top stories

ERB December 2008

The Examination Review Board met on Thursday 18 December to give immediate feedback on the December 2008 examinations.

The terms of reference of the Board are:

1. To review the questions, answers and marking schemes after each exam session to ensure that the papers are a fair and reasonable test.
2. To recommend changes to the syllabus and format of the papers.

Members of the Exam Review Board are:

Julie Hughes Kaplan Publishing
Alison McHugh BPP Learning Media
Sean Purcell Kaplan
Deborah Taylor BPP (London)
Nicola Gilbert University of Wales, Newport
Tony Elliot Birmingham City University
Geoff Holmberg Oxford Brookes University
Matt Holden Reed Business School
Kevin Hand Trident Technology & Business Centre
Warwickshire College

Comments on the Papers Overall

The feedback from the ERB on the December 2008 examination papers was very positive. Overall the ERB members agreed that the majority of papers were challenging but fair. Some concerns were raised regarding individual papers – these are outlined below.

Comments on Specific Papers

Paper F4 was found to be consistent and fair, however, some felt it may have been slightly unbalanced as there was nothing on sections G & H from the syllabus. There were a number of details in the answers which were not in the official study texts. The solution to question 6 was found to be very detailed.

Paper F5 was considered overall to be fair and of suitable standard A good mix of calculations and written questions with clear requirements. However there were concerns about the big jump from F2 to F5 and how F2 does not prepare the students well for F5. All agreed the move from multiple choice questions (MCQ) to analysis of the scenario based questions to be the major cause.

Paper F6 proved to be a tough but fair paper. There were concerns around the big jump, overall from F6 to P6. The examiner has produced a good paper. It was felt this paper lacked scenario style questions.

The F7 paper was seen to be fair which matched the syllabus well. However time pressure was an issue. Feedback from the markers’ meeting revealed previous students’ performance was poor in relation to IFRS knowledge and calculations –therefore the Examiner created easy scenario. Students found paper F7 covered the syllabus adequately. Concerns were raised around question 5 due to time pressure.

Paper F8 was a well written paper, straightforward and fair with balanced syllabus coverage. There was concern about the emphasis on internal audit as this has been examined at every sitting and the lack of questions on non-audit assurance.

It was agreed that paper F9 was a challenging paper with excellent syllabus coverage. Overall difficult but fair. General feedback from markers meeting revealed that the paper appeared to be difficult to students, this was apparent from the low marks scored from the initial scripts marked to date. The marking will consider this and marks will be fairly provided for appropriate analysis and general discussion. Students found the questions were not clear and therefore found the paper difficult and time pressured. Question 2 in particular was found to be very difficult.

Paper P1 was found to be reasonably fair. However there were concerns of overlap issues with paper P3 and fears of the paper becoming too strategic in approach. The strategic aspects of governance, internal control and risk management are in the syllabus, putting strategy in a different context therefore there is some P3 overlap, but not duplication. In particular, question 4 was found to be very demanding in this regard.

Paper P2 was seen as a fair paper, consistent in style and rather open-ended. There seemed to more emphasis on written than calculation questions. Feedback from the markers’ meeting revealed that alternative treatment for the associate and AFS recycling will be accepted in question 1. The marking guide has been adjusted to accommodate all answers. It seems students were struggling with the format.

Paper P3 was found to be challenging with some long scenarios. Overall a fair paper. The long scenarios seemed challenging and therefore could disadvantage students as the reading time was not sufficient. Markers’ meeting feedback revealed the use of flexibility in mark allocation and credit will be given to those producing calculations where appropriate. The length of scenarios was an issue, the Examiner has stressed that the scenarios need to be of a sufficient length and detailed enough to give candidates adequate material from which to make the relevant points covered in the answers produced.

Paper P4 was a well balanced and manageable paper with good syllabus coverage. A well prepared student would have performed well. However some felt the official text books are getting out of step with the exams and are a big jump from F9 to P4.
Paper P5 was a fair innovative but time challenging paper. The panel felt this paper placed more emphasis on business and those with little business knowledge would have struggled.

The P6 paper was found to be a difficult paper which was technically demanding and time pressured. The paper covered a good core of the syllabus. The guidance in scenarios was helpful, although some people felt that repetition of requirements was confusing and clarity was required.

Members found paper P7 to be a well-balanced paper with clear requirements. Technically more challenging than previous sittings, however this has been highlighted by the examiner via numerous articles. Good relevant audit issues.

Back to top