in the long run.

amber.mc, learn to spell and type - it hurts my eyes, and judging from the other responses, everyone else's too.

<Mod snip- Guys find something else to do>

amber.mc wrote: »

Thanks for your coments, Im going to stick with my decision to not go to the revision course for auditing, as after listening to everyones advice and the advice of people I work with, as well as emailing the course administration, the course does not suit my specific learning needs.

The reason for the text speak is simple, I was comenting off my fone as it was convient so late in the evening.

I also really appreciated the coments about my spellings. My spellings should have nothnig to do with people answering my questions. I have not made hurtful coments to others so I do not appreciate others making such comments.

Thanks again for your advice

In all seriousness though I found having the green Auditing Standards book in the exam the biggest help. If you have it properly referenced and you know your ISA's and where to look for a specific topic the answer to many questions is in there. For example the question in the summer paper regarding which benchmark to use for materialilty is practically given to you, just need to re-word it a small bit.

In saying this I did only manage 53 in the exam but it certainly doesn't hurt to have it.

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I believe you that there is no pre determined pass rate.
I think you are on the money with "similar standard of papers and a
similar ability level of candidates".

I'll try to give my answer in order Stabs!

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

But the standard of student didnt drop with the new syllabus at CAP1,
2 and new FAE. The CAI decided to reduce the pass rate.

I agree that the standard didn't drop. In fact, if anything I'd argue (and have done to the CAI) that it improved. Certainly with the increase in numbers getting fired for failing I would argue the candidates were more motivated in 2010 than in 2007, for example.

In addition, the entry requirements for most firms (certainly the Big 4) went up. So it coould also be argued that the candidates in 2011/2012 were actually smarter (or at the very least got more points in the Leaving for what that's worth).

But I do not believe that a decision was made to "lower" the pass rate.

It is possible (though has not been said to me by the CAI) that with the introduction of a new syllabus, examination methodology and teaching method, a certain slippage would be expected and tolerated.

But as for an active decision to lower the rate - no, this has been denied and I believe the denials.

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I have no, and never have had, involvement with the CAI marking
system. I do however know something about the marking system at two
NUI universities. There is an expected distribution of results, and
deviation from that distribution is seen as an error by the markers.

I remember being in a lecture, I think it was the into to the new FAE
course in the RCSI in 2009. The marking system was the main topic on
everyones mind - traffic lights Vs %s, it was all very new and
confused people.

The way it was explained to the students by the CAI was that the
papers would be corrected in a series of rounds. Students should not
fear that they will land a harsh examiner, because the CAI will be looking for a trend throughout the population, and any group of exam papers falling off that trend will be revisited.

I have been told that the new systems are fluid and subject to revisions - so this point seems fair.

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I specifically remember them using the example of an examiner having a list of things to expect in a student's answer, but if no student included one of the items, then that item could be taken off the "answer sheet" and the marking system adjusted.

That seems eminently possible and quite reasonable - I can confirm that if an unintended indicator is picked up and answered by a significant percentage of students then it can "become" a legitimate answer. There is flexibility in this respect. It would make sense for the reverse to be true.

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

This is extremely similar to how I know exams are corrected in the two universities I have personal knowledge of.

Perhaps this boils down to what is meant by a curve.

• I believe that the CAI decided with the introduction of the new syllabus to lower the pass rate at each stage.

As above, I suspect that a certain level of slippage was anticipated (but nowhere near the level experienced). Again, I have to iterate that this is unconfirmed.

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

[*]I believe the CAI expects the pass rate to fall within a certain range, and if it doesnt the exam scripts are scrutinised thoroughly until either the pass rate comes back within that range or the CAI brass are satisfied it has been an exceptional year.

This seems both plausible and reasonable. It would be remiss of the CAI not to develop an expectation and certainly remiss not to investigate anomolies to the point of satisfaction.

But where we differ in understandings may be in the order of events. I don't for a second believe that the CAI decides on a XX% pass rate and then designs a paper with this in mind. I believe they set a paper at what they think is an appropriate standard and then hope(!) that the lecturing and student effort that year has been good enough to reach that standard.

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

[*]I am not saying that people who bomb a paper are passed to meet the goal of 50% of students progressing, but I am saying that we will not have a situation where 100% of students pass or 100% fail no matter how excellent / poor the crop is that year.

I fully agree with you on this but the CAI's official position is that this is not true! I have been told that it is theoretically possible for each and every candidate to pass any particular exam (CAP 1 NI Tax this year had 92% pass rate!).

Whether they could have a situation where everyone failed is another question (i.e. would the firms stand for this?).

I think the chances of this happening are remote enough for this never to be put to the test and therfore the point is somewhat moot.

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

You have a greater insight into the CAI than I do, am I far off the mark?

As usual I don't think that you are far off the mark at all.

What I would highlight is that the CAI, like every educational institute, is responding to markets and stakeholders. But different stakeholders demand different things.

In this case there are two main groups to consider -

1) The Training Firms.
Students are the lifeblood of the CAI. And if the CAI decides lower pass rates arbitrarily (or for some perceived over supply) then it risks losing the confidence of the training firms in its integrity. And if the training firms go elsewhere (i.e to a competitor who will "pass" their students, thus allowing them to charge higher chargeout rates) then the CAI is quite literally finished as it will lose a huge percentage if its income.

This is the first key reason why I don't believe a decision was made to lower pass rates.

2) The International "Chartered" bodies and members.

The CAI introduced its new, "best practice" educational model to ensure that it retained firstly the standard of the new members it was admitting but also its international reputation. Part of this involves having a completely independent Examinations function.

This is the second reason why I do not believe that a decision was made to lower pass rates.

If it does not have an independent Exams function, it loses the confidence of the International Authorities and Boards. And then it loses the firms.

This is why they will insist that 100% of students can pass or fail any exam. This is why there is no predetermined pass rate. This is why there is (from my perspective) no curve.

Sorry for the long rant Stabs!

Does anybody have an Audit Continuous Assessment pack?

I can only see about 7 papers on the website... only 3 of which are of any use.

Has anybody the sample papers, or all the Continuous Assessment papers saved in one folder?

There are different methods to do it. If you are used to one stick to it as switching to another will confuse you unless you have a high level of understanding of the issues in hand

myshirt wrote: »

EDudder wrote: »

It's lunch at the first day of this CAI revision course for FR.

I'm sorry, is it just me or does Michael Tuohy (I'm sure he's lovely, and great in some respects) make consolidation actually look so much harder than it needs to??

His method seems all over the shop. It's so confusing. Am I the only one who thinks this?

I'm worried about starting to try to apply it in case it messes me over.

Not there today...

Have they said anything worth knowing?

Any feedback from the examiner as they said they would give..

All solutions and examiners reports are up on the website

Mark1916 wrote: »

All solutions and examiners reports are up on the website

Wait... you're right... my bad.

Apologies.

Yeah there was some excellent examiner feedback. Really specific and tailored too.

Basically around 55% of students at this level are not competent enough with financial reporting because they didn't do the easier question first.

:rolleyes:

Can't believe I paid money for this.