ERB and student feedback CAT June 2008
The CAT Examination Review Board provided feedback on the June 2008 CAT 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 CAT Exam Review Board are:
Rowena Morris BPP
Tony Mock LCA
Nina Capstick Kaplan Publishing
Jas Naidoo Kaplan
Durgesh Desai Kaplan
Comments on the Papers Overall
The feedback from the ERB on the June 2008 CAT examination papers was overall very positive. 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 T3 was found to contain a well balanced set of multiple choice questions. The long computational questions (2 and 3) were seen as sensible and appropriate for the level of student. Some students may have struggled with written question 1; however, a well prepared student would have been able to attempt part of it as it was well spread amongst topic areas. Question 4 required a good solid knowledge of double entry. This particular question had a paper T1 feel to it. Paper T4 showed an imbalance of marks between section A and section B. There was a perennial problem of an imbalance between the time required per mark in Section A and the time required per mark in Section B persists.
Paper T5 contained good syllabus coverage. Most felt this paper may have been pitched at a high level. Students found this paper to be time pressured. Paper T6 was found to be well structured, fair and challenging covering every computational area. It was felt by most that incomplete records were not examined for a while and may have thrown students. Overall, this paper contained fair questions.
Tutors commented that paper T7 was challenging but fair. Concerns were raised regarding question 2 which was heavily weighted towards wordy marks, but was well broken down into smaller sub questions. Most found paper T8 to be a challenging paper. The hot and cold review question appeared to have caused a heavy mark allocation for a peripheral area of the syllabus and could have caused even a well prepared student some problems. Paper T9 was found to be set at an appropriate level. All questions were found to be clear and free from ambiguity. Question 1, in particular may have caused some problems as Joint bank account interest was being examined for the first time.
T10 paper was seen by most to be fair. A well prepared student should not have had any problems and thus been able to achieve a good pass in the allocated 72 minutes. Question 1 was challenging and time pressured since it included a large cash budget and an investment appraisal. However, there were plenty of straightforward marks available. Question 2 part (a) was more mathematical and some students may have had problems in calculating maximum discount to offer customers using compound interest. However, the rest of the question was straightforward. Question 3 and 4 were based on mainstream syllabus areas that a well prepared candidate should have been able to pass with ease.
All comments were passed to the Examiners for consideration in the marking process. ACCA should like to thank the Board for their helpful and constructive comments.