ERB June 2008
ERB June 2008
The Examination Review Board met on Thursday 19 June to give immediate feedback on the June 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
Deborah Taylor BPP (London)
Alison McHugh BPP Learning Media
Sean Purcell Kaplan Financial
Ian Janes University of Wales, Newport
Tony Elliot Birmingham City University
Matt Holden Reed Business School
Kevin Hand Warwickshire College
John Woodley Oxford Brookes University
Comments on the Papers Overall
The feedback from the ERB on the June 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 challenging, however, some concerns were raised regarding the lack of coverage on Companies Act 2006. This was found to be deliberate as this was being examinable for the first time.
Paper F5 was considered to be fair but demanding. Some felt the mark allocation was a little unbalanced. This was addressed in the markers’ meeting.
Paper F6 was found to be a good test of students’ knowledge with good syllabus coverage. The capital gains tax question proved unpopular with students which was seen by some panel members as tricky but fair. This paper provides a good basis for the advanced tax paper.
The F7 paper was seen by most to be fair and manageable and students found the paper had covered the syllabus adequately. An error in question 3 raised concern. The Examiner has ensured that students would be marked fairly and will not be penalised for this error.
Paper F8 was considered to be a reasonable paper content wise, however, some question phrasing may have caused misinterpretation. It was felt there was an ambiguity of wording in some of the questions.
It was agreed that paper F9 was a manageable and fair paper containing a good balance of discursive and computational skills allowing prepared students to do well. Concerns were raised regarding question 2 which required using a high level of higher skills where the own figure rule applied as a) b) and c) are linked. Feedback from the markers’ meeting confirmed this would not disadvantage students.
Paper P1 was found to be quite predictable and a little too theoretical but a good test of ethical knowledge. The technical content proved manageable for the well prepared student. Overall this paper was considered straightforward, but probably contained too many definition marks.
Paper P2 proved to be a robust and challenging paper. This paper was found to be more difficult than papers P1 and P3. Members felt it was becoming increasing difficult to make the UK and international papers comparable.
Members found paper P3 was set at the right level reflecting the syllabus well whilst using higher skills. All tutors commented that the scenarios seemed too long to absorb in the allocated reading time.
Paper P4 was found to be challenging, thought-provoking and consistent with the pilot paper. Students found this paper difficult to complete in the time allowed.
Paper P5 contained good syllabus coverage in comparison to previous papers, although there was a lot of assumed knowledge brought forward. Overall, a fair but time challenging paper which may seem to have been set at a technically lower level than expected at the Professional level.
The P6 paper was found to be a fair and manageable which a well prepared student should pass and a very good student could distinguish themselves. There were concerns around mark allocation for some questions.
Members found P7 to be a well-balanced paper with clear requirements and consistent with past exam papers. It was noted that certain articles were pointing directly to the exam, however, it was confirmed that articles are there to provide guidance to students and not to encourage question spotting.